The Voice and Native Title: The Surrender of Australia By James Reed

A new map, released by the National Native Title Tribunal, shows that native title now covers around 50 percent of Australia! There is another 12 percent of the land mass of the country yet to be considered, but one can bet a bottom dollar that these will be successful claims.

It is said that following Mabo, and Keating’s Native Title Act that native title cannot threaten private property, since here is an exclusive interest in the land that extinguishes native title. Thus, these figures relate to unallocated or vacant Crown land and certain areas already held by, or for, Indigenous Australians. That has not stopped claims being made to metropolitan areas as detailed by this report in 2006: “MORE native title claims over metropolitan areas could be made after Tuesday's Federal Court decision to recognise native land rights over the city of Perth, the federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, said yesterday.

The Noongar people were found to have proved their claim to an area of land three times the size of Tasmania, the first time native title has been recognised over a metropolitan area.

"It is not possible to guarantee that continued public access to all such areas in major capital cities in Australia would be protected from a claim to exclusive native title," Mr Ruddock said.

The Noongar claim covers 193,956 square kilometres, from Hopetoun to north of Jurien Bay. The Federal Court judge Murray Wilcox was satisfied the Noongar people had shown their society had been maintained since European settlement in 1829.”

We can be sure if the Voice passes, that native title to be fully extended to private land will be on the agenda, and as the prime minister has said, it will be a brave parliament which would dare to defy the Voice. It will be the great surrender of Australia, and in the end, we may be hoping for a communist Chinese invasion just to end the misery.

Keep up the fight for No in the Voice, or we are doomed!

“A stunning map has unveiled that Native Title, a legal recognition of Aboriginal rights over an area, covers nearly half of Australia's landmass.

Native title holders can get compensation for things the government has done to stop them from exercising their rights, such as building a bridge or a road.

The map, prepared by the National Native Title Tribunal, shows some 50 per cent of Australia is under Native Title, with the sections divided by dark and light green to distinguish between 'exclusive' and 'non-exclusive' zones.

A further 12 per cent of land is being assessed for Native Title, with these areas coded in blue patches or stripes.

It's important to note that Native Title can only be claimed for Crown land and is not applicable to privately held properties.

When a Native Title determination specifies 'exclusive' rights, it means the Indigenous group has exclusive ownership and control over the area in question, excluding all others, including government authorities and non-Indigenous individuals or entities.

Non-exclusive Native Title in Australia grants Indigenous groups shared rights and interests in land without exclusive control.

It can grant Native Title holders the right to local cultural practices, such as the right to live in the area, hunt, fish, gather food or teach law and custom on country.

To claim Native Title, it is necessary to show an enduring connection to the land through pre-European settlement tribal laws and customs. Claims are registered with the National Native Title Tribunal and determined in courts, including the Federal or High Court and state Supreme Courts. 

On Tuesday, Senator Pauline Hanson pushed for a royal commission into Native Title, but her bid was soundly voted down, with only five other Senators supporting the motion.

'Under current law, there is an infinite time period during which claims can be initiated, she explained. 'That means groups could still be initiating claims in 100 years.'

She said by removing federal funding from respondents but continuing to provide money to those claiming Native Title the Albanese government had created a very unequal playing field.

'There are many thousands of these Native Title and other land claims all over Australia,' she told Daily Mail Australia.

'I suspect that many people living in those areas yet to be determined don't even realise that they are at risk of having their communities come under Native Title. 

'Native Title claimants get all their legal costs fully funded by the Australian Government but not the organisations which must respond to these claims, because Labor has abolished the Native Title Respondent Funding Scheme.

'So if your community comes under a Native Title claim, the Government will be funding it with your taxes.'

She said because Native Title claimants must reach a more strict standard of eligibility than those who claim Indigenous heritage, two-thirds of Australia could potentially be controlled by less than two per cent of the population.

'Native Title holders directly receive income in the form of mining royalties and other uses of land under their control.

'These are just more examples – along with the Voice to Parliament – of the Albanese Labor government treating Australians unequally based on race.

'From the beginning of my political career, I have been calling out this unequal treatment based on race. I will always fight for equality for all Australians.'


It emerged last week that a Native Title claim had been made on the south east Queensland city of Redland.

This is the first time a majorly urban area has been subject to such a claim.

The claim could see Native Title rights conferred on approximately 3,500 council-owned or managed properties in the Redlands coastal area southeast of Brisbane, which is home to 165,000 people.

The Federal Court is now considering the claim, which was made in 2017 by the Quandamooka Yoolooburrabee Aboriginal Corporation.

Redland City Council Mayor Karen Williams says it will determine what areas are subject to being claimed under Native Title.

'Some of those areas we will defend vigorously because they are important, a very important part, such as the coastal points in particular and cemeteries where, might I add, a lot of forebears and pioneers are buried.'

Cr Williams said the claim could deprive locals and visitors of access to popular scenic and recreational spots, which could be turned over for exclusive use by the claimants.

'We are a coastal city so we have Wellington Point, Victoria Point, Cleveland Point, where people will go for Sunday afternoon drive or they go fishing,' she said.

Despite the Native Title claimants having access to millions in federal funding to make their claims, the council will have to rely entirely on its own resources as it takes the case to the Federal Court.

'It does feel a little bit like we are on our own,' Cr Williams said.

'Obviously, there are costs the ratepayer has to absorb.

'We have island communities and marine parks and ferries and an ageing population and not a very big commercial base so we feel every cent we have to spend.'

Native Title differs from Land Rights, which only exist under laws in NSW and the NT.

Land rights mean a local Land Council can claim freehold ownership of any unused or misused Crown land as compensation for historical dispossession.

These claims are assessed by government departments.

Both land rights and Native Title can coexist on a piece of land, and they may even bring traditional owners into conflict.

Traditional owners have won land right freehold ownership of 50 per cent of the Northern Territory, including 85 per cent of its coastline.

There have been over 3,000 successful land rights claims in NSW, but almost 40,000 are yet to be assessed.”



No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Thursday, 20 June 2024

Captcha Image