Traditional Owners are now losing their rights to Corporate Bodies.
Catchwords like negotiation, recognition and consultation have no real meaning in the native title process.
Monies generated from the process are being used to prop up underfunded Prescribed Body Corporates and are not delivering any significant benefits back to the Traditional Owners.
The PBC`s are using the process to further undermine Traditional Owners Rights by speaking for their country and disposing of any members who raise objections against this process.
The words common law holders are now in use and consensus voting is being used to push through agreements which allow exploration on Traditional lands without the consent of the Traditional owners
The Native Title process is being used to empower and enrich a few to the detriment of many.
In my view the words Native and Title mislead Aboriginal people into the beleif that they have actually gained some recognition and control over their lands and lives.
Aboriginal people are now at the mercy of lawyers, CEO`s and mining companies like never before.
Another generation of controllers with the blessing of the Federal Govt. have come to prey on Indigenous Australians

The obvious response to this is: who says?

Leigh asks "Who says"
Well - On Jan 30th news.com.au published results of a five-year detailed examination of land-use agreements between Aborigines, mining companies and governments. The study of "45 contracts by Griffith University academic Ciaran O'Faircheallaigh found that half the agreements were either 'basket cases that should never have been entered into' or had delivered few cultural and monetary benefits to Aborigines. ..........Australia's wealthiest mining regions had the worst record and in many cases indigenous people were trading off rights to protect culturally important areas for limited, short-term benefits. .....The Griffith University study found almost all agreements promised Aborigines some ability to control environmental damage to their traditional lands done in the process of mining, yet that rarely happened." I'm sure there are other such reports. Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

Christinamac,
I heard this report on SBS the other night - but as I recall, the qualifier SOME was used a lot more frequently in the report than you’re letting on.

I do detect that you had a predetermined opinion on this issue

And so thoughtful of you to chose a nice objective reference like
WWW.AntinuclearAustralia.CON
With a name like that, they are sure to be mining company friendly!

"Aboriginal people are now at the mercy of lawyers, CEO`s and mining companies like never before. Another generation of controllers with the blessing of the Federal Govt. have come to prey on Indigenous Australians"

I think I am correct in saying that "any" person or corporation can own or have right to a certain depth of soil and height of airspace above the ground. As for big business, companies often work on the basis of outspending opponents, black, white or purple. Look at the tobacco companies, for example

I live in Cairns in the midst of urban blackfellows

We have conferred Native Title on our brothers/neighbours here

we title them as Vegemites and our suburb as Vegemite Valley

They all love the joke and we keep away from all the down South lawyer crap, designed to incite racial intolerance

Moral: keep as far from blood sucking lawyers as you can and retain heart's ease

TO, Native title is the weakest form of land tenure in this nation.
Why then should an expensive protracted native title process be the precondition to recognition of say; joint management rights? Pastoral access rights? Cultural heritage rights?

Try living under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, ATSIcratics pushed for as much as possible from here copied into the Native Title Act. Few these proponents lived under the Act...

Recent mail:

Can you confirm xxx Council has obtained leases from yyy Land Trust for the houses at zzz ?

We understand until such time as xxx Council obtains such leases from the yyy Land Trust then all buildings constructed upon yyy Land Trust land are property of the yyy Land Trust.

The xyz Land Council and or yyy Land Trust continue to refuse to provide bbb a lease - even in draft form, for her home.

The xxx Land Council and or yyy Land Trust whilst acknowledging zzz, our children, and our grandchildren are "Traditional Owners" have done and for a very long time continue to deny them their otherwise held rights to have their family live with them and or visit them in their home.

Land Council is not keen to issue people with leases, as leases gives them some rights !

BTW perhaps agree with Ranier that Native title is a weaker form of land tenure in this nation, which is why tried to have it negotiated and converted to freehold. No state or territory government worth half what they get paid should want to sign away land to inalienable unrateable land for everafter, seeking inalienable titles such as under the ALR(NT) has just alienated a lot of people who otherwise would support handing over land titles.

Every step taken built upon seperate racial rights is a backward step, our future is as part of the wider nation not some third world zoo.

"Every step taken built upon seperate racial rights is a backward step"

Well the current land rights in separate and majority white hands must mean we are the most backward country going.

Oh, I forgot, white isn't a race is it, its just 'normal' ,,,sorry.

Rainier said: "Well the current land rights in separate and majority white hands must mean we are the most backward country going.

Oh, I forgot, white isn't a race is it, its just 'normal' ,,,sorry."

Poor discombulated Rainier, he is confusing Australia's Native title with apartheid South Africa's "Bantustans".

What's your solution, Rainier? The ethnic cleansing of all Australians of European descent?

He just confusing obtaining compensation for people who suffered from the process of racial discrimination to obtaining a continuation of racial discrimination with only a change to flavoring so is closer to where tastes better by his senses.

ANY qualification by race is racial discrimination, often labelled positive.

Many injuries for which racial discrimination compensation claimed are or were justified originally as "positive discriminations".

Each make decisions whether will participate in the racial flavors discrimination game, or we not play it at all

Oligarch,

I know ethnic cleansing first hand and survived it.

And most of the aparthied policies in south africa were adapted from so called protection laws developed here. Don't you now your own history?

If white is not an ethicity then what is it?

A ham sandwich?

"If white is not an ethicity then what is it?

A ham sandwich?"

Well actually Rainier my friend, to some people around here they're one and the same :D

Rainier
Heres a conundrum:

If one is descended from both the (ethnic) cleanser & the cleansee.

How can one in good conscience claim victimhood?