Abo land rights - again
halcombe
years of litigation following the judicial brainstorm in the Mabo case
- is available in a remarkably happy-clappy series in the 'Australian'
of a couple of months back (look now [2] before it gets put behind the
pay-per-view firewall!).
The Ward judgements [3] are not for the fainthearted (well over 1MB of
HTML) - I can't pretend to have done more than skimmed them. But
'native title' has always been a slap-up feed for lawyers and the
majority in Ward do nothing to limit the size of the trough. 'Maximum
complication, minimum value', seems to be the watchword as far as abo
rights are concerned.
The bonanza of a share in mineral rights is finished off with a good
clean head-shot. But in most other cases, they say most native rights
are intact. (Though subordinated in their exercise to other rights.
The rights that people acquired from governments, under the fond
illusion that they would be not effectively be welshed on.)
So the cases in Ward get the treatment the lawyers love: remitted to
the lower courts for the decision on the facts in accordance with the
High Court decision. Lovely jubbly!
[Except: who is paying the abos' lawyers? I had thought they'd be
working on contingent fees, as that sort of case would be handled in
the US. But, at first sight, that sort of arrangement seems to be
prohibited in Australia. (All of Australia? Certain states? Certain
types of case?)
The abos might have had the prospect of big money if their minerals
claims had come through; but that wouldn't exactly have been liquid
resources. And now....Whatever the future value of their claims, I
doubt whether they've ever had a brass razoo to spare for the $500 an
hour brigade.
So, who is it? Bleeding-heart plutocrat, NGO or - surely not the
taxpayer?]
[1] http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d7fa3848.0208090551.20d78f8c%40posting.google.com
[2] http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sectionindex1/0,5745,mabo^^TEXT,00.html
[3] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2002/28.html