HARARE, Zimbabwe - Zimbabwe's opposition won the vote for speaker of the first parliament since disputed elections in March, apparently claiming votes even from the ruling party of autocratic President Robert Mugabe on Monday amid stalled talks over sharing power.

Shortly before the vote, police seized two opposition politicians as they entered parliament to be sworn in.

Despite the arrests, Lovemore Moyo won the key position by 110 votes to 98.

Mugabe's ZANU-PF party had been expected to win the vote but failed to put up a candidate. Instead, Moyo ran against a leader from a splinter opposition faction, Paul Themba-Nyathi.

ZANU-PF legislator Walter Mzemdi said the former ruling party decided not to nominate a candidate because "the figures were against us." He said ZANU-PF legislators were instructed to vote for Nyathi.

Moyo's election brought cheers from the opposition, with legislators breaking into an electoral song declaring "ZANU-PF is finished!"

Moyo, who as speaker would preside over parliamentary debate, promised to "work toward a professional parliament that will represent the true wishes of the people of Zimbabwe."

If it continues to win support from legislators in other parties, the opposition could block legislation in parliament and funding for major ministries. But Mugabe still retains power to dissolve parliament and rule through emergency regulations by presidential decree.

The opposition Movement for Democratic Change won more seats than Mugabe's party at March elections for the first time since Zimbabwe's independence in 1980, when Mugabe took power.

But Monday's arrests and a government announcement that Mugabe had appointed loyalists to several posts were likely to fuel opposition accusations that the president is undermining stalled power-sharing negotiations.

One of those arrested, Sure Mudiwa, was held only briefly and later was among 208 of 210 lawmakers sworn in. But the second, Elia Jembere, did not reappear.

Jembere was among seven opposition activists police have said they were seeking, alleging they were involved in election violence. Mudiwa was not on the list, and the two uniformed and three plainclothes officers who made the arrests did not say why nor where the two were being taken.

In a statement, the opposition party said police also tried to arrest a third member, who is on a team trying to negotiate the power-sharing agreement, but he "was rescued by other MDC members of parliament."

Police spokesman Wayne Bvudzijena said he was unaware of Monday's arrests, and added "it would be illegal for anyone to be arrested while they were proceeding to parliament."

Independent human rights groups have said Mugabe's forces were responsible for most of the violence since the opposition won the most seats in March 29 legislative elections. Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai beat Mugabe and two other candidates in presidential elections held alongside the legislative balloting, but did not gain the simple majority of votes needed to avoid a runoff. Mugabe and Tsvangirai have entered into power-sharing negotiations.

Opposition spokesman Nelson Chamisa said the Movement for Democratic Change remained determined to take up seats in parliament, which Mugabe was to open officially Tuesday. Chamisa charged the arrests were politically motivated, an attempt by Mugabe's ZANU-PF party to regain control of parliament.

Tsvangirai's party has 100 seats in the 210-seat legislature; Mugabe's party 99; and a faction that broke away from the opposition has 10. An independent politician who broke away from Mugabe's party, Jonathan Moyo, has the remaining seat.

Jonathan Moyo seconded the candidacy of Nyathi, indicating at least one ZANU-PF legislator must have voted for Tsvangirai's candidate, Lovemore Moyo. The two Moyos are not related.

ZANU-PF legislator Walter Mzemdi said the former ruling party decided not to nominate a candidate because "the figures were against us." He said ZANU-PF legislators were instructed to vote for Nyathi.

Tsvangirai had criticized the reconvening of parliament given the deadlock in power-sharing talks mediated by South African President Thabo Mbeki.

Leaked documents from the talks show Tsvangirai balked at signing a deal based on an offer making him prime minister with limited powers and answerable to Mugabe, who would remain president.

VIENNA, Austria - An inspection agreement crucial to a landmark nuclear deal between India and the United States came under scrutiny Friday by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The Washington-New Delhi pact calls for allowing the sale of atomic fuel and technology to India, a country that has not signed international nonproliferation accords and has tested nuclear weapons. It would be a reversal of more than three decades of U.S. policy.

To implement the deal, India must strike separate agreements with the IAEA and with the Nuclear Suppliers Group of countries that export nuclear material before it can go to the U.S. Congress for approval.

