[cskinner]

To expand on this for non-Australian readers. Native title in Australia stems from the Mabo court case in 1992.

IANAL, but my understanding of this case is that the High Court overturned the concept of terra nullius in Australia. Essentially meaning that the Crown (as in the government formed after European settlement) never had valid title to the lands where native title holders maintained a connection to their traditional lands.

Hence, addressing questions from other commenters, since the government never had title nor any rights to the native title lands, they could not have placed any caveat or restriction on the rights of native title holders as to how they use their traditional lands.

[koheripbal]

It's an interesting contradiction I see in the media where activists demand Natives the lose their rights to (sell) the land.

These activists have become the tyrants the claim to fight.

[martopix]

This is understandably a gray area, and a matter of debate. But "tyrants" is certainly not the right word. I cannot speak for this individual case, but in many countries it's forbidden to damage, sell, tear down protected buildings and areas, because they are classified as cultural heritage. In some case it's a crime under international law to destroy cultural heritage even in war. This is just to say that it's perfectly normal to forbid the selling out of certain lands or artifacts, if in the public interest.

[andrepd]

Tyrants? Is there even any developed country where if you have archaeological remains in your property you're allowed to destroy them?