Central Land Council

Rose Report One

Pastoralism

Pastoralism is a land use which is practised in a number of areas on Aboriginal freehold land and by Aboriginal people on land which they hold under pastoral leasehold title. From an environmental perspective Aboriginal involvement with pastoralism is seen as an issue of high priority because of the areas of land involved and the potential of this form of land use to degrade land resources.

Pastoral land use can also conflict with other forms of land use. This issue is important for Aboriginal people seeking to convert a pastoral lease to Aboriginal freehold title thereby giving them the option to change their land use practices. Before looking at the contemporary issues of Aboriginal pastoral management we will attempt to put these into perspective with a brief examination of the history of Aboriginal involvement with the pastoral industry and the influences on Aboriginal management of pastoral enterprises.

Historical Background

The desire to locate new areas for the expansion of pastoral activity was a substantial factor in the settlement of European people in central Australia. The introduction of pastoralism to the area began in the 1870's, and was largely the result of the expansion of such activities from South Australia. Early pastoralism concentrated on the most productive areas of land where there was an ample and consistent water supply. Such resource rich areas were also of great importance to Aboriginal people, who relied on the availability of water as they travelled the country looking for food and maintaining their religious and cultural responsibilities to the land. Differences in perception of how resources should be used led inevitably to conflict.

"Settlers in Australia came principally from societies that placed emphasis on the use of land for the cultivation of crops or the grazing of commercial herds of cattle – in both cases, types of land use that were bound to be at variance with those of Aboriginal hunter-gatherers who practiced neither agriculture or pastoralism"

Aboriginal people today refer to the initial phase of their contact with European people as a "wild time".

Aborigines did not recognise white land ownership, and Europeans did not recognise Aboriginal laws. Aboriginal resistance to the European presence effectively deterred white settlement for a time. The resistance waged against colonials included cattle spearing, theft of property, physical violence extending to murder, and invoking the powers of the land for destructive purposes. In parts of the Territory cattle spearing continued for over 60 years after the pastoralists had first brought their stock onto Aboriginal land. The pastoralists wanted to prevent Aboriginal resistance to their enterprises and to stop Aborigines travelling uncontrolled over the stations.

Their solution was "to encourage Aborigines to 'come in' by offering a supply of regularly slaughtered beasts, butchered by station employees". The move into camps associated with European pastoral enterprises in central Australia did not occur as rapidly as had been the case in the southern states. The act of 'coming in' did not imply anything final as there remained a considerable dynamic for most Aboriginal people between bush and station life. The Government ration system, which provided food and minimal accommodation for station workers in lieu of award wages substantially contributed to this dynamic. Throughout the early pastoral experience Aboriginal involvement in European pastoral enterprises rarely exceeded that of stock workers, labourers and domestic servants and conditions of work, including the level of wages, were generally inequitable. There was little or no opportunity for Aboriginal involvement in management.

A change in these circumstances with wide ranging implications for Aboriginal people resulted from the 1967 referendum which gave responsibility for Aboriginal affairs to the Commonwealth Government. This referendum was preceded by the Wave Hill walk-off in 1966 where the Gurindji people demanded recognition of traditional land rights and the right for traditional owners to make decisions about land use. The results of the referendum had wide reaching implications for Aboriginal people. Apart from being given the right to vote in 1967, under Commonwealth Government control, workers on pastoral stations who were members of the union were awarded equal pay. The equal pay decision radically changed the pastoral industry. Pastoralists reduced their employment of labour from an average of 550 man weeks per year in 1968−69 to about 300 man weeks per year in 1975−76.

As a result of this many Aboriginal people were sacked and/or forced off their land resulting in a further severing of many traditional links with their land. In 1971 a Government commissioned review of the situation of Aborigines on pastoral properties in the NT recommended that the pastoral industry and government work to encourage and strengthen the position of Aboriginal people within the industry. The recommendations were formulated to address the considerable economic and social inequities experienced by Aborigines in the industry and included increasing rights and title to land:

"that appropriate land be obtained by excision or by sub-lease from the pastoralists for Aboriginal communities for limited village, economic and recreational purposes to enable Aborigines to preserve traditional cultural ties and obligations and to provide the community with a measure of autonomy. Such land naturally needs access to water supplies but in addition it should be of such a quality that some supplementary activities may be encouraged on it…..."

In the period between the referendum and the passage of the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act 1976, several cattle stations were purchased with government money by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission (ALFC). These were held as pastoral leases with the title vested in the ALFC on behalf of the traditional owners.

