Saw this on another forum the poster is a lawyer.
"King Charles' hereditary claim to sovereignty over the continent of Australia remains deeply flawed at law.
She is actually speaking a truth to power, an important truth not just about our past but our future.
Charles' claim rests on the flag raising and unilateral proclamation of sovereign ownership in the name of his ancestor King George at the ceremony conducted by Cook at Kurnell in 1770.
The legality of that ceremony rests on the legal concept of terra nullius, "nobody's land". In other words you can legally claim sovereignty by proclamation if it is nobody's land.
In fact and in law and so held by the High Court in Mabo, it was somebody's land, the FNP nations.
So you can't or legally it shouldn't be valid to just show up and proclaim you are the sovereign power unilaterally. You can acquire that sovereignty, or more correctly it can be ceded, by negotiation, by treaty with the somebody who actually owns it. as Hobson did on behalf of his King, with the rangatira Maori in NZ in 1840.
The issue of sovereign possession and authority by the British Crown is not live in NZ because of this.
The issue is still very live here, and unless and until is is resolved FNP like Lidia Thorpe and others will continue to raise it, and correctly so.
Whether you agree with how they raise it is up to personal interpretation.
And in spite of the abhorrence felt by many at the idea and the complexity of how it would work, the concept of a treaty that retrospectively cleans up this anomaly is actually a practical solution. A solution to this and other matters.
Never gonna happen with the current leadership or the alternative we have at present, or the public mood evidenced by the Voice vote. But the chant "always was always will be" holds a solid ring of truth unless and until this issue is resolved.
There is a dark shadow over the legal legitimacy of how power is derived and exercised in this country that has existed since 1770. It needs to be dealt with."