Gina Rinehart, the disability pensioner and a fight over 12km of fencing

Summary

Podcast Summary: Gina Rinehart, the disability pensioner and a fight over 12km of fencing

Podcast: The Morning Edition
Host: Samantha Selinger-Morris
Guest: Lucy Macken (Investigative Reporter)
Date: February 8, 2026
Episode Theme: An intimate look at a high-stakes, deeply personal land dispute between Australia’s richest woman, Gina Rinehart, and disability pensioner Cathy Pope, culminating in a Supreme Court case over the cost and construction of 12 kilometers of rural fencing.

---

Episode Overview

This episode delves into a dramatic rural dispute that's escalated from neighborly disagreement into a full-blown legal battle in the New South Wales Supreme Court. At the heart of the story: Gina Rinehart's expansive cattle empire and Cathy Pope's small property, with a contested fence, lost livestock, and a serious imbalance of power and resources shaping the struggle.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Setting and Stakes (01:01–02:22)

• Lucy Macken describes the physical and social landscape:
  • Rinehart's "Sundown Valley" is a vast Wagyu beef operation covering 42,000 hectares, bought for approximately $100 million.
  • Cathy Pope’s property, Allawah, is a modest 150 hectares enveloped by Rinehart’s land.
  • The dispute involves not only Pope’s land but also a neighboring property (Allawa 2) under a mutual arrangement between Pope and her friend, Mary Kakarubis.

Quote

"It's a David and Goliath stoush of major proportions."
— Lucy Macken (01:19)

---

How the Reporter Found the Story (02:50–04:12)

• Lucy noticed Rinehart's name on the court list—immediately newsworthy given her prominence.
• Cathy Pope (plaintiff) alleges livestock losses due to faulty fencing.
• Disease and animal boundary issues are mutual between properties.
• Disputed verbal agreement in 2019 to share fencing costs led nowhere—now the matter is before the courts.

---

The Verbal Agreement and Its Breakdown (04:12–07:55)

• Pope claims initial excitement and a handshake arrangement with Rinehart's team to split costs.
• Financial pressures: Pope borrowed $100,000 for the fence, out of an estimated $250,000 needed at the time.
• Both sides dispute the nature and enforceability of any agreement.
• Some work began (about 800m of fencing), paused after a contractor’s unrelated arson arrest.
• Pope repeatedly sought to restart the project, ultimately leading to legal action.

Quote

“Everything was going along tickety boo, according to Kathy, and then work stopped."
— Lucy Macken (07:15)

---

Legal (and Financial) Imbalance (06:32–10:28)

• Pope, a disability pensioner with no legal representation, faces off against Rinehart’s powerful legal team—emphasizing the imbalance.
• The core legal questions:
  • Who pays for the new boundary fence? (Under the Dividing Fences Act)
  • Was a verbal contract struck and is it enforceable?
  • Does promissory estoppel apply if a promise was relied on?

Quote

“…if you don't mind. You know, basically when an old or broken fence is replaced, the cost is shared by you and your neighbour, like, for, like, right? If you want extra finishes… then you cop the extra cost, right?”
— Lucy Macken (08:58)

---

Attempts to Settle and Escalating Stakes (10:29–13:09)

• Both sides have made and rejected settlement offers.
  • Pope’s final ask included $10 million in damages and 200 hectares of Rinehart’s land.
• The dispute spirals beyond a simple fence—a reflection of pride, principle, and possibly bruised egos.

Quote

“…the last one, apparently, she tells me, included about $10 million in worth of costs and damages, as well as having 200 hectares of land…transferred into Kathy Pope's ownership. So, yeah. Is that outrageous? It sounds pretty bold.”
— Lucy Macken (12:30)

---

Perspectives on Motivation and Principle (13:09–14:32)

• Pope sees her fight as adherence to a “farmer's code”—neighbors should help each other.
• Rinehart's team, per Hancock Agriculture, has occasionally treated Pope’s animals for disease and returned them.
• The social contract of rural life is under stress, and the escalation seems as much about principle as property.