This status, however, resulted in the Aboriginal owners, as lessees, being legally obliged to fulfil the terms of the covenant attached to the lease. This usually included meeting minimum stocking levels and maintaining improvements and station infrastructure. Following the passage of the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act 1976 Aboriginal reserves and leasehold lands were able to be converted to freehold title. This form of title gives Aborigines the right to decide about land and resource use. Under the provisions of the Act all existing Aboriginal reserves were converted immediately to freehold land. Land already held by Aboriginal people, such as cattle stations, and unalienated crown land could also be converted to freehold by going through a land claim process on the basis of proving traditional ownership.

Currently around 40% of the Northern Territory is Aboriginal land under this Act, including a number of properties which were previously part of the pastoral estate.

Aboriginal involvement in pastoralism

The introduction of pastoral land use to central Australia, and the history of involvement that some groups of Aboriginal people have in the pastoral industry, are substantial factors influencing the future aspirations of Aboriginal people. Aboriginal involvement in pastoralism is often seen as a very one sided interaction with little return for Aboriginal people for the labour supplied over an extended period. This perception, however, does not take into account some of the advantages that involvement in the industry gave to Aboriginal people over involvement with other industries. "Although the cattle industry was an oppressive institution… its peculiar characteristics enabled Aborigines to retain a higher level of autonomy than was possible with other industries. The demand for Aboriginal labour ensured that managers would permit residential camps, and the non-intensive nature of pastoral land use allowed space for family camps and visitors.

Continued reliance on bush tucker held back participation in the wider capitalist economy, but it enabled independence and cultural pride." The cattle industry's seasonal character and travelling ethos are also shown to complement Aboriginal lifestyle preferences and allow for the maintenance of cultural activities. "They (Aborigines) could obtain work over a wide expanse of country; those working on one station had access to a vast area and mustered adjoining stations. Many aspects of cattle work involved travel. Sometimes Aborigines followed traditional routes and combined station travel with journeys for specifically Aboriginal purposes… These "holidays" were indeed holy, having religious significance for all.

They were also true "recreation" for, as station workers moved across the landscape, they re-created their ties with the land, and, on a metaphysical level, the land itself". Some Aboriginal people have been able to use their involvement with the pastoral industry to secure European goods while maintaining links with their land and maintaining Aboriginal law. Some groups of Aboriginal people desire to maintain their involvement with pastoral enterprises and to develop enterprises of their own. The acceptance of pastoralism as a valid form of land use by these people demonstrates the ability to accommodate change, and given the opportunity, to incorporate aspects of European land use into contemporary Aboriginal culture. The aspirations of Aboriginal people involved with cattle projects vary a great deal.

Many groups focus on a small family run enterprise providing a "killer herd" which gives a regular supply of meat to the community. Other groups aspire to run ventures along European lines as they have the expectation of financial gain and the "prestige" of managing a cattle business. Thus the motivation for involvement with "cattle business" is partly economic, but there is also an important incentive in the form of involvement with an activity which is seen as part of contemporary Aboriginal social culture.

The stereotype of the "cowboy" with Miller shirt, boots and hat is obvious in many communities and young Aboriginal boys aspire to this role when they grow up. Influences on the development of Aboriginal cattle projects The involvement of Aboriginal people with pastoral enterprises is driven by a number of factors. These include the attitudes of individual pastoralists towards local Aboriginal groups, Aboriginal aspirations based on their history of involvement with the industry, land tenure and access to land, the level of funding and support received from government and non-government agencies and the level of outside influence over project management.

Historical and land tenure issues

In a study of contemporary land use in the Warlpiri/Anmatyere cattle stations Young identifies the impact of non-Aboriginal pastoralism on Aboriginal populations of the region. Conflict over access to water, and instances of mis-treatment of Aborigines led to violence and murder, with subsequent reprisals involving the police and local pastoralists in a series of events which have come to be known as the Coniston massacre.

The current demographic situation on the Aboriginal cattle stations in the region reflects the attitudes of the individual non-Aboriginal pastoralists in the area to the re-settlement of these Aboriginal groups. The differences in attitudes have affected not only the current population structures but also the way in which the communities have approached the organisation of their pastoral leases. Another important influence on the nature of Aboriginal pastoral enterprise development is the outstation movement. The economies of scale in cattle production require that large areas of land be worked as a single unit. Cane and Stanley point to the conflict which can arise over access to particular areas, and to ownership of the cattle grazing on the outstation land. Conflicts can arise where cattle enterprises are run with little understanding or involvement from outstation groups in the region who have the right to control access to their land.

