And the news article is from Al Jazeera!
Anyone ever read Clai Huffaker’s book Nobody Loves a Drunken Indian? (The basis for the movie Flap, starring Anthony Quinn). The premise at the end was that the Indians owned the land Phoenix stood on, and could prove it with existing treaties. (Fiction, I want to point out, but believable) Looks like the same situation here, but for real. And apparently backed by the Australian courts.
You should read the article more carefully.
Explain please. Does this not mean what I said?:
I suspect that hawthorne’s reference was to this portion of the article:
In other words, any person, (or, I presume, corporation) who has established title ownership to a plot of land has also established de facto (and, by this interpretation, de jure) possession of the land nullifying the aboriginal title. Only lands held by the government are subject to the ruling. (The article does not make clear the effect on military reservations or other government buildings.)
That may be, but:
a.) Problems still remain for government land and
b.) The situation still resembles the book I cite. Even more so, since, IIRC, the same sort of issue was raised there.
So hawthorne’s bald statement is uninformative, inappropriate, and rude.
I posted a Thread a while back, discussing something similar.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=140140&highlight=China+Cherokee
Most folks concluded that something like this couldn’t happen.
Toldya so. 
Robert Ludlum wrote “The Road to Omaha” about an obscure Native American tribe having title to Nebraska, including all the land of Strategic Air Command. They threatened to kick everyone out.
If there is no clear ruling on government or military property, couldn’t the aborigines march on down to the local city hall and tell them, “G’day, mate. Time for you to get your asses out before we start whipping our boomerangs at you.” (I know. I’m insensitive and non-PC. So sue me. Take me to kangaroo court).
Seriously, though. Couldn’t they lay claim to a military base and just set up camp there? This is not good for Oz.
It’s made it to Yahoo news now:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060921/ap_on_re_au_an/australia_native_title
Ultimately, if you have a look through the Native Title Act, the rule of law (loosely considered, since I haven’t practised native title law in about 10 years) is that any activity which is inconsistent with the continued existence of native title will extinguish native title, e.g. permanent alienation of title or clearly inconsistent use, such as high-intensity farming. Question marks remain over low-intensity uses on long-term leased Crown/Government land such as grazing (raising cattle/sheep).
Yes, I was a bit grumpy. Partly this was just being a bit grumpy, but partly because:
it’s perfectly clear from (both) articles that we’re not talking about Aborigines being given title to Perth and nothing like erie774 says is on the cards; and
there has been a great deal of bogan-stroking race-baiting fear-mongering claptrap over native title in the past and it’s already started again over this most recent decision.
Thanks to Dottygumdrop for being more informative than I was.
Apology accepted, h, but it’s pretty common practice on the SDMB to post a brief title based entirely upon an outrageous, even if it contains caveats, exceptions, and disclaimers. God knows I’ve done it often enough. It’s generally funnier and punchier that way.
Yeah, I guess so. And I can’t remember a post of your’s that rubbed me up the wrong way before. So I’d better actually apologise.
Glad to be set straight.
Follow up:
As expected, both the WA and Commonwealth governments are going to appeal the decision of the Federal Court.