Three First Nations groups granted exclusive native title over key Victorian sites after long legal fight
The Federal Court confirmed on Friday that the Latji Latji, Ngintait and Nyeri Nyeri peoples, united as the First Peoples of the Millewa-Mallee, are the rightful custodians of thousands of square kilometres of territory extending from Mildura to the South Australian border.
The ruling, handed down by Justice Elizabeth Bennett, delivers the highest level of land rights available under native title law, granting traditional owners the legal authority to control who can and cannot enter or use the land.
'Despite the dispossession and other atrocities inflicted upon the Native Title Holders and their predecessors, the Native Title Holders have maintained their traditional laws and customs and have under them a deep and enduring connection,' Justice Bennett said.
'It is appropriate to make the orders sought. In doing so, the court recognises the resilience and determination of the First Peoples of the Millewa-Mallee Native Title Claim Group in reaching this milestone.'
The area under native title stretches along the Murray River and covers parts of the Calder Highway and the Murray-Sunset National Park, which is home to Victoria's iconic pink lakes.
The decision also includes areas frequented by tourists and locals alike, including Apex Park Sandbar and Kings Billabong Park.
Indigenous Leader Warren Mundine told Sky News it was a "breakthrough" moment for Indigenous Australians.
"This is the continued success and more so the breakthrough for Aboriginal people where it shows that they can actually regain some of their land," he said.
"More than 50 per cent of Australia's land is now in the hands of Aboriginal people, which gives them a great opportunity for cultural and economic success, which they can now do on their land. This will only lift their communities up and bring them into the wider Australian community.
"Now these communities need to build a future for themselves and to make those economic benefits and cultural outcomes — they need to build their communities and make them better for them."
According to First Nations Legal & Research Services (FNLRS), the case marks a turning point in Victoria's native title landscape.
'This historic outcome confirms that the State accepts the native title holders' right to control access to their country under traditional law and custom,' FNLRS said in a statement.
'Thus, challenging the long-held view that exclusive native title rights could not be recognised in Victoria.
'As with other successful native title claims, the native title holders also have non-exclusive rights including the right to access the land, use its resources, and protect sites, objects and places of cultural and spiritual significance.'
The decision not only grants exclusive rights over the land but also reaffirms non-exclusive rights such as cultural access and the protection of heritage sites.
For many, the ruling is deeply personal.
Nyeri Nyeri Elder Wendy Brabham reflected on the long road to recognition, highlighting the cultural compromises Indigenous Australians have had to make within the legal system.
'I hope our future generations of all our family groups will build on today's decision to honour our Ancestors by strengthening, preserving and sharing our Culture,' Ms Brabham said.
She added: 'We went through an onslaught of rejections . . . and we had to bend our customs, laws, protocols and traditions to Australian law.'
Legal experts say the case could open the door for other Indigenous groups across the state to pursue similar recognition, challenging long-standing legal assumptions about exclusive native title in the south-east of Australia.
Earlier this month the Victorian government released a joint statement with the state's First Nations assembly revealing its plan to draw up a Treaty with Indigenous Australians and to further make the state's Voice to Parliament a permanent institution.
The Victorian government's Yoorrook Justice truth telling inquiry handed down its final report after four years of proceedings and claimed the state had been illegally occupied.
The commission also made 100 wide-ranging recommendations to the Victorian government including providing Indigenous Australians with tax relief, financial reparations and called on the state to finalise a Treaty agreement.
The statement said the reinforced body would give 'decision-making powers to make sure First Peoples' communities can design and deliver practical solutions for their communities'.