A number of issues affecting the development of Aboriginal cattle projects arise from the nature of the title under which the land is held. Aboriginal freehold title cannot be bought or sold. While this provides security of tenure as was intended, it also prevents Aboriginal land owners from mortgaging the land in order to raise finance. Land held under pastoral lease can be mortgaged to raise development capital. It is ironic that this option for economic support to maintain the viability and continuity of an enterprise is only available to those with limited security of tenure.

Under the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act 1976 the title to Aboriginal freehold land is held by a Land Trust comprising the traditional owners of the area as identified through Aboriginal law. The emphasis is on the rights of the traditional owners over other Aboriginal people. Individuals and families with the knowledge and initiative to develop projects are not able to make decisions about the management of the land without the consent of the Land Trust.

Concern is frequently expressed that the efforts put into the cattle project may be lost because others will take it over as the land really belongs to the Land Trust, and they can't leave it to their children. Several examples have occurred in the past where the grazing rights of the cattle company or outstation group are disputed by the Land Trust. Such disputes can be a constant source of conflict and are seen as a significant problem facing the development of enterprises on Aboriginal land. A number of studies refer to the influence of non-Aboriginal land managers and management objectives in the development of Aboriginal cattle projects.

The direction of these projects has been based on conventional non-Aboriginal views about what constitutes appropriate land management. The goals presented centre on the importance of commercial resource use defined through traditional economic criteria. As such these projects have been implemented with only limited consultation with Aborigines, and their relevance to the social and cultural context of Aboriginal people is minimal. This reflects a general lack of understanding of the way that Aboriginal people manage cattle and land for pastoral purposes.

Pastoral property purchase

Government policies and programs at Commonwealth and Territory levels have an important influence on the development of Aboriginal cattle projects. Prior to the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act 1976 funding for the purchase of pastoral properties on behalf of Aboriginal traditional owners came from the ALFC while the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) funded the development of these projects. Following the passage of the Act the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) took on the role of purchasing properties in 1979/80 while the DAA continue to fund development. Land purchased for Aboriginal people by the ADC was either for "social advancement" or for "commercial potential".

In practice it is the commercial potential that has been stressed, as the ADC was concerned about its responsibilities in recurrent funding, and is keen to promote financial independence. Ledgar (1986) was critical of the role of the ADC because they have "consistently displayed a lack of understanding of pastoral projects and have created rather than removed problems facing Aboriginal communities". He advocated that the ADC role in the development of pastoral enterprises "should have been restricted to providing a source of funds available on application. The development of an application for a project should be carried out by the Land Council that has access to a range of expertise including effective consultation skills, or an Aboriginal pastoralists association that transmits the wishes of its Aboriginal members".

In 1990 the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) was formed out of the DAA and ADC, thereby bringing together the roles of funding and support for Aboriginal projects. The emphasis on commercial viability as a criteria for funding has continued with the setting up of ATSIC because of strong external pressures for public accountability. These pressures derive from the fact that the financial source for ATSIC is the Australian tax-payer, and commercial criteria are seen as the most important measure of whether money is being allocated "wisely".

Another source of funds which can be used for the purchase and development of Aboriginal cattle projects is the Aboriginal Benefits Trust Account (ABTA). The ABTA derives its funds from mining royalties and other income directly from the use of Aboriginal land. The ABTA is therefore specifically for the benefit of Aboriginal people. On this basis the ABTA is flexible enough to provide grants for the purchase and upkeep of pastoral enterprises that do not necessarily impose unrealistic and inappropriate expectations for project outcomes.

In 1995 the Commonwealth Government established an Aboriginal Land Fund which makes allocation of monies to an Indigenous Land Corporation for land acquisition and management. The establishment of these bodies provides Aboriginal people across Australia with a sustainable source of funds for land management and acquisition. The Indigenous Land Corporation is intended to be an independent and commercially oriented statutory authority which will, over the next two years, take over the roles of land acquisition and management from ATSIC.

The BTEC program

The Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign (BTEC) has had a great effect on the pastoral industry in central Australia. BTEC requirements involve getting rid of all feral cattle and culling all cattle over three years of age on a property found to have an infected herd. Since 3−8 years is the prime breeding time the herd must be re-stocked but compensation tends to be spent on fencing to comply with BTEC program requirements leaving little for the replacement of breeding stock. While this policy has been implemented generally throughout the Top End, it has been applied less strictly to the central region. Where there was no disease problem stations have not had to de-stock, and partial de-stocking has been practised in some areas where clean cattle could be isolated from diseased stock.

