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).

Another common issue, that has been raised here, is that of blaming indigenous Australians for the public cost of court battles. While it may be true that there are a number of Native Title claimant cases that have very little hoping of being successful, it is also the case that every single successful Native Title claim has been challenged and dragged out by the government.
Native Title it seems was designed with negotiation in mind.
It is unfortunate that our governments have not made the most of these opportunities.
Perth seems to be just another case of this. Because the majority of this particular Native claim will be immediately extinguished, this seemed to offer a unique chance for genuine negotiation for a fair and balance outcome for all involved.
Instead both state and federal governments have chosen to drag this thing out further through the courts.
Are we to blame the Noongar for this also?

Hansp77 ,Thanks for the posts .
One would not normally expect any objective comments from Mickijo or Leigh as they seem determined not to give an inch on Aboriginal Reconciliation via Land Rights or any other way .
Native Title as judged by the HIGH Court of Australia is all "nonsense "to Leigh .
Mickijo and I regularly sparr over a migrant's rights to take over Aboriginal Land Rights without compensation,just because his family, as a migrant one,worked hard and was invited to come to the country.Your backyard is safe mickijo.
As far as i am concerned we have a huge debt to Aboriginal people as the illegal disposessors .They showed us the best water and land with pride , but unlike their neighbours of thousands of years ,we didn't go back to our own country after the visit .
we cannot help them regain all their land or their lost ceremonies, but we can help them regain their self esteem and health. NATIVE TITLE DOES HELP.
Recognition of their association with Perth both in the past and the present is a small step forward for us as a nation.
Of course the typical Howard and other government's appeals will probably try to block Justice being delivered .
I can remember a few years ago the next door farmer saying "we'll lose our oval etc ,etc,etc . At that time the fear campaign was in full swing .It was ignorance being used for an ugly political agenda.
Anyway ,We must thank God for Justice Willcox, I would love to shout him a beer or two.cheers,have a good weekend , kartiya.

I am a freelance journo based in perth and currently writing an article on 'Aboriginal issues' including native title, cultural conflict and misunderstanding, the Noongar claim and the Burrup Peninsular rock art.

The original problem at settlement was the judgement that Aboriginals were a lesser and uncivilised culture. The still emerging anecdotal evidence is that their 'lesser uncivilised culture' was more appropriate for this land than ours is.

Any person who truly loves Ourstralia feels sick in the stomach at the continuing desecration of what is comparable to the Aboriginal church - our country.

Aboriginal people are awaiting reconciliation - not them with but our society with this country. The former will then follow naturally.

Land is the vehicle for reconciliation between the peoples of this land, and the outside of the court negotiations allowable under native title processes have potential to address socio-economic challenges in Aboriginal communities across Ourstralia.

The continuing clash of cultures is best illustrated by looking at the Burrup Peninsular rock art. Perhaps the best and oldest examples of rock art anywhere in the world, older than Stonehenge, the Acropolis and St Paul's Cathedral and of Aboriginal cultural significance similar to Uluru it has been and still is being degraded and disrespected in favour ofour culture's main deity - money.

I welcome direct interaction and input to my article at haywoodfarm@yahoo.com

Kartya Jim, I wouldn't exactly say that ALL of my ancestors were 'invited' to this country,at least one side were not given much choice.
Hansp77, the Aboriginal man's quote came from the televised news of that day.
I do not believe in Native Title because I see big trouble coming from it that will occupy courts and lawyers for years to come.
The lawyers will wax very fat over this, the Aboriginals will be used and the tax payer will pay and pay and pay.
I am so against it, it will not advance Aboriginals at all. Far better to have money spent on educating and training young Aboriginals to take their place in the world as equals in business and every other way than just to have some fishing or hunting symbolic rights they really do not need.

As usual Mickjo and Leigh,

Neither of you ever cite research nor does hard evidence to back your spurious claim about Aboriginal people and issues. Why is this?

Mickjo, you often use the old line about tax payers. Why not learn something about the history of Aboriginal labour and stolen wages. See it here: http://antarqld.org.au/05_involved/facts.html

Leigh with your usual limp bravado you declared “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.”

