I am currently doing some research surrounding the Wilcox ruling that gave Native Title to the Noongar people over Perth.
I was surprised and a bit disapointed that I didn't find a discussion already going on about this here (please correct me if I am wrong).

Some of the issues at the forefront of my interest here are,
the reflex reaction by the Federal Government to drum up the usual public fear that is exploited by what appears to be a ongoing ignorance in the general populace of exactly what Native Title means, to indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, how it is applied, and what if any rights can be taken away from non-indigenies.
I am also interested in comparing this recent ruling to the Yorta Yorta case- as has been done by the Federal and State governements, and Lawyers, in their claim that this ruling is out of step with prior ones.

Personally I have had the feeling that the tried and true tactic of exploiting Australians ignorances and fears over Native Title has not been nearly as successfull as it has been in the past.
Might this be a slow change in the tide? Could we as Australians be becoming more comfortable with the rulings and realities (and even moral/ethical/legal imperitive) of Native Title?
Or, could this be a case of the 'metropolitan mindset' being able to recieve and accept a Native Title ruling more readily than the 'rural mindset'?

I realise that (unfortunately) Indigenous issues do not seem to rank very high on the interest of the majority of this forum (with of course some outstanding exceptions).

Whatever the case, I do hope that some discussion may be generated around this topic.

P.S. If anyone has any links to some serious articles about this subject, please bring them in.

Thanks
Hans.

On the day that Native Title was announced, a well dressed Aboriginal man stood up to the mike and said,"Now the Whiteys can start paying rent for our country".
I should imagine that that sentence would have killed a great deal of sympathy for granting native Title.
Native title is more than simply symbolic, it is racist,it is apartheid and it is favouring one lot of people over others.It is giving preference to a minority and in Australia ,we have been told over and over, we are equal.
For the descendants of migrants who have worked and fought for this country for two hundred odd years, it is a slap in the face.It is telling them that the efforts of their ancestors mean nothing.

Hi,

I had an experience dealing with the Native Title Act some years ago. Prior to that I was completely ignorant of what it meant, and how it affected the average person. The experience was an interesting one, involving a parcel of public land that I sought to acquire from the Crown. In the past (before native title) the process was a simple one, but I had to go through the hoops of the Native Title Act. Fortunately (for me) native title, if any ever existed, was extinguished under the Act through an exclusive lease held over the area last century. Proving this was a costly exercise as I had to engage a few hours of a barrister’s time. My dealings lead me to conclude the following:

1. that native title is a just recognition for some aboriginal people who have lived in constant (physical) association with their traditional lands – like Marbo.
2. where there is no physical association, any claim of native title is balderdash
3. that native title determinations take too long to make and just make lawyers richer
4. that the Act is in many ways not practical – for instance a requirement to prove native title is to show a continuous association with the subject land – way too vague.
5. most people will never come across it, only government authorities and mining companies.
6. if by chance you do come across land that you want but where native title may exist – just forget it and find something else.

I am not familiar with the Perth decision, but from what I know of the act, native title cannot exist on any freehold land or certain leasehold land. The remaining areas will be just a legal minefield, the determination of which will all funded by taxpayers to line the lawyers’ pockets.

I agree with Mickijo. I haven’t seen one single aborigine publicly connected with so-called land rights who is not an unpleasant white-hater and the type of political activist who doesn’t give a toss about most aboriginal-Australians. The whole Land Rights saga is a load of bulldust, which does nothing for most aborigines, but inflates the egos of the activists living off the community.

We expected this sort of nonsense in the Hawke/Keating days, but the Howard government’s lack of will and ability to knock the whole thing in the head is pathetic

mickljo,
If you have a reference for the statement you quoted from the 'well dressed Aboriginal man' I would appreciate it.
as an aside, it is my understanding that 'sympathy' is not what is being asked for. Rather it might be 'empathy', to try to put yourself in their shoes and understand how you might feel in their situation. You claim 200 years of working and fighting for this country. How might you feel if your ancestors had done such for over 40,000 years?
As to the contents of the statement, while I can appreciate the sentiments of the individual, it would appear that if he was serious, he had little idea of what the granting of Native Title rights would actually give the Noongar people.
I am not a legal expert on this, but the prospect of receiving any rent from 'whiteys' is most likely impossible.

As it stands, Native Title is one of the weakest forms of Land rights in this country.
Firstly, it is not a right of ownership (and all that this would entail) but when granted is at best a 'right to occupy'.
Secondly, if Native Title rights come into conflict with ANY other rights granted regarding the land in question (ie. Freehold or pastoral lease etc.) then Native Title rights are inferior to such.

I find it quite astounding that you call Native Title racist and apartheid.
It is my understanding that Native Title is a (poor) attempt to address the systemic racism of our countries founding that wholesale-dispossessed Australia's Indigenous people. It is an attempt to acknowledge within our legal system (without challenging the crowns sovereignty) the existence of prior rights of ownership that existed, and still exist (until extinguished). In Mabo, specifically it was also a rejection of the fictitious legal theory of terra nullius that provided the basis for acts forming the "darkest aspect of the history of this nation" (Justice Brennan 1992).

mickljo,
You say that we are told over and over that we are equal.
This does not make it so.
Not now, and not in the very near past when Indigenous Australians finally got the basic legal acknowledgement of such.
What are equal rights to you?
Do you think that Indigenous Australians were instantly 'equal' the day we stopped counting them as livestock? Or was it the day that they got the right to vote? Or maybe even the day (after ten years of court battles) that a very small group of Murray Islanders got the legal right to 'occupy' a very small island that they had already 'occupied' for the last forty thousand odd years?
Equality is built and provided for. Someone (or a race or nation of someone’s) who has been legally UNEQUAL and totally disenfranchised from their land and ways of self sufficiency does not instantly become equal just because we say they are now so.

When Native Title came into legal existence the settler Australians had already claimed the majority of rich and productive land. What is left, of land that may be suitable for a Native Title claim, is mainly vacant (and relatively poor) crown land.
So, I don't think that Native Title "is favouring one lot of people over others" nor is it "giving preference to a minority".
Rather it is a very small path open for redressing the material and social inheritance of a past that favoured "one lot of people over others" and gave "preference to a minority" (until the European minority overpopulated to become the majority).