Cane and Stanley (1985) have identified a number of possible effects of the BTEC program on Aboriginal interests. The most important of these are the difficulties that the program will cause as cattle projects will require rigid management such as the need to constantly patrol and maintain fencing. Further, additional financial problems for an Aboriginal community associated with "higher and variable capital costs of producing cattle, and the lower revenues resulting from the stations carrying much smaller herds, may lead communities to abandon cattle activities".

However, some central Australian pastoralists have demonstrated that lower revenues need not result if stations carry lower herd numbers. Lower numbers, if properly managed, can result in higher weaning rates, higher growth rates, lower mortality, and greater sale prices. It remains to be seen whether these management practices can be applied on Aboriginal properties as they have already met with considerable resistance from mainstream pastoral groups.

Characteristics of Aboriginal pastoral projects

Appendix 4 provides profiles of Aboriginal pastoral properties in the Central Land Council region. The information focuses on pastoral leases which have been purchased by Aboriginal interests, some of which have since been successfully claimed under the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act 1976 and converted to Aboriginal Freehold title. The information does not include a number of small scale pastoral projects which have been developed on Aboriginal land.

An important factor to be considered in Aboriginal pastoral activity is that the population of Aboriginal people who are resident in, and potentially dependent on, such enterprises far exceeds that of similar European ventures. Even the most robust of commercial pastoral ventures would be strained supporting this extra population without external support. Traditional economic analyses of such projects have shown this to be the case, however, there are a number of benefits to the Aboriginal community through such projects which must also be considered.

In many remote areas the employment prospects for community members are minimal. The benefits in terms of employment for workers on a cattle enterprise must be seen in this light. Where a small pastoral project or "killer herd" is maintained the benefits in terms of occasional fresh meat for the community should also be recognised. The broader scientific, pastoral and conservation viewpoint has often stressed the need for concern over possible land degradation on Aboriginal land, especially in the light of Aboriginal aspirations for cattle projects .

Studies conducted by government agencies and on behalf of the Central Land Council have suggested that the problems presented by land degradation on Aboriginal land which are caused by pastoral activities are less widespread and chronic than on equivalent European properties. There are several factors which can be seen to contribute to the differences between the condition of land on Aboriginal and European run cattle projects. Phillpot (1985a) concludes that: "...it can be said that Aboriginal properties in Central Australia have smaller herds, are more extensive in area, are less capitalised, and use more labour than white cattle enterprises in the Territory as a whole".

Aboriginal managers, as opposed to Aboriginal pastoral leases managed by employed European managers, tend to place less emphasis on maximising the productivity of their enterprise. A number of reasons for this are apparent.

Firstly, the level of Aboriginal involvement in the management of larger ventures is very low. Where a cattle project is set up to carry on as a financial venture there is often a non-Aboriginal manager appointed. Thus only smaller projects tend to have Aboriginal managers, and the priorities of smaller projects are necessarily limited in terms of productivity.

Secondly, Aboriginal project managers and workers are often involved in other activities and have priorities such as traditional cultural activities in connection with looking after country.

Thirdly, many Aboriginal cattle projects face difficulty in terms of security of access to funds for infrastructure maintenance and improvement. These difficulties stem from the fact that Aboriginal freehold land cannot be mortgaged to raise a loan. Loans can only be raised against existing infrastructure or the capacity to produce.

A further complication in looking at the relative development of Aboriginal and non Aboriginal pastoral projects is the influence of funding from government departments. In the past this funding has been sporadic which has given rise to false expectations of the amount of funds available. Further to this it is clear that funding is often restricted in its application to the priorities of the funding body so that Aboriginal aspirations are masked.

As Aboriginal enterprises tend to have less equipment and capital than equivalent European enterprises, control over the herd is less rigid. This factor, combined with lower stocking rates, reduces the potential for widespread land degradation and leads to a situation where localised degradation around water points and nodes of activity is more common. In the context of the impact of this degradation on the rangelands in general, localised problems are highly visible and present serious erosion risks, while lower overall stocking rates reduce the likelihood of widespread pasture deterioration.

This pattern of resource use pressure should be seen in the context of Aboriginal land where hunting and bush tucker collection, together with other traditional uses of the land, will benefit from less widespread impact of pastoral activities. It is important to recognise the benefits in terms of improved health and maintenance of traditional social interactions, which activities such as bush tucker gathering provide. However, the control and rehabilitation of any localised erosion remains an issue of high priority. The Land Councils have a responsibility to monitor the condition of Aboriginal cattle projects and to provide advice and support to ensure that management practices do not degrade the resource and prejudice any long term use.