The so-called safeguards agreement would effectively allow United Nations monitors access to 14 of India's 22 existing or planned nuclear reactors by 2014. Without IAEA safeguards, India cannot import nuclear technology from NSG nations, including the U.S.

The 35-nation IAEA board of governors meeting Friday is expected to approve it, despite criticism that ambiguous wording in the deal could end up limiting international oversight of India's reactors, and possibly help supply its arms programs with fissile material.

In his opening statement, IAEA Chief Mohamed ElBaradei said the agreement was not comprehensive or full in scope but he appeared to give his backing. "It satisfies India's needs while maintaining all of the agency's legal requirements," he said.

Noting the agreement was of indefinite duration, he said the agency expected to start implementing the deal at new facilities in 2009.

The chief U.S. envoy to the IAEA said agency monitoring of the Indian facilities would be a "net gain" for global nonproliferation. "The agreement is a sound one based on the IAEA's approved safeguards system," Gregory L. Schulte said.

But Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, said the deal raises fundamental questions and needs clarification.

"The question is: Can India end safeguards if fuel supplies are interrupted, even if they've conducted a nuclear test, or does the agreement require permanent, unconditional safeguards?"

Pakistan, India's neighboring archrival, has been vocal in its opposition to the deal. The two nuclear-armed countries have fought three wars since independence in 1947.

In a letter to members of the IAEA board and the NSG, Islamabad warned that the safeguards agreement "threatens to increase the chances of a nuclear arms race in the subcontinent."

The U.S.-India deal is considered to be one of President Bush's top foreign policy initiatives, and the administration is eager to tie up loose ends before leaving office. Diplomats said Washington has been lobbying heavy handedly to quell potential detractors ahead of Friday's vote.

Some analysts argue the U.S.-India deal reinforces the perception of a double standard for the nonproliferation regime.

"It strengthens the impression that there are 'good' and 'bad' nonproliferators," said Mark Fitzpatrick, director of the Non-Proliferation Program for the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

CANBERRA - An Australian lesbian couple have lost a controversial court battle after trying to sue their doctor for having healthy twins from an in vitro fertilisation procedure (IVF), with doctors on Friday praising the verdict.

"If there's an outcome which is a healthy, live baby, these things shouldn't end up in the courts," Dr Paul Jones, from the doctors' body the Australian Medical Association, told Australian radio on Friday.

The couple had sought about A$400,000 ($385,000) in compensation from their obstetrician after they had healthy twin girls instead of one baby, telling the court the stress of the second baby had damaged their relationship.

But the Supreme Court in Canberra dismissed the civil case and ruled the doctor was not negligent for implanting two embryos instead of one during the IVF procedure.

The case started in September 2007 and sparked an angry debate about the value of children and whether gay couples should have access to assisted fertility programs, with public reaction overwhelmingly against the lesbian couple.

At the time the couple, who cannot be named, issued a statement saying the case was never about their love for their twin girls, now 4 years old, but about a doctor's failure to comply with their request for only one child.

Australians undergo about 50,000 IVF cycles each year, with 10,000 IVF babies born in the past year, accounting for about one in every 33 births.

A Sydney mother with two sets of twins -- the first twins coming from IVF -- told Sydney's Daily Telegraph newspaper she could understand the desperation that would encourage the women to sue, but said the court action was misguided.

"There is something so terribly sad about a coupe who view the birth of healthy twin girls as a mistake for which they should be compensated," said Jenny Wills, whose two sets of twins were born 17 months apart.

