OPINION PIECE

7 May 1997

So should the National Party's hysterical insistence on wiping out native title on pastoral leases.

Both approaches are a direct result of one of the biggest cons in our history. The campaign against native title is a triumph of distortion and misrepresentation - orchestrated by a small but powerful group intent on ripping off the public and depriving Aboriginal people of very modest property rights.

Pastoralists lost nothing in the Wik decision. The High Court confirmed their existing rights. But it is your land that both plans seek to hand over to pastoralists - forcing Australians to give up public ownership of vast tracts of the country.

And the elite group who'd benefit from this extraordinary 'free gift' includes some of the nation's wealthiest corporations and people - Janet Homes a Court and Kerry Packer to name just two. Not to mention foreign investors such as the Sultan of Brunei.

The anti-native title campaign has left many Australians with the false impression that all farms and even city dwellers are in danger of losing their property rights because of the Wik decision.

A key part of the campaign is the blurring of the distinction between farms and pastoralists to make it seem as though every farm, indeed every rural activity or enterprise in Australia is at risk. Itıs not.

I repeat: Wik confirmed the existing rights of pastoralists. They have lost nothing but they're trying to convince the public otherwise.

The vast majority of Australian farms are unaffected by Wik in Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT, for instance, there are no pastoral leases, and in NSW pastoral leases are essentially confined to the western division of the state.

It's estimated that there are around 10,000 pastoral leases Australia-wide, covering more than 40 per cent of the continent.

In the Northern Territory, there are only 227 pastoral leases - a small group of landholders with an inordinate amount of lobbying power.

Pastoralists pay peppercorn rents. In the Northern Territory rent is set at one per cent of the unimproved value of the land a year - that can mean paying just a few thousand dollars a year for the privilege of using thousands of hectares of public land.

Pastoral leases developed last century in response to a land grab by squatters, who were taking up land without government approval or licence. With government reluctant to legitimise the squatters' actions and keen to protect the rights of Aboriginal people, leases developed. Squatters paid rent to use the land for particular purposes, but the Crown retained ownership and ultimate control over the land.

A pastoral lease gives the pastoralist the right to use the land for pastoral purposes (ie grazing cattle and developing the infrastructure necessary to do that), but not exclusive possession. Wik found that native title can co-exist with the rights of pastoral lessees, but that where there is a conflict of interests, the rights of the pastoralist prevail.

Last century Secretary of the State of Earl Grey, pointed this out to the Governor of NSW in a letter. "(Pastoral leases) give only the exclusive rights of pasturage in the runs, not the exclusive occupation of the land, as against Natives using it for their ordinary purposes."

Generations later pastoral leaders are either confused or deliberately misleading the public about the rights conferred by pastoral leases.

Bob Lee, executive director of the Northern Territory Cattleman's Association, told ABC Radio's Country Hour on May 6, 1997, "Our position has not changed...we require a continuation of the status quo, really, exclusive possession of their leases as far as the pastoralists are concerned". Pastoral leases do not confer exclusive possession.

Aboriginal people understand much of the community has been manipulated to be fearful of native title.

We're worried that wiping out the rights of one group of Australians because of intense pressure from a powerful group would set a dangerous precedent. Who would be the next to be targeted?

We also believe there is a better way to deal with the issues than extinguishment.

The National Indigenous Working Group on Native Title has developed a plan that respects the title rights of all stakeholders.

We support legislation confirming the existing rights of pastoralists and a tighter threshold test for native title claimants. Our model provides for flexible negotiated agreements which can make everyone involved a winner, providing certainty, jobs and security for regional Australia. In contrast, the opponents of native title offer uncertainty, endless and expensive court battles, social division, job losses, welfare dependency for indigenous people and international embarrassment.

The better choice is clear.