Assessments of Aboriginal cattle projects which have been carried out by and for the Land Councils have attempted to come to terms with the different emphasis and value structures that derive from the Aboriginal perception of these projects. These studies have highlighted the need for further research into Aboriginal perceptions and management techniques as there remains a paucity of information on which to base future land management policy.

Projects have often been initiated and managed to meet externally imposed objectives, and as a consequence, a lack of commitment by those involved has resulted in reduced project viability. The relationship between the social, political and economic aspects of cattle projects must be stressed. The social and economic aspects of Aboriginal cattle enterprises have been regarded as a dichotomy, and have rarely been treated in a balanced way, as integral to the project as a whole.

These aspects are more meaningful in the discussion of the worth of such projects than the criteria which are applied to the assessment of similar European ventures. Aboriginal pastoral enterprises are not developed for the same reasons as those of non-Aboriginal people. In many cases a cattle business is seen as a way to maintain ties with an area and to carry on a tradition. The development of a cattle enterprise can provide a focus for a community and form a bond which can hold families together on their land. Similarly, a small cattle venture is not overly labour intensive so that traditional activities and ceremonies involved with "looking after country" can be maintained.

It is also worth noting that pastoral projects with lower stocking rates compare can favourably with larger ventures in terms of economic returns. With what is perceived as a recent increase in Aboriginal ownership of pastoral land ATSIC recently convened a meeting to discuss Aboriginal involvement in the pastoral industry. From this meeting a Pastoral Working Group was established to examine the issues of Aboriginal pastoral development and to commission a consultant to prepare a strategy for pastoral property planning based on a study of Elsey Creek station.

The consultants' report addresses the issues of service delivery to Aboriginal pastoral projects with a focus on the development of whole property plans. The recommendations of this report identify a process for potential service providers to clarify their roles and requirements in the property plan preparation process. What this report does not address is the process whereby property planning and its implications will be carried to the individual land user groups for which it is intended.

Summary

A primary consideration for the development and future management of Aboriginal pastoral projects is the need to identify realistic objectives for the project which are derived from the community itself.

The variety of land use aspirations within Aboriginal society must be recognised and project aims and the development plan must be structured accordingly. The decision making process under which a project is run must be compatible with the existing Aboriginal social and cultural values. There is a need for extensive consultation to ensure that the aims of a proposed project are understood by the community, and that any concerns which may arise are addressed at an early stage. The Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act 1976 is framed in such a way that the security afforded to traditional owners as a group by the Act does not similarly apply to particular individuals and families.

It has often been the case that these individuals and families are the group most interested in, and committed to, development of land use ventures such as cattle projects. The lack of independence that these Aboriginal people experience in attempting to make decisions about land use is a frequent source of frustration and conflict. It is possible to resolve some of these conflicts through the use of grazing leases or licences whereby Aboriginal people with an interest in developing a cattle enterprise may "formally" obtain the right to use the land. Such a process ensures that consultation occurs between traditional owners and those interested in cattle, and that Aboriginal people do not have to prove their position as traditional owners to gain secure grazing rights. An important aspect to be considered in future development of cattle projects is access to funding. Aboriginal pastoral properties have generally not had high levels of capital available to them, however, this funding far exceeds that for any other land use activity on Aboriginal land.

A point that should be stressed is that no single funding body deals with both the social and the economic needs of pastoral development projects. The availability and use of funds has been on an "ad hoc" basis. Furthermore, the funding bodies and organisations have imposed restrictions on how the money is spent, and on the style of management and project operation which can take place. This influence further removes the control of the project from Aboriginal people and imposes European objectives and "conventional wisdom" as to the best way to manage the project. It has also been recognised that the European style of management as promoted by funding bodies can lead to land degradation.

There is a clear need to re-assess the scale and objectives of Aboriginal pastoral enterprises to ensure that they are sustainable. Control of cattle projects must remain within the Aboriginal community and utilise management structures and operating methods which are both culturally acceptable and environmentally responsive.

Recent research by the Central Land Council has identified the need for improved information transfer to Aboriginal people about the consequences of land use and abuse. Information is readily available to non-Aboriginal pastoralists through various government bodies, but Aboriginal people can have difficulties accessing to this information, understanding how it should be applied, and obtaining the support and resources to put this knowledge into practice. Ongoing research into Aboriginal perceptions of land management issues will provide a basis for this information transfer, but there is also a need for a re-assessment of Aboriginal access to resources for the practical implementation of sound land management practices and in particular for any rehabilitation which may be necessary as a result of past land use.