'The proposed body will sit within our existing parliamentary and democratic structures. It will not have veto power on policy or legislation — a power that does not exist under Victoria's parliamentary system," it said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
6 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Former SBS newsreader Mary Kostakidis draws big crowd of pro-Palestinian supporters for anti-Semitism case
A court has heard former SBS newsreader Mary Kostakidis spread 'anti-Semitic' conspiracy theories and promoted proscribed terrorist groups on her public X account. The journalist fronted the Federal Court for the first time in a bid to get the racial discrimination case brought by Zionist Federation Australia CEO Alon Cassuto struck out. Ms Kostakidis is accused of breaching section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in two posts she shared to her account in January last year. The posts featured video of a speech given by the since-killed leader of Lebanese terror group Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, in which he calls for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel. 'Here you don't have a future,' Mr Nasrallah says in an English translation of the speech. 'And from the river to the sea, the land of Palestine is for the Palestinian people and for the Palestinian people only.' Ms Kostakidis added the comment 'The Israeli government getting a taste of its own medicine' to one of her posts. Her barrister Stephen Keim SC told the court the comment was clearly directed at the Israeli government and not a criticism of Jewish people. He compared his client's 'reporting' of the speech to media reporting US President Donald Trump's notorious 'grab them by the p****' comments that were caught on camera before the 2016 US election. 'We argue that the reporting of statements by a well-known spokesperson for a party in a major regional conflict is an essential part of news reporting, which may involve reporting offensive statements,' Mr Keim said. 'For example, the widely reported Access Hollywood tape of the current president of the United States." Under Nasrallah's leadership, Hezbollah has fired thousands of rockets at Israel since Hamas' terror attacks on the Jewish state, including in heavily populated civilian areas, killing at least 24 people and causing the displacement of 70,000 others, Mr Cassuto's lawyers submitted in documents filed in court. Israel confirmed it had killed Nasrallah in an airstrike on Beirut in September 2024. Mr Cassuto's barrister Michael Borsky KC told the court while Ms Kostakidis used to be a newsreader, the post was 'not a straightforward news report.' 'Her sharing these posts, particularly with the commentary we allege is a form of endorsement – saying Israel, [the] Israeli government getting some of its own medicine with the genocide it started – is relevant to the question your Honour will at trial need to determine…,' Mr Borsky said. Mr Borsky said Jewish Australians and those of Israeli national extraction – his client is both – could arguably be offended or intimidated by calls for the only Jewish state to be 'erased off the map.' Mr Cassuto has argued Ms Kostakidis' offence was 'magnified' due to a series of other offensive posts shared to her X account, which has more than 44,000 followers and on which she posts prolifically and daily about Israel. Other posts cited in the case include those resharing justifications for the October 7 attacks as 'understandable' and akin to a 'jail break', ones in which Ms Kostakidis appears to express 'support' for Hamas and Hezbollah and conspiracy theories including that convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein was an 'agent of Israel' and Israel was responsible for the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy. Mr Keim drew on a judgment earlier this month in the racial discrimination case against Sydney-based Islamic hate preacher Wissam Haddad, in which another Federal Court judge, Justice Angus Stewart, said 'it is not anti-Semitic to criticise Israel, just as much to blame Jews for the actions of Israel is anti-Semitic.' Mr Borsky countered that it was a matter of 'some subtlety and delicacy and reasonable minds can differ' on whether political criticism of Israel cannot be anti-Semitic. 'Mr Cassuto would, if it became relevant at the trial … would challenge the proposition,' Mr Borsky said. 'It is not part of our case that to criticise Israel is necessarily anti-Semitic ... But the fact that some acts done otherwise than in private might be characterised as criticisms of Israel, or even the Israeli government or the Israeli Defence Force, does not inoculate them from any even arguable contravention of 18C.' He gave examples of tweets in which Zionism had been equated with Nazism, which he said was a 'particularly offensive' comparison for Jews. '[It's] deliberately selected by many anti-Semites for that reason for the very reason that it accuses the victims of the Holocaust with committing the crime,' Mr Borsky said. Justice Stephen McDonald observed that 'spreading anti-Israel conspiracy theories, while they're related to Israel as their topic, might be potentially anti-Semitic' and that the relationship between Jews and Israel was 'different from the relationship between many other states and ethnicities.' Ms Kostakidis was cheered on at her arrival to court by about 50 supporters, many of whom were waving Palestinian flags, wearing keffiyeh and holding signs accusing Israel of 'genocide'. Outside court, Ms Kostakidis thanked supporters. 'I'm a strong believer in freedom of the press and freedom of political expression,' Ms Kostakidis said. 'I will defend my right to report the news and the right of every journalist to do so and the right of every Australian to engage in public debate.' In his own statement outside court, Mr Cassuto said the case was not about free speech, but 'hate speech'. 'Ms Kostakidis shared the calls of a proscribed terror organisation to ethnically cleanse Jews and Israelis and it's important that we hold her to account,' Mr Cassuto said. 'It's deeply offensive when someone with the platform and following of Mary Kostakidis shares hate speech and shares the calls of a proscribed terror organisation. We've all seen how hatred that starts with words ends in violence. For the sake of every Australian, we've got to stand up against racial hatred no matter who is being targeted and who is spreading it.' Justice McDonald will hand down his decision on whether the matter will proceed to trial or be struck out at a later date.
