One of the key roles of the Tropical Savannas
CRC is to provide a neutral meeting place where different savanna
land users can talk over issues of mutual importance. In January
2000, the Centre held a workshop to discuss one of these issues:
land administration policy across the north and its attendant
issues.
Is multiple land use a good idea? What are the
issues involved in a new system of land leases? In this issue of
Savanna Links, we published articles from three of the delegates
covering general, pastoral and tourism viewpoints.
Below is an opinion piece on tourism issues in
land administration, from Rick Murray , president of the
Tourism Council of Australia NT. Click in the contents section on
the left to view pastoral and tourism viewpoints. Proceedings of
the workshop are available from the CRC.
Rick Murray, president of Tourism Council of Australia NT
Tourism perspective |
History of north Australia | Diversity of tourism | Tourism
investment | Future growth and investment
| Multiple land use
In Rick Murray's view a major issue is that the tourism industry
has to do much of its business on land owned and managed by someone
else. Following is his original presentation from the CRC
Workshop.
Our forum today is titled the Land Administration & Land
Management Forum and my job is to talk a little about the tourism
perspective on this subject. I am not going to talk much at all
about land management though and for one simple reason and that is
that the tourism industry has very little land of its own to
manage. The management responsibility for most of the land on which
tourism takes place lies with others. Most of the land we use is
National Parks or reserves, some of it is pastoral leasehold or
Aboriginal freehold and as such it is owned or managed by someone
else. This is why I prefer to focus on the land administration side
of the discussion and to do that I had better start at the
beginning.
For thousands of years Aboriginal people lived on and managed
the land we call Northern Australia, then in the late 19th century
and early 20th century a wave of new settlers arrived. These new
people were mostly Australians of European origin but some were
from China and other places to our north. Much like the people who
move here today, they came because they saw a chance to better
themselves, to have a better way of life. They came because they
saw the economic opportunities of their times. In those days much
of Australia rode on the sheep's back but in northern Australia it
was to be the cattle industry and the relentless hunt for gold and
other valuable minerals.
In those days, these industries held the main opportunities.
Mainly cattle and gold; these were the obvious economic uses for
these lands back in those times. Governments of the time though had
to also consider the long-term future. To consider what new
opportunities may arise for our nation a few decades, maybe a
century later? A difficult question indeed and almost impossible to
answer with the information they had at the time. So most the land
was offered on fixed-term, specific purpose leases, usually for 49
or 99 years and usually for the grazing of cattle. The miners would
have other forms of tenure overlaying these pastoral leases but for
the most part the miners only needed small areas compared to the
vast areas needed for a north Australian cattle station. Few others
among the new settlers had any wish or need to put the land to
different uses. This system of economic land use administration
worked reasonably well for almost a century.
The northern Australian economy grew and was sustained by the
minerals gouged from the land, cattle fed on the land and with
pearls and other wealth from the sea. Over the ensuing century
needs changed and other opportunities continued to arise just as
early legislators imagined they might. The population grew and
spread out across the country. Dams were built, flooding old
station country and agricultural projects, some on vast scales
began. Land was needed to build towns and cities. Land was needed
to build airfields and for other defence purposes. Highways and
roads were needed where only simple tracks existed before. Changing
attitudes among the populace resulted in large areas of land being
gradually returned to its traditional owners. Whole new industries
emerged and the economic ranking of the various industries
changed.
In the late 20th century, in most regions of Northern Australia,
mining became the number one earner. The new arrival tourism,
generating hundreds of millions of dollars each year, moved into
second place well ahead of pastoral, pearling, fishing and
agriculture. Tourism soon became the largest employer across the
north as mining became more capital intensive. Northern Australia
became dependent on tourism and on the income tourism can provide
for so many of our people. Tourism was obviously not a new activity
but, with the advent of relatively inexpensive air transport, it
became a major industry in its own right.
Tourism is an industry that everyone notices because they see
the visitors around them but interestingly, few people understand
its true breadth and diversity. The type of tourism that is the
backbone of the industry here in northern Australia is based on our
extraordinary natural and cultural heritage. Some call it
ecotourism but that is probably too narrow a term to describe the
broad diversity of activity taking place.
Tourism is much more than as it appears along some of the back
roads of our region, just independent travellers moving around the
country in their 4WDs, buying some fuel and other supplies from the
station store, maybe staying the night at the homestead or maybe
paying a few dollars to camp down by the creek.
The full spectrum of nature-based tourism can include
multi-million dollar eco-resorts providing accommodation for our
visitors and a range of professional tour operators moving visitors
around from place to place and providing them with quality
interpretation of the natural and cultural values as they go.
Tourism includes some of the very biggest corporations, a vast
number of small to medium sized enterprises and lots of micro
businesses as well. The opportunities in tourism are much more than
just offering home-stay accommodation and selling a few stores. The
management strategies required are much more than just saying "Oh,
no, you can't go there because the tourist might leave a gate open
or let their campfire get away." Tourism is much broader than this
and professional tour operators can offer many genuine, positive
benefits to the region.
