Native Title?

I had heard rumours about this but thought that at least they would be able to remain until the end of the lease. No. It seems that "native title" is more important than education and encouraging young people take part in a range of physical activities while also caring for the environment. There will be people who say that "an elite private school" should never have had access to the area anyway but they did have a lease and they used it wisely.

What this supposedly "elite private school" had access to was a small island off the coast. It was leased from the government, not the native title holders. They have come later. 

It is the native title holders who demanded an early end to the lease. They want their land back. They want it back to "reconnect spiritually" with it and "explore new cultural tourism opportunities".

The school tried to negotiate. It was not successful. 

This does not surprise me at all. It is the way anything like this is being handled. There is an immense fear of "insulting" anyone or anything which claims to be indigenous. It is easier and cheaper to give in to such demands than fight it in the courts. 

As regular readers of this blog know I am hunting for somewhere to live. It is proving very, very difficult. I discovered that one of the places I looked, a place which might just have been possible, has a tenant and that tenant has a lease until well into next year. Under the law it is not possible to remove the tenant or raise the rent (which does not cover the expense of having the tenant there). Why then is it possible for anyone to demand a lease be terminated before time simply because a "native title" claim now exists? Native title to any land did not even exist when the lease was granted.

I know someone who went to this school, her husband went to this school when it was boys only, her children went to this school, her grandchildren are going through the school and a great-grandchild will start there in the new year. They have all worked on helping to develop and care for the environment on the island. There are many other people in the same position. Nobody is saying much for fear of upsetting those claiming title over the land. They do not want to be seen as "racist" but they do wonder just how all this could happen. 

I also wonder how well the proposed plans will work. Will people really want to travel there for "spiritual re-connection" and "cultural purposes" or will we have lost another chance to teach young people that the environment matters?