limited sub-group of Aborigines able to satisfy the very
stringent criteria for 'traditional ownership' laid down by the
Act. It does not provide a basis for land rights for all Aborigines
wherever they may be and regardless of whether or not they
are living a quasi-traditional life and able to prove their
continued physical and spiritual interest in their country. If
the purpose of the land rights movement is to 'confer on
Aboriginal people not only justice and compensation' and also
to 'provide an economic base on which to build a future' for
Aborigines in general, then clearly this narrow view of land
rights will not help very much.

Instead of this relatively well-defined, but restrictive definition
of land rights, some have urged that we should not rely upon
traditional Aboriginal concepts of land ownership to provide
a basis for rights to land, but broadly interpret these concepts
so that the whole community occupying, or having customary
rights of occupancy to a given territory, would have rights
to ownership of that territory, even if they are not, in the strict
sense, 'traditional owners'. Since land rights are granted
within the system of Australian law, it is argued, Aboriginal
ideas of land tenure have to be translated into terms that the
Australian law recognises. Thus, if an Aboriginal group can
show that it has customary occupancy and use of a certain
terrain then this is a ground for legal ownership of that land.
For example, it has been said that:

most reserve residents on the larger Queensland reserves are
not descendants of the traditional owners of the reserve sites
(Cherbourg, Woorabinda, Yarrabah, and Palm Island). They
are people who have been herded about like cattle, are of
mixed descent, and are not homogeneous groupings. But they
do have a strong affiliation with the land on which they live.
It is the only security they have known during their history of
dispossession and abuse. They remain outsiders to the
community at large. They need the guaranteed choice
between a community life on their lands of historical
significance and an urban existence. For them, the land is
home, the locus for bush tucker, the holiday camp, and the
symbol of the left-overs the white man has spared them. Now
they see it as theirs by right and justice.

Another observer has this to say:

My own view is that land should be granted to the group or
community living there, leaving Aborigines free to work out
their own method of administration. What we have now is
legislation which calls for Aborigines to publicly demonstrate
their religious beliefs, which is probably more anathema to
them than to us. The legislation involves a determination of
Aboriginal law by European courts, and purports to control
how Aborigines are to make decisions without really
considering Aboriginal political processes. In one sense,

-9-