The industry in most of northern Australia focuses on our
spectacular natural places, our biodiversity, our wide-open spaces
and the natural wonders they contain. Most of our visitors come to
see and experience these things; their focus is out there in the
bush not here in town. But where are most of the really significant
tourism investments made? Mostly in our cities and towns. Why?
Because that is where investors can have some real security over
land they need into the future. That is where they can have some
control over the management of the land their business depends
upon.
So what about tourism investment out there in the bush where the
focus of the visitor lies? Some pastoralists have invested in
tourism but not heavily. Why would they when their security for
such investment is so uncertain? The same goes for other businesses
that may establish a tour operation or a safari camp. This might be
done on a short-term licence in a National Park or other protected
area. Some might even be established by virtue of a nod and a
handshake from the pastoral leaseholder or even on the basis of
simply wishful thinking on vacant Crown land. No bank in the
country would lend with this lack of security would it? And if a
business cannot raise investment funds it cannot grow, it cannot
realise it full potential.
Herein lies the dilemma: how to facilitate future growth and
investment in our economy in a fair and equitable way that takes
into account the past and current land use while at the same time
considering the attachments that some people have to the
land—whether they formed their attachments over decades or
over millennia. To solve it we will all need to work together and
think not just of our own good but of the good of the whole north
Australian community, both now and well into the future. A tall
order indeed.
In order to do this we will need to "think outside the square",
to allow some paradigm shift to take place, to consider the whole
breadth of concepts with clear and open minds. When we have done so
we need to have the backbone to implement the ideas we discover.
That said, let me just provide you with a few tourism specifics to
consider.
The lands of the north are diverse indeed: forests and wetlands,
broad rivers and narrow gorges, escarpment and endless grassy
plains. The potential for multiple use of these lands is every bit
as broad. Some of the land is good cattle country, some of it is
mineral rich and some of it is attractive for tourism activity.
Often though the places that are good for one type of business
activity are not very good for another. The Bungle Bungles; for
example, once described as "rubbish country", unwanted and not
utilised by people working on pastoral leases in the area but now
that place is the mainstay of tourism in the South East
Kimberley.
The various National Park services across the north have taken
over many places like the Bungles and they allow, indeed facilitate
tourism, albeit on a relative insecure basis. Insecure simply
because it is usually based around short-term licences only. This
may work reasonably for major attractions such as the Bungles but
what of the countless smaller, less significant places that
nevertheless hold huge attraction for tourism. We canÆt have
all these places brought into the park estate nor should we.
National Parks have a range of purposes focused on maintaining a
representative sample of our natural heritage in public hands. It
is not their role to simply acquire land for tourism. The land
needs for tourism are not going be satisfied by National Parks
alone. The land that it is needed for tourism will not be extensive
in area, rather it will be small but special places right across
the north. It would rarely be on good cattle country and need not
interfere with that industry.
As you can see I am leading to a broader view of multiple land
use than exists today. We need to consider some kind of system
which can facilitate tourism being a genuine part of the multiple
land use picture. Perhaps we need some system similar to that which
covers the mining industry. A system that allows specific activity
at specific places for a guaranteed, substantial period of time. Of
course, such a system would need take into account the aboriginal
owners of the land just as the mining system does, it would need to
take into account the needs of the pastoral leaseholder just as the
mining system does. Many pastoralists want to get into tourism but
are reluctant to do so because they have little security for such a
business under their pastoral lease. Many leaseholders are allowed
to develop small scale tourism business but what if economic
conditions in both industries (tourism & cattle) suggest that
the leaseholder should move their focus across to tourism? Their
lease is not security for such a business and so they don't do it.
The opportunity may be lost to them and, of course, under the
existing systems the opportunity is lost to everyone else as
well.
Consider then the pastoralist who has some beautiful gorge and
escarpment country on his place. These areas are definitely
attractive for tourism but he does not want to get involved with
tourists. That's fine, but why should he, the pastoral leaseholder
have the last word on it? If it were a gold mine or a zinc mine he
would not have the last word. If someone wanted to build a
carefully planned ecotourism lodge or safari camp there, well
managed and ecologically sustainable and not interfering with his
grazing activity then why should they not be able to do so? Why
should there not be a secure way for it to happen whether the
investor is a tourism professional or pastoralist wanting to learn
the game, whether the investor is an aboriginal landowner or not,
whether they are a local person or not? If they are willing to
undertake a sustainable yet new form of land use that interferes
little, if at all with current land use then why should they not be
allowed to?
I believe this demonstrates that there is a need for some sort
of "tourism lease" to facilitate development of our industry just
as there are been mining leases and pastoral leases to facilitate
those industries. I realise this is a complex issue but it does
warrant some serious consideration.
By considering these sorts of scenarios we may well find that
ways do exist for us to better administer our usage of the land.
Ways which don't need to have negative impact on our lifestyle.
Ways which create long term jobs and which lead to improved
infrastructure for all of us to utilise and enjoy. We cannot just
hang on to the past simply because it is the way things have worked
up to now. We need to take the good things from the old ways and
the good things from the present and grasp the future with both
hands. We will need to do it well and we need to do it soon.
