I now turn to what I see as a failing of the book. It is not until Chapter 7 that Bartlett attempts to provide a philosophical framework for the concept of native title. When a framework is finally provided, it does not position native title law within the broader debate on Indigenous land rights. Also, these and other terms, which are central to Bartlett's philosophical framework, are not adequately defined. Bartlett discusses equality in many guises.
Equality is used descriptively.
Equality is used prescriptively. Finally, the absence of equality is used pejoratively. To rely on the concept of equality, more space needed to be devoted to discussing the concept at the outset. If the statement refers to Indigenous law, then equality suggests all common law land titles are an unlawful encroachment on Indigenous land. Of course, the assumption is that the phrase refers to equality before the common law.