Photo: CMU
U.N corporatism disguised as ‘native title rights’.
NATIVE TITLE CLAIM
In 1992, Eddie Mabo stood in the high court of Australia to spearhead a famous legal challenge that would eventually recognise how he and other Murray Islanders had ownership of the land before colonisation – describing this as “native title”.
It overturned the doctrine of Terra Nullius, the legal principle that Australia was a “land belonging to no one” and was therefore free for the British to claim.
The result of this court case has sparked decades of debate and native title claims across Australia – with more than 45% of the nation’s land now covered by some agreement.
Today, a new claim has been made – this time, for a major Australian city and surroundings.
The Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung people in Victoria have lodged a native title claim for Melbourne, with Premier Jacinta Allan heralding it as a “positive step forward”.
If the claim is successful and “native title” is granted, it would recognise the Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung’s rights to “access, use, and protect crown land” in this area in line with their laws and customs – along with the right to be consulted on what is happening in the area.
They are hoping to negotiate the transfer of management, or involvement in the administration, of some parks and conservation areas within the claim area.
These could include parts of the Dandenong Ranges, Bunyip State Park, Wombat State Forest and Lerderderg State Park.
The news follows legislation to enshrine an elected body for Indigenous Australians being passed in Victoria’s parliament earlier this month, with the group to be consulted on laws and policies – as well as an annual “appropriation payment” of tens of millions of dollars.
Australian-first Indigenous treaty legislation passes Victorian parliament
RELATED ARTICLE
It certainly did not take long before claims started rolling in.
Some commentators have likened the new legislation to “apartheid”, saying it will cause “racial division” and further restrict areas of the city of Melbourne.
Native title claims aren’t new in Victoria – one of the earliestcases was brought by the Yorta Yorta people, who filed a claim over land and waters covering 2,000 sq km along and around the Murray and Goulburn Rivers.
In 2002, the high court dismissed the appeal.
Since then, there have been other claims made, but nothing has been substantial yet.
This new legislation could be the turning point that allows claims to finally be accepted.
Across Australia, there has only been one native title determination over a major city – after the Kaurna people were recognised custodial holders over Adelaide in 2018.
They are now on boards of different organisations and foster relationships with state and federal government departments to “protect culturally significant sites and educate the wider community” – determining if an area is off-limits.
For example, in 2023, a burial ground was found at the site of a multi-million housing development, triggering consultation with native title holders.
Another site in Adelaide – land part of the LIV Golf events – was also deemed a “protected” area in October, as it was the area of the first school and mission site for Kaurna people.
The Noongar people of Perth are also recognised as traditional owners through legislation, but it’s technically an offshoot of native title, although the rights are similar.
No doubt, if the Victorian case is successful, we will see more claims for protected areas across Melbourne and surrounding suburbs – as part of the Agenda 2030 vision.
For you see, even Indigenous Australians themselves are aware that native title organisations are not there to represent their interests, but rather those of corporations profiting off Indigenous narratives to drive U.N Sustainable Development Goals.
In short, the entire native title industry is a giant scam that helps nobody.
GIANT CORPORATE SCAM
The mainstream media want you to believe that native title is good for Indigenous Australians – yet, when body corporates are prescribed to manage this process, in most cases, these people are completely swept under the rug.
Aboriginal activist Gary Foley has described native title as the weakest form of property right available under law, and “the greatest single act of dispossession since 1788”.
The reality is that ‘native title rights’ are managed through a prescribed body corporate, which must be set up to ‘negotiate with any other parties’.
“There are 290-ish prescribed body corporates across the country, which covers about 45% of the land of Australia,” National Native Title Council CEO Jamie Lowe said.
290 Prescribed Bodies Corporates (PBC) across Australia?
A bloated bureaucracy that has achieved nothing.
Australia ‘Most Bloated Bureaucracy in the World’
RELATED FEATURE
Victoria is also known for enacting these groups before, which have failed.
In 2010, the Brumby government established the Traditional Owner Settlement Act, a Victoria-based land rights regime which traditional owners do not believe is working.
Lowe said there was “conjecture” over ‘the best way to recognise traditional owners’.
Other Indigenous activists argue that native title is a weak legal mechanism that doesn’t adequately protect land from development like mining.
In some cases, land councils or native title representative bodies are accused of prioritising economic deals (with mining or gas companies) over the long-term cultural, environmental, or social needs of communities.
For instance, traditional owners in the Beetaloo Basin have accused the Northern Land Council of facilitating fracking in ways that don’t reflect their wishes.
On the other hand, some PBCs have used their legal status to form joint ventures and generate revenue, which they don’t channel into community programs, only their pockets.
Traditional ownership through native title is being used as a commercial asset in ways that change both the meaning and priorities of actually helping and recognising these people.
If even Indigenous activists and communities agree that corporate native title body organisations don’t work, then you know there is another agenda at play here.
These organisations, as was the concern with the ‘Voice’ vote, will use these positions to further restrict land and resources, and impoverish communities.
Agenda 2030 in motion.
Don’t fall for the U.N-driven land grab – all they want is more control.
Victoria may be the very first to truly fall victim, as they have with most other things.
What are your thoughts on this native title claim?
Be sure to leave your thoughts in the comment section below!
KEEP UP-TO-DATE
For more TOTT News:
Facebook — Facebook.com/TOTTNews
YouTube — YouTube.com/TOTTNews
Instagram — Instagram.com/TOTTNews
Twitter — Twitter.com/EthanTOTT
Bitchute — Bitchute.com/TOTTNews
Gab — Gab.com/TOTTNews
So predictable as to be boring.
But my own State of SA was the first to get its own Voice, within a month or two of a resounding NO vote for a national Voice last year: SA had the 2nd highest NO vote to Qld. But our Premier, “Mali”, was unfazed. It’s been a shambles to date: a very low turnout of eligible Aboriginal voters; one person was elected with just 20 votes, there has been a high % of “no shows” at the meetings held to date, and at least one of the delegates has already resigned. Nothing to see here though, according to the govt…it’s a great success.