timelord said:
All that depends. The pastoralists - in fairness - should have the right to say no to negotiation, but they have to prove that negotiating on any level would be detrimental to the viable running of their property. And there are circumstances where that could in fact occur.
On the Aborigines being "forced", no they shouldn't be - unless there is a neccessity re what is being mined and (again) financial viability.
Again - you are trying to put limitations of the concept of negotiation and the flexibility of all parties being taken into account. That's what the current legislation doesn't do - and that's the problem.
Peaople may want to have a look at the big Native Title Wik decision that went though today. Seems like everyone negotiated and a good solution reached. Win win and good for all. I don;t know that the Linbs would bother changing the situation when there are so many situations that are being handled well under the existing situation.
abc website:
The determination was reached through negotiations with pastoralists, state and federal governments and other interest groups.
Cape York pastoralists, say they are happy to have reached the agreement with the Wik people.
D'Arcy Byrnes from Holroyd Station says today's decision will not change the way he manages his business.
"Life won't change on our property, we'll just keep carrying on what we're doing," he said.
"If the traditional owners want to come in and go hunting or fishing they're welcome, so long as they don't go where we're working."