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 beneficiaries 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 millions 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 million 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 collective 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 companies 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 introduced 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.