Karadzic, a psychiatrist turned die-hard Serbian nationalist politician, was arrested by Serbian forces and taken before the country's war crimes court on Monday, indicating imminent extradition to the U.N. war crimes tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands.
"The questioning is over," investigating judge Milan Dilparic said Tuesday, referring to the first step in a legal process that includes presenting Karadzic with the indictment and allowing three days for him to appeal any decision to extradite him.
While Serbia braced for a possible reaction from ultra-nationalists who are believed to have helped shelter Karadzic over the years, Bosnian Muslims jammed the streets of Sarajevo early Tuesday in celebration of the arrest.
Karadzic is charged with masterminding the deadly siege of Sarajevo and mass killings that the U.N. war crimes tribunal described as "scenes from hell, written on the darkest pages of human history." They include the 1995 massacre of 8,000 Muslims in Srebrenica, Europe's worst slaughter since World War II.
Tribunal officials still had no clear idea Tuesday morning when he would be transferred. If a court approves Karadzic's extradition, he can still appeal and that could hold up his transfer for days or even weeks.
"We simply have no details," about a possible transfer timetable, prosecution spokeswoman Olga Karvan said. "We expect him soon."
Karadzic would be the 44th Serb suspect handed over to the U.N. tribunal. If that happened, he would live in the same block in which his political mentor, former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, died in 2006 while on trial for genocide.
Karadzic's alleged partner in the persecution and "cleansing" of tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims and Croats, former Bosnian Serb military chief Ratko Mladic, remains at large.
Serbia has been under increasing international pressure to find Karadzic and turn him over. Still, his arrest came as a surprise to many. His whereabouts had been a mystery to U.N. war crimes prosecutors unlike those of Mladic, who had last been spotted living in Belgrade in 2005.
Serbian President Boris Tadic's office said Karadzic, 63, was arrested "in an action by the Serbian security services."
A Serbian police source, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not allowed to talk to the media, said Karadzic was seized in raid in a Belgrade suburb after weeks of surveillance of his safe house and a tip from a foreign intelligence service.
But Karadzic's attorney said the arrest occurred Friday on a bus. "He just said that these people showed him a police badge and than he was taken to some place and kept in the room. And that is absolutely against the law what they did," Sveta Vujacic told AP Television News.
Heavily armed special forces were deployed around the court in Belgrade as dozens of Karadzic supporters gathered nearby. Several were arrested after attacking reporters in front of the courthouse. Karadzic's brother, Luka, was also seen arriving at the location in central Belgrade.
Serbian police also deployed throughout central Belgrade as well as in front of the U.S. Embassy, which was targeted in nationalist rioting over Kosovo's declaration of independence in February.
In Sarajevo, residents poured into the streets singing, chanting, calling everyone they know. News of the Karadzic's arrest spread throughout the Bosnian capital within minutes — even before it was reported by local media.
More than a decade ago, the Serbs starved, sniped and bombarded Sarajevo's center from strongholds in Pale and Vraca high above the city, controlling nearly all roads into and out.
Sarejevo's inhabitants were kept alive only by a thin lifeline of food aid and supplies provided by UN donors and peacekeepers, and risked their lives merely walking down the street, shopping in a market or driving on one of the main roads, which became known as "Sniper Alley."
The siege, which began in April 1992, was not officially lifted until February 1996, after NATO intervention and the implementation of the Dayton Peace Accords. During that time, an estimated 10,000 people had died in and around the city.
The charges against Karadzic, last amended in May 2000, include genocide, extermination, murder, deportation, inhumane acts, and other crimes committed against Bosnian Muslim, Bosnian Croat and other non-Serb civilians in Bosnia during the 1992-1995 war.

TOYAKO, Japan - A joint gathering of major developed and developing nations on Wednesday agreed that climate change was "one of the great global challenges of our time" and pledged to back a United Nations effort to conclude new climate pact by 2009. The major economies said they supported longterm and midterm goals for greenhouse-gas reductions, but endorsed no targets.

It came a day after the Group of Eight major industrial democracies set a goal of halving heat-trapping emissions that contribute to global warming by 2050.

The U.S.-led, 17-member group issued a final statement on the sidelines of the Group of Eight summit in northern Japan.

"We support a shared vision for long-term cooperative action, including a long-term global goal for emission reductions, that assures growth, prosperity, and other aspects of sustainable development," the expanded group said.

But the developing nations invited to the gathering were not ready to go as far as supporting the 50 percent reduction by 2050.

Jim Connaughton, chairman of President Bush's Council of Environmental Quality, said that "several" of the emerging economies were willing to support the target, but not enough to allow that language to be put in the declaration. He did not say which nations.

The White House did not speak of a setback; the fact that the group met as one and vowed to work together to reduce emissions "will give us greater confidence and commitments as we go to next year," said Connaughton.

The expanded group included China and India. They were invited to sit at the table with the Group of Eight: the U.S., Japan, Britain, Germany, France, Canada, Italy and Russia.

The statement on Wednesday also pledged to support a U.N.-led effort to conclude a new global warming pact by the end of next year.

