The red tape just to breathe these days is balanced by the farting of bureaucracy!

The NT seems to be going through a major reshaping of their Tourism Industry.

Perhaps this bit I took from the statement hints at the issue.

Read into it what you will. 

"It is not just either the pressure from those who do not accept that I, too, have an attachment to this land and care for it. It is the above and more.

rgren2 wrote:

---

Maybe a change in name is the next thing. Only guided stays. No self drive. Hmmmmm?

---

 There is an aboriginal land claim, filed in 1997,which looks like it is close to being granted. It is only for a very narrow intertidal strip along the coast. It has been made clear that the current lessees of the Lorella Springs pastoral lease are welcome to continue use  that country, but will require a licence (free of charge) to do so. This is to ensure that the pastoral lessees ensure that that that country is looked after, & not littered with rubbish & fish remains.  It's all there to see in the the land claim documentation. 

The real issue I believe is that the tourism enterprise has grown significantly over the years, with many more visitors and regular helicopter flights & landings, & the NT government which originally allowed things to go on on the basis of it being a 'low impact' enterprise has now recognised (as a result of the land Claim process) that it is no longer able to be considered low impact, & thus is requiring Lorella Springs to have a full Tourism Licence which no doubt incurs a variety of higher costs for them, just as it does for any other tourism enterprises of similar scope. 

My assumption regarding Lorella Springs restricting access this to pre-booked coach tours is probably this fulfills pre-existing contracts, but also tour coaches are unlikely to go out to the coastal strip in question.  I also suspect that shutting down may be hoped to create a bit of leverage within the NT Tourism authority. 

Kebbin wrote:

---

The lease holder is trying to use leverage of public opinion to further his cause, Nathan River Station just down the track was taken from the mad Irishman lessee in the '90s, supposedly for neglect of country and stock.

---

 I think you are right, & he's quite good at doing that.

RickJ wrote:

---

Nothing more fair than for a family to build a business just to have it taken from them and given to someone else for management.

---

 What makes you think that the business at Lorella is being handed over to someone else? 

Kebbin wrote:

---

Someone hasn't bothered to read the story and get the facts straight.

---

 I think you're right again Kebbin.

Bicyclecamper wrote:

---

Cuppa, Rhett has to fence 25km of the high tide mark to keep his cattle in, blocking them  from access to other parts of the northern part of the property, and the paper work I saw, if you bothered to read the ExplorOZ thread,, that you are a member of, shows he will have to pay a fee for each of his paying customers, to use that intertidal zone, once the land council takes control of it. His coastal zone is not the end of the claims, their are another 114 claims for the intertidal zone across the coast of the entire Northern Territory, and once they get them, they wont stop there.....  I think they want the lot, your land and my land as well

_________________________________

Ric, with respect I think you might need to re-read some of that stuff more carefully. Your suggestion here about the land claims talks of 'they' as though 'they are all one mob. Claims for the intertidal zones made to protect traditional salt water rights for salt water people are made by multiple different groups , each with claims on their own specific country. If there were plans to take all the country don't you think there would be claims for that already filed, or do you think there may be some secret combined plan to take back all the country over the next few hundred years which no-one yet knows about? Such claims treat the reality of land claims as though they are some easily achieved 'flippant' process. They are not. They are stressful & alien processes requiring decades of intergenerational commitment. I'm sorry but I don't think the concern you express is at all realistic. 

The fact that Rhett & his family may have to build fences is no different to many other pastoral enterprises.  Show us where the documentation says that a fence would block cattle access to other parts of the property . If that is the case it will be shown in the documentation as a 'detriment' to Lorella Springs. I haven't seen that, only claims by Rhett & family that fencing will cost them money, as though that is unreasonable if he wants to make a profit from the cattle. 

Also it wont be the land Council taking control of anything, it will be local people retaining the rights they have over their local land. If you re-read the documentation you will see that if the land claim is approved, which it seems likely it will be, that Lorella Springs would be allowed to continue use of the areas on the intertidal zone, but would require a licence to do so. The documentation states that the licence would either be cost free or a peppercorn fee. That seems very generous to me. 

Claims that Aboriginal peoples want to take our backyards was nonsense, used as a weapon when a process for Land rights was being proposed all those years ago, & it's nonsense now in the lead up to a referendum. Such claims are unsupportable, & are no more than fears put around by those with other agendas. Easy to believe for some. 

Anyway I think it has been reasonably established across a number of the forums where this has been discussed that it is the Government requirements for what is no longer considered a low impact tourism enterprise that are at the heart of this matter, not the land claim. (See below)