18.27 The recognition and classification of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights and interests on land and water has proven to be a challenge to Australian common law. In the first customary land rights lawsuit, Milirrpum v. Nabalco of 1971, Justice Blackburn stated that «there are so few similarities between property because our law . understands this term and the claimants` claims for their clans that I must say that these claims are not of the nature of property interests. [35] Other arguments in favor of agrarian reform focus on the potential environmental benefits of the reform. For example, if reform leads to greater security of land ownership, whether through formal or informal means, then those who use the land will manage it better. [25] 18.39 The examples of water and minerals address both classification issues: is it a property and, if so, who is it? They also concern constitutional questions: is the owner entitled to compensation if property rights are affected by State measures? Both aspects are discussed below. 18.32 The mandate of the ALRC refers to «acquired property rights.» In property law, the term «acquired» is primarily a technical legal term used to distinguish an existing interest from a potential interest. [42] In this study, the ALRC uses the term «acquired property rights» in a broad, not technical, sense. [43] The furniture doctrine, according to which personal property – movable property – can lose its status as personal property and become part of the land. [47] In Yanner v. Eaton, the High Court cited the example of the common law of wild animals or ferae naturae: «In the common law, wild animals were subject only to the most limited property rights. A prosecution for trespassing or conversion would be directed against a person who takes wild animals that have been tamed, or against a person who takes young wild animals born on the land and not yet old enough to fly or escape, and a landowner would have the exclusive right to hunt wild animals on his own land.

to take and kill. Otherwise, no one owned a wild animal»: Yanner/Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351, 366 (Gleeson, Gaudron, Kirby and Hayne JJ.); 80-1 (Gummow J.). See also Blackstone, supra No. 2, Volume II, bk II, Chapter 1, 14. One of the earliest examples of land reform was the Irish Land Acts of 1870-1909. Almost all newly independent countries in Central and Eastern Europe carried out land reforms after the First World War. In most countries, land that had crossed a certain limit (20-500 ha (49-1,236 acres) depending on the region and type of land) was expropriated, in Finland it was reimbursed and paid into a special fund. [31] That is, according to another person exercising his rights: «a direct right to present or future use»: Glenn v Federal Commissioner of Land Tax (1915) 20 CLR 490, 496, 501.See also Planning Commission (WA) v Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd (2004) 221 CLR 30.

The term «acquired» has been used to refer to personal property, including an existing and comprehensive means: Georgiadis v Australian and Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (1994) 179 CLR 297. The four main methods of legal reform are repeal (deletion of a law), creation of a new law, consolidation (amendment of the existing law) and codification. The term «legislative reform» is used in a number of meanings, and some of them are almost completely incompatible with each other. [1] 18.41 Blackstone said that «water is a mobile and wandering thing and must necessarily remain common by natural law»; And all water rights are only «temporary, temporary, edible.» [64] At common law, even if the water itself was not possessable, a landowner had certain rights as to whether the water was under the land («seeping water») or in a watercourse running through or adjacent to the property. 18.53 In ICM Agriculture Pty Ltd v. Commonwealth (ICM case), the High Court had to consider whether certain licences fell within the constitutional provision relating to the acquisition of property on equitable terms in section 51 (xxxi). This issue will be discussed below. 18.35 The extent of a landowner`s ownership includes the extent of title in the air above and the land below.