Quote

“Well, I think what her point is, is in the country, you know, the neighbours chip in and help each other.”
— Lucy Macken (13:38)

---

The Legal Cliffhanger and Final Reflections (14:32–16:45)

• The Supreme Court will decide on March 5th if Pope’s case can proceed.
• During the initial hearing, the presiding judge warned Pope her court documents were insufficient and gave her 21 days to amend them or face dismissal.
• The guest and host reflect on the enormous legal expense versus simply settling the matter practically.

Quote

"I did wonder for the cost of this, a five minute appearance, you know, maybe you just fence the whole place.”
— Lucy Macken (16:23)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Setting the scene and the players: 01:01–02:22
• Discovery of the case and background: 02:50–04:12
• Verbal agreement and escalation: 04:12–07:55
• Legal complexities and imbalance: 06:32–10:28
• Settlement offers and motives: 10:29–13:09
• Farmers' code, social context: 13:09–14:32
• Process, judge’s warning, reflections: 14:32–16:45

---

Memorable Quotes

• "It's a David and Goliath stoush of major proportions." — Lucy Macken (01:19)
• “Everything was going along tickety boo, according to Kathy, and then work stopped.” — Lucy Macken (07:15)
• “Well, I think what her point is, is in the country, you know, the neighbours chip in and help each other.” — Lucy Macken (13:38)
• "I did wonder for the cost of this, a five minute appearance, you know, maybe you just fence the whole place.” — Lucy Macken (16:23)

---

Episode Tone and Takeaways

• The episode strikes a tone between wry observation and sober empathy, especially for Cathy Pope.
• The fence dispute is at once legal, personal, and cultural—a microcosm of rural property challenges, class disparity, and neighborly principle.
• The narrative emphasizes the complexity behind seemingly small rural disputes, especially when big personalities, vast resources, and strict personal codes clash.

---

For listeners:
This episode offers a lens into rural life, legal frustration, and the unexpected dramas that can arise over something as ordinary as a fence—particularly when the neighbors could not be more different. The March 5th court date will decide whether the battle continues, but the deeper issues of fairness, rural community, and power imbalance resonate far beyond a single property border.

Transcript

[A]

At ncs, we solve technology problems where others can't challenge us. Search NCS Australia.

[B]

We all know how a neighbor with irksome habits can drive us to distraction. Maybe their leaf blower is their best friend or they blast their music at all hours. But what if your neighbour is Gina Rinehart, Australia's richest woman, and you're on a disability pension? I'm Samantha Sellinger Morris and you're listening to the Morning Edition. From the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. Today, investigative reporter Lucy Mackin on why the Supreme Court is hearing a case involving feral goats and a 12 kilometer fence and why each woman won't call off the fight. Welcome, Lucy, to the Morning Edition.

[A]

Hi, Sam.

[B]

You know, I've had you in my sights to have you on for so long because you have so many great yarns. So let's get into it. I mean, before we get into the dispute over the fence which is going before the New South Wales Supreme Court as we record this, can you just start off by telling us a little bit about where these properties are located? And you know, why this is such rich cattle country? Because this is not exactly the setting for your run of the mil neighbourly fence stash.

[A]

No, it certainly isn't. For starters, it's a fence between two farms. So this is not a housing thing. This is a major farm dispute. Farming fence dispute. The main farm is Gina Rinehart's vast Wagyu beef operation, Sundown Valley, which she bought in 2018, by the way, for what land titles indicate is about 100 million. And she's since expanded to cover about 42,000 hectares across the northern tablelands. I should add that Sundown Valley surrounds a small 150 hectare property known as Allawah, and that's owned by Cathy Pope. There's also another property next door to Cathy Pope, Allawa 2, and that's also involved in the proceedings. So basically, you've got this small pocket of 630 hectares surrounded by the Gina Rinehart operation, and that is the fence boundary that is in dispute. It's a David and Goliath Stout of major proportions.

[B]

Okay, so can you just tell us how you actually came across this story? I mean, we all love hearing about a bit of a neighborly stoush, I think, because we can relate, right? It's really easy to get ticked off by the habits of those that we sometimes live uncomfortably close to. But of course, this one, like you say, involves Australia's richest person. She is worth an estimated $38 billion, as you've pointed out in your piece, and of course, we're dealing with thousands of acres of land. So how did you stumble on this, Lucy?

