Thread: CSR Permit System for 2007

I really dont know where to start,

When we were victorious over the natives back in 17 whatever, Australia became the property of the english.

This is the same in any place settled at that time, legal title was Englands.

So now with Australia having it's own government, they can do what they want with their land, no matter who own it.

Part of our farm was compulsurley aquired for an access road about 5 years ago, we didnt get a choice in it just the opertunity to say how much we wanted.

That land shouldnt be closed off IF it is not being used, if it is crown land then it should there for be used by the public BUT if the native aussies are using it for farming or legitimate trible uses then leave it be.

I dont like the idea of having to carry 40 A4 pages of general rubbish around with me while im on holidays, if it were a book of maps maybe but not 40 pages of rules and regs.

I have no problem with Native title as long as it doesnt stop people from experiencing what Australia has to offer, It does bother me though when it goes too far and just caters for tour busses and international tourists that really dont give a hoot about the place and all they want too see is a big red rock, a kangaroo and a Koala.

As far as locked gates go through farms, normally if you find the farm house and ask nicely they will let you go through as long as you stick to the track but too many people leave gates open and let stock out when a road runs through a farm so they have to lock them we had our Ph.number on a sign on the gate so people could just go and ring us and we'd come down and open it.

My solution would be to ban the tour operators from all but a few spots where they can provide the nessessities for the bus bound tourists and then leave the rest to permit paying public like they are doing now but then add guided tours into some of the more sensitive areas for those who want to see them.

This would cater to all, it would provide income and jobs to the indigeonous comunities and would allow the right people to see everything.

If someine was to say to me that they wnated to go to the back of our place to get a photo, I would be happy to take them up there and Id be thinking that this would be the same for most people no matter what colour their skin be unless they had something to hide.

Originally Posted by mcrover

I really dont know where to start,

When we were victorious over the natives back in 17 whatever, Australia became the property of the english.

This is the same in any place settled at that time, legal title was Englands.

So now with Australia having it's own government, they can do what they want with their land, no matter who own it.

Part of our farm was compulsurley aquired for an access road about 5 years ago, we didnt get a choice in it just the opertunity to say how much we wanted.

That land shouldnt be closed off IF it is not being used, if it is crown land then it should there for be used by the public BUT if the native aussies are using it for farming or legitimate trible uses then leave it be.

I dont like the idea of having to carry 40 A4 pages of general rubbish around with me while im on holidays, if it were a book of maps maybe but not 40 pages of rules and regs.

I have no problem with Native title as long as it doesnt stop people from experiencing what Australia has to offer, It does bother me though when it goes too far and just caters for tour busses and international tourists that really dont give a hoot about the place and all they want too see is a big red rock, a kangaroo and a Koala.

As far as locked gates go through farms, normally if you find the farm house and ask nicely they will let you go through as long as you stick to the track but too many people leave gates open and let stock out when a road runs through a farm so they have to lock them we had our Ph.number on a sign on the gate so people could just go and ring us and we'd come down and open it.

My solution would be to ban the tour operators from all but a few spots where they can provide the nessessities for the bus bound tourists and then leave the rest to permit paying public like they are doing now but then add guided tours into some of the more sensitive areas for those who want to see them.

This would cater to all, it would provide income and jobs to the indigeonous comunities and would allow the right people to see everything.

If someine was to say to me that they wnated to go to the back of our place to get a photo, I would be happy to take them up there and Id be thinking that this would be the same for most people no matter what colour their skin be unless they had something to hide.

So the Irish, Indians, Arabs, Chinese and any other country that England invaded weren't allowed to fight to get their land back

Baz.

Originally Posted by Redback

So the Irish, Indians, Arabs, Chinese and any other country that England invaded weren't allowed to fight to get their land back

Baz.

s'pose someone better tell George W

At least you are not been beating to death for the land like in Zimbabwe

I think your missing the point

Just because the Aborigines occupy the land without actually having paid for it doesnt lower their entitlement to determine who enters it or uses it.

