Recfishwest Policy
Access through Pastoral Leases

Introduction

Pastoral leases had their beginning in Western Australia in the 1880s when graziers from New South Wales overlanded cattle into the East Kimberleys and Western Australians took sheep into the Pilbara and the Gascoyne. At that time land administration granted large areas of land for pastoral lease. The indigenous inhabitants were in no position to put a contrary view and they became absorbed into the pastoral activity. There were virtually no other non-Aboriginal persons in the area except for prospectors and miners whose rights were specifically recognised.

Land administrators realised that pastoral leasehold was very different from freehold. In general, there was a view that while the land was not needed for another purpose it may as well be in pastoral leasehold. The main condition placed on the lessee was that the land be used for grazing and maintenance of improvements. In time it was recognised that overgrazing could seriously damage the land and more emphasis was put on protecting the land from this threat. The Department of Agriculture carried out a series of surveys of the pastoral areas in the second half of the twentieth century and in virtually all cases found that the leases were being overgrazed and were deteriorating. Unfortunately, in most cases the income from the grazing activity was not high enough to afford the extra fencing, water points and grazing needed to overcome the problems.

The current situation is a very variable one. Some leases in the Kimberleys, in favorable situations and with the current high prices for beef, are very profitable. Many of the leases in the arid zone (Pilbara, Gascoyne, Murchison and Goldfields) have switched partly or wholly to cattle as a result of low wool prices, lack of labour or dingo predation. Some of these properties that are well run or in favorable situations may be profitable; but many would be finding it difficult to maintain their improvements.

Many properties are now owned by Aboriginal communities and a number of these may be considered as 'lifestyle or traditional operations'. There are also non-aboriginal owned 'lifestyle' properties. In some places the lessees have chosen to supplement grazing income with tourism-type activities. These activities vary from emphasising the pastoral activities as the feature of the visit to those where the juxtaposition to a natural feature like Mt Augustus or the coast is the attraction.

Tourism activities on pastoral leases

The issue of tourism activities on pastoral leases has never been properly addressed. In the late 1980s the lease of Cobra Station was advertised as "not having had any stock running on it" for a number of years despite the requirement of the Pastoral Board that the lease had to be continually stocked. The situation has continued in this fashion. Objections to such situations have been made on the basis that a pastoral lease of a hundred or more thousand hectares should not give a monopoly for tourist activities over the same area.

Certainly, in some situations the "tourism" activities of the lessee have had a public benefit. Where overuse of a remote location by tourism is seriously degrading it - as happened at Steep Point/South Passage on Carrarang Station, the only practical solution at the time was for the lessee to take control of the site and charge to maintain some standards. On the other hand, it would hardly have been appropriate for Cardabia Station to take over responsibility for Coral Bay/Bill's Bay. Although in fact it could not have done a worse job than what happened!

Recfishwest has a considerable interest in the matter of public access to pastoral leaseholds as recreational fishing is often, though not always, the key driver in the need for provision of access. The current Labor government has ruled out general angling licences as a way to recover the costs associated with recreational fishing. Given the importance of fishing as a tourism activity we are concerned that lease holders have the capacity to privatise the public good from fishing while the government has precluded the application of a general user-pays principle from recreational fishing.

It seems likely that in many situations a licence may be given to a pastoral lessee to operate a tourism activity over a certain area of a lease. However, that area should be specified and excised from the lease. After all it is no longer being used for pastoralism. If the area continues to develop it is possible that some other person could apply for a similar area. A rather more draconian requirement would be to insist that even the first tourism licence should be publicly available on a tender basis.

The question of the need for competition or some kind of regulation to prevent a pastoral lessee charging an extortionate rate because some marvellous natural feature can only be accessed through that lease is an important one.

Charging for access

Pastoral leases provide the only access to a number of significant natural features in Western Australia. This is not surprising because pastoral leases make up nearly forty per cent of the area of Western Australia. Natural features of particular interest to Recfishwest include the coast and major rivers. Between Kalbarri and Broome, about 1700 kilometres, access to the coast is nearly all through pastoral lease. Between Carnarvon and Yardie Creek about 250 kilometres of coast has only one access point, at Coral Bay, that is not through pastoral lease. This area is very important to recreational fishers and the attitude of the pastoralists is variable and by no means agreeable in all cases.

The importance of rivers has been emphasized by the recent controversy over access to the Fitzroy River through Yeeda Station. Recfishwest can understand the concern of pastoralists and local authorities if pastoral activities are being hindered and the environment is being degraded. However, a river like the Fitzroy should be fenced out of a pastoral lease because otherwise grazing cattle will damage the banks and exacerbate erosion, which has been serious along that river.

If the river is fenced out, access to the river reserve can be arranged in consultation with the pastoralist at suitable points and the local authority or CALM could manage it. Recfishwest believes that in addition to such arrangements the pastoralist could offer to provide and manage a facility on the river for which he/she would charge. This would, however, be a separate activity from the pastoral lease and would not be the only access.

A similar solution for coastal areas would be to excise a coastal strip from the leases; which would make little difference to the grazing value due to the relatively impoverished soils in coastal zones. The pastoral rents could be adjusted to compensate for any loss of grazing. The loss of revenue would not be of any significance. This coastal reserve could then be accessed in places. The access routes would have to be worked out in consultation with the pastoralist. It is recognised that arrangements for the management of the coastal area would have to be made.

Just as they do at present, some of the pastoralists may choose to go into the business of providing and managing tourism facilities. As mentioned previously, Recfishwest believes that these locations should be excised from the lease to formalise the activity. However, Recfishwest has no objection to such activities and indeed welcomes them. Recfishwest does object to denial of access to the coast because of the existence of a pastoral lease.

Recommendations

Recfishwest proposes the following principles should be considered in relation to changes to existing pastoral leases before their renewal.

• The coastline of Western Australia should be accessible to the public. Where pastoral leases lie along the coast, there should be a strip excised from the lease sufficient to allow access along the coast according to the topography. The excision of coastal strips should be implemented under the provisions of the Land Administration Act 1997 Section 143 (6d);

• The major rivers of Western Australia should be accessible to the public. Where a river is contained within a pastoral lease there should be a reserve running along the river which allows public use. The nature of such reserves, any excisions involved and the rivers to which it should apply should be determined by the appropriate Ministers on the recommendation of a community working group which we believe should include Recfishwest;

• Access to these coastal strips and rivers should be provided through the pastoral leases on mutually agreed routes in accordance with provisions of the Land Administration Act 1997 Section 64. Although the consent of a pastoral lease holder is required under the Land Administration Act 1997 Section 64 (3a) we believe this consent should be in respect to an appropriate route for the access. A complete refusal to agree to an access route should trigger a response by the Minister in terms of excising an access route from the lease;

• Pastoralists should be allowed to apply to carry out tourism activities within the boundaries of their pastoral lease. Such activities should be formally licensed and the allocated site excised from the lease. Where judged appropriate, other bodies should be allowed to apply for similar tourism activity leases within the pastoral lease under similar conditions;

• That access to rivers or the coast should not be limited to the usage of tourism developments. Such developments and activities should be offered as options only for those wishing to access the area;

• Where local authorities or CALM believe that coastal or riverine areas in pastoral areas require management then the pastoralist can tender to provide those services; but the authority for doing so must arise from the local authority or CALM.

• That if shown to be necessary, appropriate legislative changes must be made to give effect to these principles.



This page last updated on 30 December 2003.