Mabo debate: the facts about land
By Peter Boyle
Mining industry lobbyists are trying to frighten the public over
the Aboriginal land rights issue by alleging that Aborigines have
already got back much of the land in Australia. They say that
Aborigines already have or are claiming 48% of the land in the
Northern Territory and 16% of the surface of the continent. They
say that 68% of Australian land is vacant crown land and, after
Mabo, this may be open to Aboriginal claims. But is the
impression they foster with these figures accurate?
Most of the land that has been returned to Aboriginal people is
in the Northern Territory, where the oldest and least restrictive
land rights act was passed in 1976. Claire Colyer, a journalist
for Land Rights News (a publication of the Northern and Central
Land Councils), told Green Left Weekly that less than 39% of the
NT has been regained by the original owners, and about 90% of
this was arid desert or tropical wet land, unsuitable for
pastoral purposes and of little interest to Europeans until the
mineral and energy boom.
In the NT and elsewhere, all the arable and most valuable land is
covered by freehold title or long-
term leases and cannot be claimed under the NT Land Rights Act or
under the principles laid down in the Mabo judgment of the High
Court. However, the NT land councils have purchased 12 pastoral
properties for traditional owners who had not been able to claim
any land under the act. According to Land Rights News, most of
these had been run down by their previous European owners.
Land grabbers
So who are the real land grabbers? Back in 1985, the National
Farmer magazine reported that the bulk of all privately owned
farming properties were owned by only 27 wealthy families and
individuals. Since then, the agricultural sector has been further
monopolised, as thousands of small farmers have been forced to
give up their land.
Several of these wealthy landed families feature in the Business
Review Weekly's list of the richest 200 individuals. Most of the
rest were on last year's list but have temporarily dropped off.
No Aboriginal landowners (or any other Aborigines) were on the
Rich 200 list.
Some of the big landowners on the Rich 200 include:
* The Kidman family, which inherited a private cattle empire
acquired by Sir Sidney Kidman in the last century which extended
to 3.5% of the continent's surface. The family still has more
than 12 million hectares in Western Australia, South Australia,
Victoria and Queensland. The Ayer and Glover families were bene-
ficiaries of this empire. The Kidman family's wealth is estimated
to be $60 million.
* John Kahlbetzer, the 33rd richest individual, is a
cotton/cattle/sheep baron who lives in Buenos Aires but runs more
than 13 major properties in NSW and owns considerable commercial
property in Sydney. He also has mining interests. His wealth is
estimated at $160 million.
* The Murdoch family, besides their global media empire, have
extensive rural properties in NSW and WA. Their wealth is
estimated at $4.5 billion.
* The Roche family, with a wealth of $75 million, made their mil-
lions from subdividing a huge urban property empire in Adelaide
and Perth. They also have cattle, sheep and wine interests.
* The Paspalis-Paspaley family own most of Darwin CBD and
properties in Sydney, and they dominate the pearling industry.
Their wealth is $100 million.
* The McBride family, sheep barons, own or manage almost 1 mil-
lion hectares of land in SA and WA. Their wealth is $45 million.
An analysis of the Rich 200 list shows that 42 individuals or
families on the list made substantial portions of their wealth
from agriculture or agribusiness, 13 from mining, and 54 from
property
speculation.
Of the richest 30, 10 made substantial portions of their collec-
tive wealth of $4.08 billion from property speculation, seven
with a collective wealth of $2.2 billion from agriculture or
agribusiness and two with a collective wealth of $680 million
from mining.
Mineral rights
One of the biggest protests from the mining monopolies and their
parliamentary supporters is that Aboriginal land rights threaten
the mining industry. However, the crown continues to assert
ownership of mineral rights in the NT and in every other state,
and this is not contradicted by any existing land rights
legislation.
Under the NT Land Rights Act traditional Aboriginal landowners
have the limited right (all major known mining deposits in the NT
were excluded from the act when it was passed!) to refuse
exploration for minerals - subject to the ``national interest''.
While governments extract royalties, the lion's share of the
profit from mining goes to the mostly transnational mining
companies. These companies made up 129 of the biggest 500
companies in Australia and made a collective net profit of $1.35
billion last year.
In the United States and many other countries, the mining compa-
nies have to share these profits with the indigenous or non-
indigenous owners of the land on which they are found. This has
not caused an investment flight. In a recent agreement between
the Canadian government and the Inuit (indigenous people in the
north of that country), the latter were given mineral rights.
Mining companies are still eager to operate in northern Canada.
At present in some states, such as WA, private (freehold) owners
of land have the right to compensation for mining on their land,
yet the mining lobby is reluctant to agree to even this limited
right for owners of ``native title''.
The mining lobby claims that land rights claims could
block or hold up mining ventures. However, the experience in the
NT, where the biggest Aboriginal land holdings exist, prove that
Aboriginal people are not consistently anti-mining. According to
Land Rights News, to date there have been 471 applications for
mining exploration permits. Only 372 of these have been passed to
land councils. Forty-
seven have since been withdrawn, 54 have been consented to by
Aboriginal owners, and 121 are under negotiation. Only 150 - less
than half - have been refused.
Central Land Council director Kumantjay Ross says that Aboriginal
landowners ``are not opposed to development and are willing to
listen to genuine proposals, provided they will be properly
compensated and their interests are protected''.
All state governments and the federal Labor government are taking
the mining industry's side in the present Mabo debate. The Court
government in WA wants to reverse the Mabo decision to recognise
limited native title, Victoria's Kennett government has intro-
duced special legislation to protect mining interests, and the NT
government (with federal support) has brought in special laws to
protect the McArthur River mine.
On July 23 a spokesperson for Prime Minister Paul Keating told
the Melbourne Age that the federal government was also prepared
to introduce special legislation to exempt CRA (net profit $283
million last year) from any Mabo claims in north Queensland.