Environmentalists, however, deplored the statement as meaningless without any targets.

"This whole initiative has been a wild goose chase and hasn't brought anything constructive to the U.N. talks," said Antonio Hill, of the aid group Oxfam International, an advocacy group that works on climate change and other causes.

Developing nations such as China and India have criticized the G-8's position statement for failing to state clearly what wealthy nations' commitments are, and that opposition was reflected in the lack of a longterm target in Wednesday's communique among the broader group.

Bush has pushed the so-called Major Economies Meeting to gather the countries most responsible for the greenhouse gases being emitted today.

Critics have attacked the grouping for excluding nations, such as small-island states, who will suffer most from the effects of global warming, such as rising sea levels.

In its own statement, the G-8 did not specify a base year for its proposed 50 percent cut, and the actual emissions reductions and the effect on the environment could vary hugely depending on what is eventually decided. Reductions from 2005 levels, for instance, would be far less than from 1990 levels, as in the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

Still, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said it was essential to set a long-term goal for global greenhouse emissions by 2050. He said the world cannot afford to wait until 2009, when nations are planning to try to conclude a new global warming treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol when its first phase expires in 2012.

The United States has never ratified the Kyoto treaty, with Bush complaining that it puts too much of a burden on the U.S. and other developed countries to reduce emissions while developing giants such as China and India are given a freer rein to pollute even as they vigorously compete with America around the world.

Bush will leave office next January, and both major candidates to succeed him have said they are willing to go further in cutting back American emissions.

The G-8 statement solidified a pledge made at the last summit in Germany a year ago to seriously consider such a long-term target.

But the move fell far short of demands by some developing countries and environmentalists pushing for deeper cuts by 2050 and a firm signal from wealthy countries on what they are willing to do on the much tougher midterm goal of cutting emissions by 2020.

"To be meaningful and credible, a long-term goal must have a base year, it must be underpinned by ambitious midterm targets and actions," said Marthinus van Schalkwyk, South African Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. "As it is expressed in the G-8 statement, the long-term goal is an empty slogan."

De Facto “War On The Poor” Being Waged By Environmental Extremists
Congress of Racial Equality Charges That Polar Bear Listing, Climate Change Schemes Are Disproportionately “Enslaving” Low-Income Families

Anchorage, AK (June 4, 2008) – Environmental extremists in Alaska and across the Lower 48 are waging a de facto “war on the poor” through policies such as the threatened species listing of the polar bear and climate change proposals like the Lieberman-Warner-Boxer legislation, according to Roy Innis, Chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality.

"Those who are pushing these extremist policies are trying to hamstring Alaska’s and America’s ability to produce American energy,” Innis said in a keynote address to the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Resource Development Council of Alaska. “That will raise the price of energy and the basic cost of living. And that amounts to de facto war on the poor.”

Innis explained that that higher energy prices disproportionately impact the poor. “The average medium income family in America devotes about a nickel on the dollar to energy costs,” he said. “The average low-income family devotes 20 cents on the dollar to energy cost. Truly poor families must spend up to 50 cents on the dollar. And, here in Alaska where we rely so much on diesel fuel for electricity, the burden is probably even higher for many native Alaskan families.”

"In Colorado, a recent study found that homeless families with children cited high energy bills as one of the two main reasons they became homeless," he said.

Low-income families and working poor will be the “biggest losers” from both the polar bear listing under the Endangered Species Act and climate change legislation such as Lieberman-Warner in Congress.

“There are seven deadly sins against the poor inherent in the polar bear listing,” Innis explained.

1. It is based on faulty data and highly speculative science.
2. It will hurt the polar bear as a species, because it will tie up locally led polar bear conservation efforts into the straightjacket of the highly inflexible Endangered Species Act.
3. It will deal a body blow to consumers because of it will constrict energy supply and raise prices on virtually everything that we buy.
4. It will deal a body blow to our economy because of the flood of destructive lawsuits it will unleash.
5. It will visit the worst economic harm upon the low-income families and further handcuff the poor into the bondage of poverty.
6. It will put environmental groups and radical lawyers in charge of America’s climate change policy instead of our duly elected political representatives.
7. It will weaken America by limiting our ability to provide American energy to Americans. That makes us more dependent on foreign nations that are downright hostile to our nation and who give our petro-dollars to terrorists who target and kill Americans.”

