Traditional Ownership of the Sea - High Court Ruling

It seems that the Labor government has once again failed the NT and the rest of Australia through inaction with the High Court upholding the ruling over the aboriginal ownership of Blue Mud Bay in Arnhem Land.
How can you own the sea? Its like owning a volume of air space. Anywhere below the high tide mark should be off limits. I bet it wouldn't have happened if it were Botany Bay or Sydney harbor.

I saw that story before and was going to post it...

What a bunch of shit hey? It's all getting a bit silly. We're going to end up like NZ if we're not careful.

Equality anyone?

:\

i own the sea all the time... the sea is mine! YAWR!!!!

lol. you cant enter my sea. It's tribal land.

the tribe didnt last long, they all drowned.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcarMPcLGow[/media]

super troopers override the high court :P

The Government can, if they want, pass a law to overrule the court. But I seriously doubt that they would. Far too gutless.

This action was purely to gain compensation.

What is even more Bu^%$hi+ about this case was that the traditional owners dont even know most of the stories for that area. A lady who lives in Jabiru and isnt even apart of their tribe knows all the stories and think their a bunch of idiots.... either way another lose to the NT fishermen!

GG NT

I don't see why you shouldn't be able to own parts of the sea.

People own parts of water ways, dams etc. It's just another surface area.

And if areas in the sea can be owned as property, then native title rules apply. Property undisturbed by other uses or legislation retains native title.

There's nothing the NT Government could have done. They did try, you may have noticed, but the appeal was dismissed.

Quote from lrinaldi;350092:
The Government can, if they want, pass a law to overrule the court. But I seriously doubt that they would. Far too gutless.

It's more complicated than that.

Native title is what remains when property has been undisturbed by some legal instrument -- freehold titles, a town plan, a base, a national park, whatever -- so long as the locals can demonstrate that they were the traditional owners at the time of settlement and maintained their traditional link to the land. That's actually pretty tough to do.

There's a lot of fine details and fiddly bits, but that's the heart of the matter.

Essentially you can't legislate it away -- the High Court has ruled that native title is a constitutional reality. You'd have to amend the constitution to abolish it. GFL with that.

You can't cheat either, by introducing dodgy instruments to override title. The NT Government tried that back in the 90s when a title claim was brewing over the land around Madorah. A minister zoomed off to the Administrator's residence and had him expand the Darwin town plan to cover the whole of the Cox Peninsula. This was, naturally enough, found to be horseshit with a pretty transparent ulterior motive, and struck down.

The NLC have said they'll negotiate access for commercial and amateur fishoes and I suspect they will. Instead of paying a license fee to the NTG you'll pay it to the NLC. Big woop. And most town harbours will remain under NTG coverage due to the fact that the harbours are usually included in various Acts with Port corporations. The 80% includes ... well ... the most of the NT coast which is empty.

But please, by all means: don't let me stop you from repeating the rumours you heard from your mate's mate's sister's brother's cousin's friend's bosses' uncle's mate who heard it down from that guy in the pub.

seriously
why cant all australian races be treated equally.

Because equality to the ones whining about being hard done by means they get more than everyone else.

Quote from Knight Of Nih;350109:
seriously
why cant all australian races be treated equally.

They are.

The principle is: if you own it, it's yours. First to occupy is owner. It applies to everyone.

Some people got here first, so they got first dibbs on ... well ... everything.

So actually, those of us not descended from the original blackfellas are treated favourably because we didn't have to buy the land off the previous occupants. Great Britain applied the laws of Europe and by puuuure coincidence that meant they took control. Tough titties to anyone who might have disagreed and not had guns and immunity to smallpox.

Quote from El Presidente;350113:
Tough titties to anyone who might have disagreed and not had guns and immunity to smallpox.

Well, unfortunately... that's the way of the world.

If we give it all back, where am I going to live? I'm not moving...

I think it's a ridiculous argument. Sure, the aborigines were here first... but now whitey is here. What, are we going to go to war? Or are we just going to try and work shit out and stop making the divide between black and white bigger by creating more walls?

People don't do themselves any favours either when it comes to percieved barriers. I was walking past parliament house (I think it's parliament house.... *shrugs) in Adelaide this evening and there were these women holding signs "Women against War". Why 'women' against war I thought? wtf does your sex have to do with anything?

People are strangely unaware of the divisions they accomodate.

You know what else guys.. Now that the land is tribally owned, NT GOv Laws do NOT apply there. No bag limits on anything, no size limits. So much for fishing to ensure a fish future.

[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXgnItLLgwA[/MEDIA]

[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll-Cv2s3kjo&[/MEDIA]

Without a doubt it's a complicated process but it can be done. I did enjoy reading your post. But your rumour comment was a bit much and you can blow that out your arse. :D

Quote from El Presidente;350102:
It's more complicated than that.

Native title is what remains when property has been undisturbed by some legal instrument -- freehold titles, a town plan, a base, a national park, whatever -- so long as the locals can demonstrate that they were the traditional owners at the time of settlement and maintained their traditional link to the land. That's actually pretty tough to do.

There's a lot of fine details and fiddly bits, but that's the heart of the matter.

Essentially you can't legislate it away -- the High Court has ruled that native title is a constitutional reality. You'd have to amend the constitution to abolish it. GFL with that.

