In 2018, the Victorian government declared a tract of land in the centre and north of the state to be Taungurung country, with a $34 million deal.

Confusingly, the Taungurung CLAN is described as consisting of '15 clans'. Even more confusing, the 'Taungurung People' identify with only 5 of these 15 clan groups (clans are really nothing more than families). Further, some of these people "do not identify with a particular area or clan", but with the "country as a whole".

Naturally, all of them claim that they were "severely disrupted by ….. early …. expansion of European settlement" (over two centuries ago). Traditional society broke down with "the first settlers' arrival" (or when they moved closer to the homesteads to get free tucker?).

Three years later, the deal between the Victorian government and people not sure who's who, has become "contentious"; and the High Court has found that the Victorian government DENIED NATURAL JUSTICE to other "First Nations" (clans, tribes, families - whatever) that "might have had" title rights.

The players in the game, apart from the ones already granted title rightly or wrongly, are the Ngurai Ilum Wurrung; the Waywurru, and the Dhudhuoa, who all reckon that the land is theirs.

And surprise, surprise, the state government has agreed to fund their claim - having spent millions getting the first one wrong (according to the High Court).

When a NIW elder wrote to the Victorian government, he was ignored. He got a solicitor, and the affair went to the Supreme Court. The claim was denied, and the fight is on.

How many other examples are there of this costly, ignorant chaos buried somewhere.

The Native Title Act is certainly a mind boggling
thing to deal with. It came into effect in
1994 as a response to the historic Mabo ruling
by the High Court in 1992, which established
Native Title as a form of membership to which
some Indigenous Australians were entitled.

However, under the Act claims can only be made over
certain parts of the country such as - unallocated or
vacant crown land. And the toughest requirement is
that claimants have to be able to prove a continuity
of traditional laws and customs on the land being
claimed since European settlement.

That is no easy task. It can involve lengthy historical
research as well as evidence from living parties.

And even when claims are successful Native Title does
not give the Indigenous parties exclusive rights to
the land.

In many cases they have the right to live on the area
or use it for some ceremonial or traditional practices
such as hunting.

No wonder things are so muddled. So far there have
been 213 successful Native Title determinations.
Fifty four have been struck down.

Increasingly the Federal Government funded Native
Title Tribunal has promoted what's known as "consent
determinations" meaning claimants can agree to a
negotiated settlement which is faster and less
expensive.

At present more than 420 claims are
outstanding. In many cases the elders who've launched
the claims have not lived to see them resolved and many
of the benefits have not flowed through to the
communities that need them the most.

A dissertation taken from Google on the history of native title has no relevance to the costly, incompetent and stupid process that gives the maybe descendants of people long dead land "rights" that said ancestors did not have at the time of British settlement.

Amazing that there are any Aboriginal people left in Victoria, after the white gendercide in that state in the nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries.

Amazing that there are any Aboriginal people left in Victoria,
Paul1405,
Not really considering the easier availability of food from farmers/settlers over time !
Cattle & Sheep boosted the supply of meat considerably plus gradually increasing medical care from the helping hands that weren't bitten off by the more friendly clans.

Paul,

Well, of course there are no aboriginal people left in Victoria or elsewhere in Australia: there haven't been any for two centuries. What we have is people claiming to be descendants of those people - about 10 generations afterwards. They don't have to prove any connection these days, so all we can say is that some might be genuine, many are more white than black, and some are just liars.

In order to understand the present and plan for
the future we need to learn
from the past - that's something that history has
taught us and helps us to understand the reasons
behind the current problems involved with the
Native Title Act and its restrictions and requirements
and why so many claims have failed.

The more we learn the more our own perspectives are
broadened on the subject.

If native Title were to be purely for Aborigines than the the cost would be negligible. It's the Nouve Indigenous who make it unaffordable !

individual,

Can you give us some examples please as to how you
think think has happened. There are certain requirements
that have to be met. Under the Native Title Act claims
can only be made over certain parts of Australia - such
as unallocated or vacant Crown Land. And one of the
toughest requirements is that claimants have to be
able to produce a continuity of traditional laws and
customs on the land being claimed since European
settlement.

That involves lengthy historical research as well as
evidence from living parties. And even when claims are
successful Native Title does not necessarily give the
Indigenous parties exclusive rights to the land.
In most cases they have the right to live on the area
or use it only for some ceremonial or traditional
practices including hunting.

Your concern is unwarranted.

I am so pleased that so many lawyers in parliament were able to provide billions of taxpayer dollars for their Brother and Sister lawyers. This is an outstanding effort. Posturing, preening and all on thousands of dollars an hour, magnificent.
However as a tax payer I suggest the sooner we map the DNA of our first Australians the better. Mind you I remember Michael Mansell SC counseling against any of the aforementioned giving their DNA for examination.

The lawyers, judges and cohorts love legislation such as this. Something no one really understands including the lawyers and their mates but keeps them all in business and they protect it to the Nth degree. Don’t worry about what it costs the country (taxpayer).

Foxy,
Asians & Pacific Islanders who aren't actually Aborigine but of dark & not so dark complexion who claim indigenous heritage !

In most cases they have the right to live on the area
or use it only for some ceremonial or traditional
practices including hunting.
Foxy,
DOGIT was introduced for the indigenous to have control over their land with the one exception that it can't be sold thus leaving them without land.
DOGIT was Premier Petersen's very last stroke of the pen & has prevented greedy developers from ruining prime areas.
Some lucrative cattle stations have already been handed over to the indigenous through buy-outs by Govt with taxpayers funding.
It is yet to be revealed what happens with these enterprises.

Indy you simply make up that claim about Asians and Islanders. Got any evidence? Fits in with your racist thinking.

make up that claim about Asians and Islanders
Paul1405,
As you well know but are too afraid to admit it might become more known, there's nothing whatsoever made up about. It's not a claim, an inconvenient truth perhaps for the likes of you but definitely not a claim.
While we're at the subject, why not enlighten us on how many different races in one's heritage still constitute indigenous ?