Perth Now
7 hours ago
- Perth Now
Bombshell $2.3m lawsuit hits popular premier
Former Labor parliamentarian Annabel Digance has dropped a bombshell $2.3m lawsuit on South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas, claiming he orchestrated a 'malicious prosecution' against her. The lawsuit, filed with the SA Supreme Court, alleges Mr Malinauskas conspired with the SA Police to prosecute Mrs Digance in order to crush her political future and prevent a parliamentary inquiry she supported on alleged bullying in the Labor Party. The police arrested and charged Mr and Mrs Digance for blackmail in April 2021 for alleged conduct against Mr Malinauskas. The conduct centred on secret recordings between Mr Malinauskas and Mr Digance in February 2020 and Mr and Mrs Digance in March 2020. The blackmail charge was dropped in 2023 after the Digances agreed to refrain from any further contact with Mr Malinauskas. The claim, submitted by Carroll and O'Dea Solicitors, states the arrest and prosecution caused Mrs Digance 'injury, loss, damage and harm'. Premier Peter Malinauskas will fight the lawsuit from Mrs Digance in the South Australian Supreme Court. NewsWire / David Beach Credit: NewsWire 'The circumstances giving rise to the causes of action immediately caused the cancellation of Mrs Digance's employment, permanently damaged Mrs Digance's prospects of further employment, required Mrs Digance to incur substantial legal expenses in defending herself against the prosecution and required Mrs Digance to incur medical expenses,' the claim states. The lawsuit is directed against both the premier and the South Australian police. 'The members of SA Police conducting the arrest, the search and seizure, the detention, the first bail decision and pursuing the malicious prosecution knew each action was unnecessary, unjustified, unlawful,' the claim states. Mrs Digance is asking for $2.3m in damages. In separate defence claims, both Mr Malinauskas and the SA Police and Prosecution deny Mrs Digance is entitled to the relief claimed and request the court dismiss her suit and cover costs of the proceedings. Mr Malinauskas' defence statement flatly denies allegations that he 'requested' the police pursue a prosecution or that he was acting to suppress the parliamentary inquiry. Annabel Digance wants $2.3m in damages from Mr Malinauskas and the South Australian Police. Supplied Credit: NCA NewsWire 'The first respondent (Malinauskas) admits only that on or about April 9, 2021, he contacted SA Police and told them that if SA Police were of the view that a prosecution of the applicant (Digance) and or her husband was justified, he would co-operate to the extent necessary in that prosecution whenever it was to occur,' the defence claim states. The claim submitted on behalf of the SA Police also rejects Mrs Digance's assertions. 'The investigation undertaken by SAPOL into the blackmail offence was appropriate,' the claim states. The blackmail offence was laid based on information available to SAPOL including the complaint made by the first respondent, the recorded conversations … and other witness and documentary evidence obtained by SAPOL during the course of its investigation. 'The sole purpose for initiating and maintaining the blackmail offence was the proper invocation of the criminal law.' The matter will be heard at the South Australian Supreme Court on Wednesday.
