UPDATE: A reliable source, finally - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/01/2614089.htm. Whether this merits inclusion or not is up for debate ("a claim of sovereignty and a bill for $50 million in back-rent was rejected in 2009 on the basis that Native Title had been extinguished in the 1800s," perhaps?). It does say that there is some land to the north that may be subject to Native Title, but it appears to refer to the 2000 claim which does not specifically relate to Marble Hill, as discussed at length above. May I suggest that both Mifren and I deal ourselves out of this debate and get another WP:3O.