Perhaps you should get out from behind your computer and meet some Koori’s Noongars, Palawa, Bama, Murri’s? They won't eat you.

I’ve questioned your claim of actually knowing Aboriginal people before in other posts. You’ve provided no evidence that you do. Relying on your imagination ‘about’ Aboriginal people as ‘evidence’ is not the same as knowing us proper.

In my younger days I only had one way of dealing with blokes like you. Thanks heavens I’ve moved on and realized what a waste of time that approach was.

Deep down I know this post won’t change anything about your attitudes toward Aboriginal people and rights or motivate you toward learning what you don’t know.

But at least I tried and I do care about you more than you care about me and mine. (now how's that for good Aussie values!)

Mickijo , I would much rather give the lawyers or the mediators[these days surprise ,surprise, just as important ] a few dollars to get at least one chip off Aboriginal shoulders as Native Title is worked through.
It's a matter of correcting the balance to the point where people can live together, accepting just where history has delivered us to.
Do you like to see continual conflict ahead for generations for the sake of it?
If you are unable to move on from the past ,that's a shame.
As far as WA goes ,in the late 1800's an unusual and novel law was brought in to help Aboriginal people get help with health ,housing and education and work.This is back when the murdering of Aboriginal people was "tut -tutted" about and considered just a natural part of Colonial invasion .
The law took a percentage or part of the money from the WA government land sales to be directed explicitely for the benefit and help of the blacks. The fund was going for a relatively few years and accumulated a large amount of money . HOWEVER , instead of being directed to THE DISPOSSED it came under critical scrutiny by the SQUATTER led Government and it was decided that it was a growing impost on the land owners and purchasers and was voted OFF the statute books .It was left to destitute churches to look after destitute people.We can see and hear of the results every day.
This was the same time Aboriginal farm workers in SA wrote letters to the Land Commissioner asking for enough land to start their own farms .["they must be joking!!"]
The inherent stupid meanness, of a lot of Australians may well be lessened if John Howard is game to lay bare and show in his history classes how we have got to today . I am looking forward to the first pages of his WHITE History of AUSTRALIA.
Q1.Were there there any ABORIGINAL PEOPLE who liked the views of the Swan River ?
Answer , YES , and today they still like the views.

Thanks for your comments everyone.

Mickijo,
I think this point bears repeating. You continue to talk about the cost involved in Native Title claims, especially the cost to the taxpayer.
Unless someone can correct me on this- as far as I know EVERY SINGLE TIME NATIVE TITLE HAS BEEN GRANTED IT HAS BEEN APPEALED BY A GOVERNMENT (state, federal or both).
Where does the fault for these public costs lie?
Might this be a tactic by our governments to try to intimidate current and future claiments (that any case will be dragged out and challened to the nth degree) with the added benefit that the whole Native Title process gets discredited and burdened with this public cost?

Kartiya,
as you raised some history, I was personally very surprised when I learnt that (in Henry Reynolds words) "the basic principles of native title were so clearly understood and so forcifully stated [over] one hundred and fifty years ago" (Reynolds, 1987: pp 163. 'the Law of the Land').
It is long past time for our country to resolve this, properly, and in my opinion in a much deeper way than even the best that Native Title can offer us.
One more quote from Reynolds.
"The embarrassing fact is that many contempory Australians will not concede to the Aborigines as much as the evangelical aristocrats and pious bourgeosie reformers of the 1830's and 1840's" (pp. 155).
It's a sad state of affairs.

One thing that has depressed me over these last years, is that if anything, we seem to be moving backwards.
That was until Wilcox's decision. I hope it stands.

P.S. Tuesday night 7:30pm SBS Insight.
Should be very interesting, and no doubt will give us some things to talk about.

Hans.

The SBS INSIGHT WITH JENNY BROCKIE show was very good .It will be repeated during the week.

Interestingly Ruddock said he wants more NATIVE TITLE DECISIONS . I wonder which way he wants them to go.
The Liberal member for the Gold Coast who is against their Native title claim struck me as living very much in the past .
It was good to see a leading mining industry Native Title Negotiator, telling Ruddock and Co that the Mining Industry was not having either real or imagined problems with the Native Title laws.
I will buy him a beer too .cheers, kartiya