Native title gives them certain rights not ownership of the land under that title

The pastoral leaseholder, the mining companies and the farmer are doing no more no less than Aboriginals under Native title in exercising right of entry requirements and in some case excluding right of entry.

You may be an Australian, doesn't give you any right or privilege to go where you want, when you want to, to see what you want or fish and catch what you want.

You pay a entry fee for National Parks and 4wd parks, you buy a fishing license, you pay a shooting license, so paying permit fees isn't unusual or wrong, you may carp about the price of that permit and the value it gives you, that you right as customer.

Don't muddle your views about Aboriginal welfare handouts, Government policy on Aboriginal housing, health, education and jobs, with the right of a land occupier to maintain control over access to the property.

You may not agree, you may not like it, but Australian Native title (for whatever good it does) is another piece of Government Law, interpreted by the COurts and argued over by the lawyers. If you dont like change the Law but l don't think Paul Hansen will ever have enough red necks to form a government in both houses so l suggest you learn to accommodate it in your travel plans.

***Rant begins***

So which red neck are you aiming that at, ouch.

Everyone is entitled their opinion, as you are allowed to take the oppinion that these wonderfull parts of the country shouldnt be seen by the eyes of a white man again without having a black man tell us where we can go.

Whose the ones segragating the masses, is it the Native aussies that most of which dont bother with the politics because they just want to be part of a community and none of this one side this and the other that crap or is it the Non native wanna do gooders that stir up an argument and creat a problem where there really isnt one to begin with.

Native title is fine and paying for access is as well as long as this money goes to the access and protection of the site.

How it has been throughout the country for years is that Indigeonous people could have native title to any significant site on private or public land for tribal use but this is not ownership, this is a long way from being able to close off areas and charge entry, this is a fairly new extension of this and so far is prooving to work.

By the way, the farm lands that are now owned buy private parsuralists were settled under the law of the time and then after improoved was owned by that settler.

This was the Law in those days and even now if it has been sold is still owned by some one that has the right to charge people for entry or not allow entry.

Native title isnt the same and when it is on public property should just allow them to perform their traditional activities to keep their taditions alive but if it is private, they should have every right as anyone else does to buy it and then have the same rights as anyone else.

We are all aussies, why do any of us get to tell another group of us where we can and cant go on public land just because were a different colour.

If it were any other race in any other developed it would be called racism but because of political correctness and fear of losing votes, none of the polies want to stand up and say it.

I dont support PH, I think shes an I***** who is more out spoken about what she wants but cant follow through with how she could implement these things e.g. "Just print more money" I heard her say on TV one night years ago.

***Rant over***

... and if everyone were to roll-over and practice the great Australian sport of Apathy then nobody would know what we really think and feel.

There's nothing wrong with expressing a concern and opinion on a matter, and certainly nothing wrong with raising it with the gov. - it's much more productive then sitting back with a stubbie and chanting "well there's nothing I can do about it so I better just get use to it"

Originally Posted by mcrover

Native title isnt the same and when it is on public property should just allow them to perform their traditional activities to keep their taditions alive but if it is private, they should have every right as anyone else does to buy it and then have the same rights as anyone else.

We are all aussies, why do any of us get to tell another group of us where we can and cant go on public land just because were a different colour.

The law says otherwise, mcrover. It says that traditional owners have rights to land use that weren't overridden when the land became "public land." In short, the land was never owned by "all Australians." You might not like that, but that's what Native Title means since the Mabo decision.

No-one, traditional owner or not, can be on private land without the permission of the landowner.

It's not some do-gooder declaring what Aboriginal people can or can't get money from - it's the Courts and Governments saying whether people have ownership in some way of particular lands. Or rather, discovering that they always DID own it.

We accept that a leaseholder on public land can prevent us getting access. Native title works the same way.