Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Impending Qld native title claim takes in more than 365,000 hectares of land" video.

  1. As soon as you can move in to Gina Rineharts super yacht and make some scrambled eggs in the galley.
    4
  2.  @Fire.4Effect  I have no idea WTF you are talking about!
    2
  3. @RULE3O3  Hilarious. Firstly not all states and territories charge land tax. There is no land tax in the NT and land tax everywhere else is on freehold land and paid by the individual. Land granted under native title isn't freehold land. I'm impressed that you are brave enough to publicly admit on this forum just how lacking in knowledge you are. Keep up the good work. NB nobody pays any land tax at all on your own home.
    2
  4. It depends what state or territory you live in as land tax is not a federal tax. Also generally it is a progressive tax so if your land value is under a certain amount you don’t pay it.
    1
  5. It was 1992 and it was a Full bench sitting of the High Court. That’s 7 judges and as the High Count is part of our Federal constitution they found 6 to 1 with Justice Dawson dissenting that Aboriginals has a right to land ownership under English common law. If you are unable to understand how our constitution works that’s your problem. Extinguishing Native title doesn’t require a referendum, it only requires the government of the day to nullify it. However that won’t change the High court’s decision that Indigenous people owned the land before we illegally took it, that fact is irreversible. I’m astounded that you have such a lack of understanding of how our constitution works.
    1
  6. @missmarvelle  No opinion offered. All I stated is historical fact and reality. Native title legislation extinguished any indigenous claim to land title on freehold land. Hence this is why you are legally able to own land in Australia. The initial use of Terra Nuilus by the settlers in the 18th century was deemed illegal as fact by our High Court. Again this isn't my opinion it is historical fact.
    1
  7. You are factually incorrect. Our High Court in a 6-1 decision actually stated in plain English that indigenous Australians owned the land. Native title and Wik legislation confirmed this as fact. Your comment is completely and utterly wrong.
    1
  8.  @DioSfak  Nope the meaning and definitions are perfectly clear particularly in the case of Australian aborigines, indigenous Australians, Mabo, native title, and land rights in Australia. There is no doubt. The only doubt was raised by some who attempted and lost the argument that Aboriginals where not the first humans to inhabit Australia. That argument was lost and embarrassingly so in the High Court. There is no grey area whatsoever.
    1
  9.  @DioSfak  No you are factually wrong. I was born in Australia and am Australian, however my heritage and genealogy is almost exclusively British. An Aboriginal is indigenous to Australia due to the approximately 70000 years of inhabitation. You are confusing country of birth and indigenous. Let’s use the Oxford dictionary definition, In habiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or before the arrival of colonists. No different to indigenous plant life and the the Jacaranda trees we brought from South America. As to the process required to determine land ownership disputes, the parliament legislated Native title and Wik, the courts then decide. No problems whatsoever.
    1
  10. You can’t sell land granted under Native title, it is illegal. You may lease it, as many indigenous groups do to developers to mine or whatever and in that process negotiate some form of payment.
    1
  11. Hello there. How goes it self. I haven’t run across one of your imitations of me for ages.
    1
  12. What taxpayer funding are you talking about?
    1
  13. Considering governments both state and federal regularly subsidise housing, why shouldn’t indigenous people be entitled to the same government support?
    1
  14. @missmarvelle  What different rights do indigenous people have? Mabo and the consequent Native title legislation simply gave indigenous people English common law property rights that all Australians had. So I'm not sure if you understand what you are talking about.
    1
  15.  @missmarvelle  No legislation or referendum can deny the High Courts decision that indigenous people owned the land prior to 1770. This is beyond dispute.
    1
  16. @chezzachezza7325  Because after the High Court Mabo decision that recognised indigenous land rights the government legislated Native title, which immediately placed restrictions on indigenous land ownership. This is all common public knowledge.
    1
  17. There is no evidence whatsoever, either archeological, historical or DNA of any human species inhabiting Australia before the Australian Aboriginal approximately 70000 +/- 5000 years ago.
    1
  18. There is no evidence whatsoever of your claim. Aboriginals were the first human species to inhabit Australia.
    1
  19.  @davidmckeown6313  How can you possibly agree to this total fabrication. There is literally no evidence whatsoever of the a human species inhabiting Australia before the Australian Aboriginal.
    1
  20.  @davidmckeown6313  How can you possibly agree to a statement that is clearly false.
    1
  21. @davidmckeown6313  Just provide the evidence. I can reference archaeological and DNA evidence from numerous scientific studies that confirm beyond all reasonable doubt that your claim is completely false.
    1
  22.  @PetetG  Liddells work was self published and has been scientifically debunked. Numerous published peer reviewed scientific studies contradict Liddells research. You believe want you want, I believe the independent scientific research.
    1