All but absent from the debate over Native Title, in the major cities at least, is some appreciation of what is happening in the bush. It is not difficult to understand why farming families feel frustrated. Misrepresentation is rife. Farmers have suddenly become “pastoralists” (with its silvertail connotation), and are portrayed as foreign, fabulously wealthy or both. When it has been pointed out that many of the properties vulnerable to Native Title claims are family farms, and battling ones at that, it is argued that such properties are marginal and should be turned into national parks anyway!
The leasehold property run by our correspondent and her husband has been in their family for three generations. Two Native Title claims have already been issued on behalf of Aboriginal groups unknown in the area. She has, understandably, asked that her identity be withheld.
“Our property is in the Western Division of New South Wales and consists of pastoral leases in perpetuity. One of the terms of these leases is that the leases must be used for the leaseholders own benefit. The property has been in my husband’s family for three generations, a period of sixty six years.
Sheer hard work, good management and the returning of most of the profits back to the land in the form of improvements such as fencing, road building, windmill repair and maintenance, the installation and extension of stock water pipelines, establishment of ,medic pastures, sowing of crops, installing of irrigation around the homestead block and constant attention to stock breeding programmes, which entails the purchase of suitable stud sires annually, has made the property a success. My husband mostly works seven days a week.
Contrary to Mr Keating’s comments on pastoral leaseholders and their leases, made on a recent 7.30 Report, our property is not 1,000 sq miles; Aborigines do not roam our land; and we do use every bit of our land. No Aborigines have lived on our property in the sixty six years it has been in my husband’s family, nor to our knowledge, do Aborigines hunt, fish or use our property for tribal activities. However, we now have two Native Title claims on our land, as do many pastoral leaseholders in our area.
Do people realise that pastoral leaseholders, such as ourselves have titles to our leases? We rent a title from the Government. All improvements are done by us. Virtually all we have invested in our property. 50% of my husband’s property was inherited, the other 50% was purchased from a neighbour, paying market prices for this land, the same as purchasing freehold. We pay a yearly rental for all the leases. When my husband’s father died, his leasehold property was valued as freehold for the purpose of levying death duties. We pay rates and taxes, for which all property owners are responsible.
That we love our land and have a strong affiliation with it, should not be doubted. We have survived floods, fires, droughts (the current drought is in its fourth year) and poor commodity prices. We stay on our land through “thick and thin”. One Aboriginal leader stated that we pastoralists are the Kerry Packers and the Sultans of Brunei of Australia. I can assure you, we are not. However on our property, we do produce valuable export commodities, which benefit all Australians.
In 1993, we were told by then Labor Prime Minister, Mr Keating, that pastoral leases extinguished Native Title it was widely reported that an amount in excess of Au$1 billion was allocated to the Aboriginal Land Fund as compensation for this. I have since read that this Au$1 billion plus will return Au$45 million annually to the Aboriginal community. If this is so, Aborigines should be well placed to purchase all the land they desire in Australia.
Last year the High Court gave its Wik decision, which turned all this upside down, for in spite of Mr Keating’s assurances in 1993, Native Title prevailed on our land.
Does this mean that Aborigines have Native Title on Crown Land, including leasehold land, Au$1 billion plus compensation, and any further compensation which may be awarded on any of the 667 land claims lodged to date?
Church leaders, and others who support Native Title, defend their right to speak out on behalf of the disadvantaged members of our society, perhaps should be prepared to share their own land, along with leaseholders, so that Native Title can be borne more equally.
On the 7.30 Report (November 24, 1997), it was stated that taxpayers would be funding the upgrading of pastoral leases to freehold. This has never been said to us and has not been considered an option to my knowledge. Perhaps more relevant to taxpayers is the prospect of them having to fund massive payouts to Aboriginal groups in the form of compensation, when many of the Native Title land claims are unsuccessful.
I might add that my husband has never prevented anyone from entering our property, because of their race or colour.