Northern Territory's Great Empty Spaces

Manawatu Times, Volume 61, Issue 8, 10 January 1936, Page 10

Northern Territory's Great Empty Spaces

white Elephant of Australia

It is just upon a quarter of a century since South Australia —according to one’s preference in colloquialism—soid tho Commonwealth a pup, or presented it with a white elephant, in the form of the Northern Territory, writes James Ashton in the Sydney Morning Herald.

For the greater part of that period the Territory has played a leading part in multitudinous discussions at home and ■ abroad about the “vast emptyspaces” of Australia, which, we are told—-and probably with truth—continue to excite the cupidity of foreign nations, and expose us to the criticism of failing to justify our occupation of so large a country as the Australian Continent. Convinced as I have been that an exaggerated view, of the value of the Northern Territory for settlement purposes was apt to lead to waste of many and misdirected energy at home, as well as mischievous impressions in foreign countries which are naturally interested in sparsely-popu-lated parts of the earth’s surface whHi appear to offer an outlet for their surplus population, the subject has occasioned me considerable concern.

I have not been in the Territory, but I have had somewhat exceptional opportunities, if I may say so, of learning a great deal about it. In a document issued by the Department of internal Affairs in September, 1911, ana tabled in the Federal Parliament, I saw the first danger signal. At the time of its transfer to the Commonwealth, the Territory had been in the hauds of South Australia for just upon firty years. The document in question, disclosed that during that period the number of pastoral leases issued was 2229, and.that all but 255 of these had been either "forfeited,” "surrendered,” “can.cellied,” or “abandoned.” The pusforalists of South Australia have always had a better knowledge of the handling of large tracts of dry country than those of any other State, and this evidence of the almost complete failure that had attended their efforts to “develop” the Territory should have been very thought provoking. Later on it fell my lot to examine a number of Territory propositions that had been submitted to people overseas. The first was a sheep property on the Barkiy Tableland. In looking into that I expected to find that a major difficulty associated with a sheep-grazing property so far from rail and markets would be the disposal of surplus stock. However, I found the reverse to be the case. It had apparently proved impracticable to maintain the numbers, due to the fact that the natural increase was insufficient to counter-bai-ance the mortality rate. The difficulty with the cattle properties I investigated related to the cost of making provision and maintenance of water facilities indispensable in a country where there are long, rainless seasons. Scant Sympathy.

' In many quarters I found scant sympathy for the views I had formed. X remember one highly-placed official, at tho time a large investment of British capital was about to be made in the Territory, saying to me that is was a grave reflection on the pastoralists of Australia that tho development of the Territory should have been left to outsiders. I suggested in reply that the facts appeared to be capable of a more reasonable inference, to wit, that with the whole of Australia to pick and choose from, the one place they had left most severely alone was the Norththern Territory; whilst of 2229 leases taken up from time to time no less than 1974 had been thrown back on the hands of the Crown. I also demonstrated to him that at that time if a person were granted a tract of country in the Territory on condition that ho improved and stocked it, the cost to him would probably be at least 50 per cent, greater than the amount for which he could purchase a cattle station in Queensland as a “going concern” —many hundreds of miles nearer rail and markets, and with greater climatic security. I need not dwell upon tho disastrous experiences which attended the experiment to “develop the Territory” then being embarked upon by r outside capitalists. A meat works was established at great cost. It was opened in 1917, closed in 1920, and remained closed ever since. Experience has taught me that mete opinions as to the merits and demerits of tho Territory are unlikely to carryconviction in many quarters; but, as tho much-controverted question is now coming into prominence again, I am venturing to cite some facts culled from official reports of tho Administrator of the Territory-, which aro now before me, and which cover the years .1932-33 and 1933-34.

Some Figures. The area of the Territory is 520,000 square miles —32 per cent, greater than the combined areas of New South Wales and Victoria. The populations of New South Wales and Victoria together are 4,400,000. The population of the Territory, exclusive of aborigines, is 5046, of which 3506 are Europeans, 616 Asiatics (mostly Chinese), and 924 half-castes. Another comparison may be made: The area of Queensland is only 28 per cent, greater than that of tho Territory, and includes much dry country. But the population is 948,000. Of the. total area of the Territory, 192,000 square miles are included in pastoral leases. Appended are the areas of such leases in the several land districts,.and the stock carried thereon:—

Darwin and Gulf, 58,000 square miles, carrying three cattle to the mile. Barkly. Tablelands, 39,000 square miles, carrying six cattle to the mile.

Victoria River, 45,000 square miles, carrying eight cattle to the mile. - Alice Springs,.so,ooo .square! miles, carrying one and a quarter cattle to the mile.

The total number of cattle carried is 859,000. The number of sheep in the Territory is 18,076“ of which 17,420 aro in the Alice Springs district, and in the Barkly Tableland (generally regarded as incomnarably the best part of the Ter-

ritory) 656. It w-ould appear from this latter figure as though the Barkiy Tableland had been abandoned for the time being as a sheep-grazing country. The annual rental received by the Crown from its pastoral leases is about £25,000, which works out at about 2s 6d per square mile, or one penny for every 21 acres. Tho imports of cattle during the year were 2588 from Queensland, 50. from South Australia, and 1473 from Western Australia. The exports were:—To Queensland, 54,000; to South Australia, 10,500; to Western Australia, 10,000. The oversea export of all goods in 1932-33 were valued at £14,652, and tho imports £4225. In 1929-30 the exports amounted to £58,471, the falling off indicated being due to the cessation of the trade in live cattle with the Philippines, and a fall in the value of pearl-shell. The 1933-34 public expendure (including £353,000 interest on debt, and £45,000 sinking fund) was £718,000, and the revenue £168,000 leaving a deficiency of £550,000, or £133 per head her annum.

In his 1933-34 report, the Administrator observes: “The settlers engaged in cattle-raising, especially in the northern portion of tho Territory, are very despondent, many of them having r.o markets and no buyers for their stock; but those settlers, in the southern poition have improved their financial position slightly owing to the improvect price of wool.” As there were only IS,OOO sheep in tho whole of the Territory, however, it is hardly necessary to point out that a rise, in wool prices would have but a slight effect upon the financial well-being of the Territory as a whole,