ABC News
9 hours ago
- ABC News
Former SBS newsreader wants parts of lawsuit over Hezbollah tweets to be struck out
A legal row between a former SBS television newsreader and a prominent Israeli Australian over tweets during the Israel–Gaza war has been described by one camp as a case of free speech, and the other as a case of hate speech. The lawsuit against Mary Kostakidis was launched earlier this year by Alon Cassuto, chief executive of the Zionist Federation of Australia, over comments and posts Ms Kostakidis shared on social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. The matter returned to the Federal Court in Adelaide today, where Ms Kostakidis's legal team sought to have elements of the case struck out — a move that was strongly opposed by lawyers for Mr Cassuto, an Australian-Israeli dual citizen. In the legal application that triggered the action earlier this year, Mr Cassuto alleged that posts from Ms Kostakidis featuring comments from Hassan Nasrallah — the now deceased leader of Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group designated by the Australian, the US, the UK and other governments as a terrorist organisation — on January 4 and 13 in 2024 breached the Racial Discrimination Act. According to Mr Cassuto's application, the posts were in breach of the act because they were "reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend, insult, humiliate and/or intimidate Australian Jews and/or Israelis in Australia". The application noted the lawsuit was launched because, after a complaint was made to the Australian Human Rights Commission, the commission subsequently determined there "was no reasonable prospect of the matter being settled by conciliation". Screenshots contained in the statement of claim show the posts in question, including one from January 4 where Ms Kostakidis added comments while reposting another tweet. That post featured a video of Nasrallah, and a caption reporting that the Hezbollah leader had told the Israelis they will never be welcome in the region. Ms Kostakidis's legal team including Stephen Keim SC applied to have elements of the case struck out, describing the posts as falling within the bounds of journalism. "We argue that the reporting of statements by a well-known spokesperson for a party in a major regional conflict is an essential part of news reporting," Mr Keim said. "This may involve reporting offensive statements, for example the widely-reported Access Hollywood tape of the current president of the United States, but no ordinary and reasonable person would be offended by such news reports. "The speech reported in the subject posts were widely regarded as newsworthy … and in reporting the speech, the respondent was acting in accord with orthodox judgements and actions concerning publication." Mr Heim argued that the extracts from Nasrallah's speeches singled out by Mr Cassuto's legal team were not anti-Semitic and were "incapable" of meeting legal definitions of anti-Semitism. "Comment on the direction of the conflict is not a criticism of Jews or Israelis generally," he said. Mr Heim said Ms Kostakidis's comment was similarly "directed to the Israeli government and the state of Israel, and not a criticism of Jewish people in any way", and later drew the following analogy: "At Bledisloe Cup time, strong feelings arise between Australians and New Zealanders, and to criticise the rugby team of New Zealand is not a criticism of New Zealanders completely." But barrister Michael Borsky KC, for Mr Cassuto, argued that sharing the posts did not amount to "a straightforward news report", which would make the defence of a "fair and accurate report" hard to prove. "Our case is that although Mr Kostakidis used to be a newsreader, it's not a straightforward news report, her sharing these posts — particularly with the commentary which we allege is a form of endorsement," he said. Mr Borsky argued against the case being struck out, arguing that it should proceed to trial. He said while he accepted that "to criticise Israel or the Israeli government is not necessarily anti-Semitic", criticism could sometimes still amount to anti-Semitism. "There is the potential for an act or a statement to be both a criticism of Israel and anti-Semitic," he said. "Where that line is drawn in relation to a particular statement or a particular act is a difficult and important question, which would be determined following consideration of evidence." Mr Borsky further argued that other posts by Ms Kostakidis included equations of Zionism with Nazism, accusations that Israel is a "supremacist apartheid state" and "anti-Semitic conspiracy theories". "Zionism is the support for Jewish people having a home in the community of their ancestral homeland," he said. "Equating Zionism with Nazism is a particularly offensive charge, deliberately selected by many anti-Semites for that very reason, for the very reason that it accuses the victims of the holocaust with committing that crime." Federal Court justice Stephen McDonald reserved his judgement, and said it would not "necessarily be a quick turnaround". Before the hearing on Tuesday, Ms Kostakidis said the case "raises important questions about the limits on free speech". "I'm a strong believer in freedom of the press and the freedom of political expression," she said. "I will defend my right to report news and the right of every journalist to do so and the right of every Australian to engage in public debate." Outside court on Tuesday, Mr Cassuto said the case "is not about free speech, it is about hate speech". "It's deeply offensive and irresponsible when someone with a platform and a following like Mary Kostakidis shares hate speech and shares the calls of a prescribed terrorist organisation," he said. "We've all seen how hatred starts with words and ends with violence. "For the sake of every Australian we have to stand up against racial hatred no matter who is being targeted and no matter who is spreading it."
