“There would be a certain amount of unfairness initially, but this unfairness would be far preferable to state ownership of current crown land.”

I propose the following:

1. The Commonwealth Government should immediately cede control of the bulk of its powers relating to Aborigines to the states. Decentralised federalism is the surest way to accommodate the diverse range of local circumstances that must be taken into account when formulating indigenous land rights policy.

2. The states should conduct land surveys of tribal areas and, after consultation with and willing participation from a simple majority of historical residents or traditional owners, should randomly allocate each Aborigine over 18 years with a voucher that entitles them to an equal plot of Crown land (for example, one square kilometre).

3. As some will have received land not suitable to their individual purposes, the states should then manage a barter system to allow Aborigines to negotiate and trade vouchers till they reach suitable agreement amongst themselves. The land they now own is freehold and they shall enjoy the same rights as any other Australians. The Aboriginal participants must agree, however, to not launch any future legal claims trying to claim more land.

It seems we agree the scope of government should be reduced by placing ownership in private hands, but we disagree on whether Aborigines should be given special treatment and receive this land, instead of all Australians equally. I’m not a fan of being bogged down in history, but in this case I think there is a legitimate moral claim on the part of Aborigines. It is also in our own self-interest, as non-Aborigines.

I am surprised there has not been more violence between non-Aborigines and Aborigines in the present day. Giving back crown land would be politically feasible and would allow the Australian economy to incorporate the skills of Aborigines.

In effect, the British took adverse possession of Australia since the native population were unable to defend their title claims and did not exercise sovereignty.

I am unable to defend myself against the ATO. Tax is still theft. However once the money has been transacted on 50 times I don’t see any justice being served by laying claim to it. However if the ATO still had those specific coins in the vault after 200 years had passed, I would still claim they should give it back.

Primitive ideas such as association with ancestral land does not constitute ownership.

What rubbish. Such primitive ideas form the entire basis of sovereignty.

then I think it is fair and reasonable and just that the land be returned to their descendants.

Why does it make a difference whether the crown owns it or I own it? It would not matter how many people had bought and traded my stolen Holden, the car would still be mine, irrelevent to whether I could

1. demonstrate an unbroken link (ie. registration papers)

2. the thief was still in possession

Native title and land rights are at odds with common law, and cannot be easily resolved. Hence all the legal cases that continue to increase uncertainty in our legal system.

Primitive ideas such as association with ancestral land does not constitute ownership. Adverse possession (title transfer via squatting) may come into force under common law if crown land was converted into private land, since government owned property is generally immune from adverse possession. In effect, the British took adverse possession of Australia since the native population were unable to defend their title claims and did not exercise sovereignty. The first British settlers were squatters. Admittedly, these concepts were beyond the understanding of their civilisation, but this is history we are talking about.

However, if such a scheme were to be introduced, I would argue that it be based on freehold title, rather than native title or land rights. Freehold title unleashes individuals, lands rights collectivise them.

On an aside, I wonder if individual aboriginals could claim adverse possession over land held by native title?

1. their descendants can demonstrate an ongoing and unbroken association with the land
2. the land is still owned by the crown

then I think it is fair and reasonable and just that the land be returned to their descendants.

Neither works. All Australians are equal, if crown land is to be divided up, every living Australian should be issued shares in a private Commonwealth Land Holdings Corporation, which can then be traded, bequeathed or whatever. The CLHC would have freehold title over all existing crown land, inherit all state held leases, and be free to use this land in whatever way its shareholders feel fit. You could even divide it along different lines, say state based holding companies, natural park holding companies, government land holding companies etc. Greenies want to preserve the wilderness, then they can buy up shares in the nationa parks and buy new land to add to it. Of course they can do that now, but Greenpeace would rather solicit money to stage high-profile stunts, like harassing Japanese whalers.

Even ownership of rivers and the coast/sea could be possible, with access rights licensed by the owner. Private owners are unlikely to allow over-fishing if it decreases their asset value. Minerals in the ground don’t belong to the crown, they belong to the people who invest in the development of the resource. Bully for you if you happen to own land on which a oil field is discovered, but the rent you charge for access to the resource would have to be agreed before a oil explorer would enter into any contract to survey your land. These windfall resource discoverys may be unsatisfactory at first to the majority, but within a generation or so, land ownership would in no way reflect that at the point of privatisation. There would be a certain amount of unfairness initially, but this unfairness would be far preferable to state ownership of current crown land.

Aboriginal land rights in practice mostly mean that the land is set aside as a wilderness area and aborigines can visit without white fellas hanging around. Which most of the time is fine by me but it won’t lead to economic prosperity or an end to poverty. Anybody who lives a subsistence life in a national park is going to lack certain things. However I think we should all be allowed to live free and poor if that is our desire. Turn off the welfare tap and let people decide for themselves.

That’s good of him to acknowledge 200 years of history.

Aboriginals can go form multinational media firms, run cattle farms, or go hunter gatherer for all I care, so long as they don’t get special treatment from the state.