Friday, Nov 08, 2019 at 15:07
I understand at least the basics of the law Alloy c/t, you by your reference to squatters' rights obviously don't. Your comment on the concept of ownership among indigenous Australians has been dealt with numerous times. Suffice to say you are badly mistaken from a legal perspective, AND your knowledge and understanding of indigenous culture needs a lot of work. The Mabo and PDF links below (especially p202 of the "Adverse Occupation" PDF) should help in regard to your squatters' rights comment. The whole area of Native Title, land rights etc is VERY complex with numerous offshoots establishing tribunals and methods of dealing with claims, compensation, rights etc. As with almost everything in life there is no black and white.
After years of the "activism" and advocacy, Whitlam's intervention, and the highest court in the land finding for Mabo in a 6-1 ruling, the Australian Parliament finally granted "land rights" to the first peoples in 1993. The Native Title Act has since been amended more than 30 times, but its backbone remains essentially the same . Terra nullius, which you appear to still believe exists, was found to be
invalid and as the saying goes the rest is history. Wik subsequently determined the extent of native title in irrespective of other (supposedly) "better" title, thereby creating a workable compromise.
There's some decent summaries on some of the many issues/topics here if you're interested:
Native Title
At this link you can find a simple outline of Mabo, with further links on related topics:
Mabo Decision
As many won't be bothered to follow the link here's part which should interest you:
"On 3 June 1992, six of the seven High Court judges upheld the claim and ruled that the lands of this continent were not terra nullius or ‘land belonging to no-one’ when
European settlement occurred, and that the Meriam people were 'entitled as against the whole world to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of (most of) the lands of the Murray Islands'.
In Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2), judgments of the High Court inserted the legal doctrine of native title into Australian law. The High Court recognised the fact that Indigenous peoples had lived in Australia for thousands of years and enjoyed rights to their land according to their own laws and customs. They had been dispossessed of their lands piece by piece as the colony grew and that very dispossession underwrote the development of Australia as a nation."
..... "The new doctrine of native title replaced a 17th century doctrine of terra nullius on which British claims to possession of Australia were justified on a wrongful legal presumption that Indigenous peoples had no settled law governing occupation and use of lands. In recognising that Indigenous peoples in Australia had prior rights to land, the Court held that these rights, where they exist today, will have the protection of the Australian law until those rights are legally extinguished."
"There were five key issues of importance to legal precedent in the Mabo decision for the recognition of Indigenous peoples’ rights in Australia:
1 Reviewing the implications of Australia’s settled status.
2 Applying the principle of non-discrimination in the enjoyment of property rights.
3 Explaining the operation of the Crown’s sovereign radical title.
4 Recognising native title and the source of rights in Indigenous law and custom.
5 Asserting the power of the state to extinguish native title rights."
----------------------------
One the basic tenets of Common Law, known - ironically if you think about it in light of aboriginal occupation - as "adverse occupation", was used in part by one of the Mabo judges, Justice Toohey.
Here's an interesting discussion on that topic :
Adverse Occupation
The question still remains. Your attempt to wave it away by claiming your opinion should trump numerous legal rulings and Acts, enquiries, debates and discussions doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny.
FollowupID:
903028