You can't cheat either, by introducing dodgy instruments to override title. The NT Government tried that back in the 90s when a title claim was brewing over the land around Madorah. A minister zoomed off to the Administrator's residence and had him expand the Darwin town plan to cover the whole of the Cox Peninsula. This was, naturally enough, found to be horseshit with a pretty transparent ulterior motive, and struck down.

The NLC have said they'll negotiate access for commercial and amateur fishoes and I suspect they will. Instead of paying a license fee to the NTG you'll pay it to the NLC. Big woop. And most town harbours will remain under NTG coverage due to the fact that the harbours are usually included in various Acts with Port corporations. The 80% includes ... well ... the most of the NT coast which is empty.

But please, by all means: don't let me stop you from repeating the rumours you heard from your mate's mate's sister's brother's cousin's friend's bosses' uncle's mate who heard it down from that guy in the pub.

Quote from El Presidente;350102:
...don't let me stop you from repeating the rumours you heard from your mate's mate's sister's brother's cousin's friend's bosses' uncle's mate who heard it down from that guy in the pub.

This statement applies in so many contexts...

*sigh

Quote from grandinferno;350116:
Well, unfortunately... that's the way of the world.

If we give it all back, where am I going to live? I'm not moving...

We can't. The High Court pretty clearly said that while native title existed everywhere at settlement, it's easily extinguished if disturbed.

What the High Court did was say "OK, these were the European laws applied at settlement, but they were incorrectly applied as there was existing 'native' title. So unless that title is disturbed by freehold or government activity, the native title still exists. QED".

Quote:
I think it's a ridiculous argument. Sure, the aborigines were here first... but now whitey is here. What, are we going to go to war? Or are we just going to try and work shit out and stop making the divide between black and white bigger by creating more walls?

Working it out in an orderly, thoughtful fashion is exactly what the High Court did in the Mabo case. They balanced the nice-to-haves with the actual historical realities about as well as could be expected. You can tell what a successful balancing act it was when you consider how all sides were unhappy afterwards :P :)

Quote from Minorci;350117:
You know what else guys.. Now that the land is tribally owned, NT GOv Laws do NOT apply there. No bag limits on anything, no size limits. So much for fishing to ensure a fish future.

This is not the case. In the same ruling the High Court upheld the principle that the Fisheries Act does apply to native title waters for everyone who isn't exercising native title rights. Ie, everyone except the owners.

That's the same situation as on land.

But please, don't let me stop you from ... etc

Quote from grandinferno;350124:
This statement applies in so many contexts...

*sigh

Law is almost universally misunderstood because it tends not to square with gut feeling in many places. And because it's more fun to believe you can defeat the baddies with some clever loophole (omg if u lyk get drunk frst then they cant arrst u hey lol). Or that some other guy has gotten unfair advantage etc.

People who would never believe half-arsed rumours from non-experts about ... ooooh, say, computers ... will believe anything they hear about laws.

Update: I didn't account for the operation of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act apparently. A good summary from my former law professor:

Club Troppo Desperately fishing for votes

Quote from El Presidente;350129:
Law is almost universally misunderstood because it tends not to square with gut feeling in many places.

Unfortunately most peoples gut feelings aren't invoked by life experience anymore... They are invoked by what they hear/see/read about in the media. Due to the internet, the media seem to be getting it wrong more and more - as well as peddling their own agenda as they always have. This creates an unbelievable tolerance for bullshit. If I had a dollar everytime someone sent me a ridiculous email believing it was true, I'd be incredibly rich...

One things that DOES piss me off about the law is that all too often (it seems to me) the spirit in which these laws are passed is forgotten. The longer the law has been in effect, the more diluted it seems to become. But I guess that is a whole other topic of discussion.

Quote from El Presidente;350113:
They are.

In the broader context, they most certainly aren't.

Quote from Milenko;350135:
In the broader context, they most certainly aren't.

...both race and sex still aren't. Never will be. Especially with the 'eye for an eye' mentality everyone seems to have (whether we're talking a social, harmless level or capital punishment).

In all honesty the argument or in fact the case has been going on for 30 years. The fisheries Act will be changed obviously because of legislation changes but really in effect the only difference will be to professional fisherman.

The amateur line tosser really is not going to be that affected as the NT Gov and NLC will sort out the minor issues etc re the permit system if in fact it does get introduced but really I dont think it will come to that extent.

So they got some land back, were you expecting anything less. Cmon let the process fold out like a poorly rehearsed play before you sling your shit sticks at it.

After it has done so, and the legal issues have been resolved, and if it is less than workable and in fact ridiculous, sure hope on your milk crates and slag off but until its been resolved with all the legal stuff, let it slide.

And in all honesty it doesnt affect anywhere outside of aboriginal land. Most of you locals are harbour bottom bumpers anyway, trying to snag you sardines on the wrecks.

Stand by, watch the action unfold, the bag limits will remain so dont think they will change,

Dont get me wrong Im not picking sides. Hell Ive lived in the NT for 40 years. Hell I work in an environment of alchol, pillage and anarchy but I honestly dont belive the decision will alter much.

I should be in bed sleeping now but I cant because my bed is burning....

Quote from SpongeBobSquarePants;350138:
I should be in bed sleeping now but I cant because my bed is burning....

You're a funny, funny man. That's such a good album. Got it on vinyl actually...