Unfortunately the High Court didn't share that view when it handed down its Mabo land-rights decision, in the process ignoring precedent and history. The matters decided should have been contested by the Commonwealth with the focus of that debate on the right to take from the land of another person part of the natural produce grown on that land

Senator Price’s grandfather. who first saw a white man as a teenager in the late 1920’s, did not imprint hate on his grand-daughter despite his own experiences. Neither did her parents, Bess and David Price. It is obvious that Jacinta was not taught to hate when young and, obviously, despite the abuse heaped upon her, unlike so many others she has not acquired that crippling flaw since.

Life for all Australians would be better had the High Court not allowed itself to be carried away with enthusiasm for the land-rights cause. The matters decided should have been contested by the Commonwealth as a matter of grave public importance, but that didn't happen. Just as it did in the more recent matter concerning the closure of state borders during the great Covid panic, passivity and acceptance were elevated to virues

The Aboriginal industry began as a homegrown concern but as it acquired greater funding it branched out and secured a foothold in the United Nations. From there, cloaked in foreign concepts and terminology -- do notice the current popularity of the imported term 'first nations' -- and the wholesale distortion of history began in earnest, The Voice threatens to deliver the final blow

The High Court did not say in its Mabo judgment that the Aboriginal people of the mainland cultivated the land, as did Torres Strait islanders. Instead it was ruled they enjoyed a usufructory use of it, meaning 'the use and advantages of another's property'. Thirty years after the decision, it is shameful that no effort has been made to educate the population on this key distinction