Innis also said the Lieberman-Warner-Boxer climate change bill is “all pain for no climate gain.”

“This bill will raise gasoline and diesel prices further, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It amounts to the largest tax increase in U.S. history at $1 trillion, also according to the CBO. It will comprise the largest expansion of the federal government since the New Deal. It is the biggest pork bill ever contemplated with trillions of dollars in giveaways. And, those giveaways will be paid by families and workers in the form of lost jobs, higher gas, power and heating bills, and more expensive consumer goods,: he said.

“Finally, it will not result in a detectable impact on the climate. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, by 2050 Lieberman-Warner-Boxer would only lower global CO2 concentrations by less than 1.4% without additional international action. That is barely measurable,” he said.

“Too many government leaders have bought into the predictions of environmental Armageddon that we hear from radical environmental groups,” he said. “Instead, our government leaders need the same moral courage we had in the 1960s. We cannot allow environmental radicals to pass economic Jim Crow laws on their way to ending the American dream.

China's millionaires' club is expanding rapidly and many new members are women who don't even blink when asked to pay a cool $10,000 for a cocktail dress from a top international designer.

"The Chinese are the newcomers to the global market," said Sebastian Suhl, Asia-Pacific chief executive of Italian fashion house Prada, which has nine stores in China.

"They're very hungry to learn about fashion. Fashion represents obviously status, but luxury is also a kind of bridge to the modern world for them."

As the Chinese economy surged more than 10 percent annually over the past five years, the country boasted 345,000 U.S. dollar millionaires by the end of 2006, a third of whom were women, according to a report by Merrill Lynch and consultancy Capgemini.

Some 5,000 mainland Chinese had assets exceeding $30 million, accounting for a third of Asia-Pacific's super-rich.

Even affluent Chinese women, without millions in the bank, are willing to spend their savings on designer fashions, seen as the ultimate status symbol in a communist country that is increasingly becoming preoccupied with the trappings of wealth.

Elegantly dressed Chinese manager Zhang Ning, 30, has never been to France but she likes to wear Hermes which she says is the epitome of style.

"I like its simplicity, it makes me feel elegant," said Zhang, who works as a manager at an electric power company in the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou.

"France for me is elegance: good fashion and wines."

While luxury goods makers such as Louis Vuitton have benefited from booming demand from Chinese keen to show off their newfound wealth by wearing clothes and accessories emblazoned with prestigious logos, Western couture houses such Hermes are now tapping into the more discreet tastes of the super-rich.

"The mainland Chinese market is still very accessories oriented but we believe that will change," said Alex Bolen, chief executive of New York-based couture house Oscar de la Renta, whose sleek cocktail dresses retail for up to $10,000, while its evening gowns approach double that.

"There's definitely a market for the cocktail dress. But what has surprised us, pleasantly, is how rapidly the customer has also adopted our daywear."

full story - Yahoo

Research published at the National Osteoporosis Society (NOS) Conference in Ediburgh in 2007 – the leading conference on osteoporosis in the UK – has revealed a link between physical activity in young children and strong bones.

The study, which was carried out by a team of researchers from the University of Southampton, compared the average amount of physical activity of 200 four year olds with the strength of their bones and found that the children who were more physically active had stronger skeletons.

Dr Nick Harvey, clinical lecturer at the MRC Epidemiology Resource Centre, who managed the project, said: “Evidence suggests that it is likely that the better your bones are when you are young, the better they will be when you are older, and so more physical activity as a child could potentially mean stronger bones in old age.”

Sarah Leyland, spokesperson for the National Osteoporosis Society, comments: “The decline in physical activity in children over the past decade is worrying and this piece of research shows that it could have a detrimental effect on the nation’s bone health.

“Parents should encourage their children to choose the active option whenever possible. Walking short distances and playing in the garden or park instead of watching TV are just a couple of ideas to help small children to become more active.”

One in three women and one in 12 men will suffer from osteoporosis as their bones age. The elderly can help to maintain bone density and limit will further wear and tear on ligaments and joints, safeguarding their mobility and future health by supplementing daily with form of a high quality fish oil supplement such as OmegaFlex.

