Team 'Australia Day' says 26 January is a day for all Australians regardless.
Yet there is a fundamental point which goes to the heart of this debate that literally no one, to date, seems to have picked up on. Hence, this article.
Native title can only exist if Australia was settled, not invaded.
Why? Because international law recognises territories acquired through invasion and annexation by force, prior to the prohibition of war following World War II, as lawful conquests.
Provided that all citizens of a lawfully conquered territory are granted equal rights by the local law, the descendants of the conqueror and the conquered are not considered two separate peoples.
This in turn invalidates any claims to separate land rights under the same jurisdiction.
As one of the 193 member states of the United Nations, Australia is not exempt from this 'Right of Conquest'.
Yet we do recognise separate land rights because the historic Mabo Decision in 1992 rested on the correct presumption that Australia was settled, not invaded.
In their ruling, Justices Brennan, Deane, Gaudron, Toohey, Mason and McHugh acknowledged that native title could have been intentionally extinguished by the use of government powers, but wasn't.
They proceeded to reject the 'terra nullius' doctrine without overturning the traditional view that the Australian landmass had in fact been settled.
Had Australia actually been invaded, the descendants of its native population would be classified as a conquered people and their land rights would be abolished.
Greens leader Richard Di Natale might like to explain to the Australian people why he is attempting to undermine native title by implying that Australia was invaded and conquered.