OmegaFlex uses a vegetarian form of glucosamine called glucosamine hydrochloride, which is the most bio-available form (ie, the most easily absorbed). Until recently, most glucosamine supplements were derived from shellfish.

OmegaFlex also contains omega-3, 6 and 9 fatty acids, all of which are considered to have anti-inflammatory and pain-relieving properties. Omega-3 fatty acids come in the form of EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) from marine fish oil, which scientists believe may block the production of inflammatory substances in the body (i).

A form of omega-6 fatty acids– namely gamma-linolenic acid (GLA) – comes from virgin evening primrose oil (EPO), which has been shown in several studies to reduce joint pain and swelling. Meanwhile conjugated linolenic acid (CLA) is thought to help take the pressure off the joints by reducing body fat – something else athletes are keen on (ii). Omega-9 fatty acids (oleic acid) are provided by extra-virgin olive oil, which are also believed to have anti-inflammatory properties

Research has shown that the ingredients in OmegaFlex may ease joint discomfort by reducing inflammation and pain, while also lubricating the synovial fluid and repairing cartilage.

PARIS - France said on Monday it had held talks with Hamas, in an apparent softening of its support for the U.S.-led policy of isolating the Palestinian Islamist group that seized control of the Gaza Strip last year.

Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner confirmed a report in the French daily Le Figaro quoting a retired ambassador who it said had met senior Hamas officials about a month ago.

"It would be difficult to deny it since the man who is in touch with them has spoken," Kouchner told Europe 1 radio.

"Having contacts is necessary. We had some before the invasion of Gaza."

The move could annoy Washington, which was irritated by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter's meeting in April with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal.

U.S.-brokered peace talks between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have made little tangible progress, and few observers expect them to reach a deal by the end of the year as planned.

Kouchner played down the talks between France and Hamas.

"They are not relations. They are contacts," he said.

"We have to be able to speak to each other if we want to play a role, if we want our emissaries to go to Gaza, firstly. But the real discussion is between Palestinians. We have always said that."

France's envoy, former ambassador Yves Aubin de La Messuziere, told Le Figaro that Hamas officials had repeated to him Meshaal's offer of a long-term accommodation with the Jewish state in its pre-1967 war borders.

Le Figaro said the Hamas leaders he had met included Ismail Haniyeh and Mahmoud al-Zahar.

"They said they were prepared to stop suicide attacks and what surprised me was that the Islamist leaders recognize the legitimacy of Mahmoud Abbas," he said.

"In all the offices I went to, his picture hung next to those of Hamas officials," he added.

Last month, Israel dismissed a Hamas proposal for a six-month Gaza Strip truce during which an embargo on the territory would be lifted.

SYDNEY - Australia's Federal Court on Wednesday upheld a government appeal against the granting to Aborigines of native title over one of the country's major cities, Perth.

The full bench of the court did not go so far as to rule native title no longer existed over Perth, opting instead to refer the question back for another hearing, the national AAP news agency reported from Perth.

In September 2006, a judge handed down a surprise ruling that the area on which the city was built belonged to the indigenous people who lived there before white settlers arrived.

The government appealed the decision, saying it had created uncertainty over the future of state land across the country.

The attorney-general at the time, Philip Ruddock, warned that access for non-indigenous people to public open spaces, including parks and beaches, could be blocked by Aborigines.

While the ruling was a landmark in Australian legal history, it did not mean the local Noongar people would be able to claim private property, and rights groups accused Ruddock of scaremongering.

The three appeal judges ruled Wednesday that the court had made two errors in law involving the basis of the claim, and ordered that the case be reheard.

The government had asked for a ruling that there was no native title over Perth but the appeal judges decided they did not want to take that course.

The new centre-left government which took power in elections last November said it would carefully examine the detail of the decision.

"I have made clear the government's preference, wherever possible, for resolving these issues through negotiation rather than litigation," said Attorney-General Robert McClelland.

The chairman of the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council which led the Perth claim, said it was a frustrating decision for the Noongar people.

"They do feel disappointed. It's been years of hard work," Ted Hart told reporters outside the court.

"But I think they've got some hopes with the decision that we can still go on fighting, and we will."

The final outcome of the Perth case will be watched carefully by groups involved in claims still to be decided across the country, including some for parts of other major cities, including Sydney.