[A]

Well, look, Kathy Pope is suing Gina Rinehart personally. So when Georgina Hope Reinhart, as she's formerly known name, comes up on the court lists, you know, it's inevitable that somebody is going to pick it up. And I was there. Right. Cathy Pope, however, is not a familiar name. And there turns out there are quite a few Kathy Popes in Australia. But once I had tracked her down, the story behind these proceedings became a little bit more apparent. Cathy Pope claims, and I should add, this is a disputed claim by Rinehart's office. She claims that she's lost about 800 animals over the years because of the dilapidated state of the fence that separates their two farms. She has cattle, sheep, goats, wild deer, some pretty fancy dogs, Maremma guardian dogs. And without the proper fencing, she keeps losing her animals. Gina Rinehart's property is also known to have animals cross over, you know, the boundary. And there are reports, you know, from her side of the fence. Apparently they've had issues with goats and pigs digging under the fence and the need to Kathy's animals for disease. So at the heart of it, Cathy Pope says, In 2019, you know, it was a year after Gina Rinehart bought the farm next door, there were negotiations to share the cost of fencing. Just what was agreed, of course, who is liable for what and whether there was any agreement in the first place is what's before the courts now.

[B]

Okay, so where did everything go wrong? Because you had in your piece that when Kathy Pope first found out that Gina Reinhart's farm was gonna be next to hers, she was really excited. She was something of a fan. At least according to Kathy, they had come to a verbal agreement about the fence. So what happened?

[A]

Yeah, no, and. And that is, I've got to add, that is Cathy Pope's claim, Gina Rinehart's, because it's a matter before the courts. Gina Rinehart's office have declined to issue any statement, but she did say that she offered to pay for the materials as long as Reinhart's management team would cover the labour and contribute to the use of any machinery and materials that they had on site. So it was a sort of form of the. Of the, you know, going halves, in a way. And while that's sort of disputed, I do also know that Cathy Pope did go about organising finance to fund her part of things because she's got a loan on title from the Rural Assistance Authority taken out in 2021 to the tune of $100,000, and that, you know, debt remains lodged on the title. As for the total cost of what this is, I mean. I mean, costs haven't gone down in the years since. But at the time, Cathy Pope claimed that they were trying to do the fence, that if she bor 100,000 through in 20,000 of her own, that would cover about half of it. So we're looking at about $250,000 for a fence, and that's depending on the range of factors like the height, the type, you know, the land that it's got to cover, you know, things like that. I should add that complicating this whole drama is the fact that Cathy Pope doesn't just want her place fenced, she wants it also to fence the neighbour's place next door. Now, she's had a long standing agreement with her friend Mary Kakarubis, who owns the farms next door, that she can adjust all her animals on Mary's farm as well, taking the total farmland that she's got access to to about 630 hectares. But in exchange, she needs to, you know, maintain the fences, maintain the tracks and all that sort of stuff. And so for that reason, you know, it's a situation that suited both women well. And. And so Mary Kakarubis has joined with Cathy Pope as a second plaintiff in the proceedings against Gina Rinehart. I should add that neither of the women have any legal representation in this matter against Gina, which I guess feeds.

[B]

Into this, you know, David and Goliath sort of narrative, Right? Because we've spoken about Gina Reinhardt's billions and Kathy Pope, I believe, is a disability pensioner and a hobby farmer. So very, very different access that they've got, I guess, to help in this matter. So tell us where it all went wrong, though, because as you've written, some fencing had been built. So the fencing, it started and I guess about 800 meters, I think, of exclusion fencing was put down, I think, in about 20, 22. What happened? Because then it stopped.

[A]

Yeah, exactly. And that time Kathy says that she got $25,000 in financial contributions from Hancock, prospecting towards it. Everything was going along tickety boo, according to Kathy, and then work stopped. At the time, one of the contractors involved in the fencing was arrested on arson charges in the town of Arala nearby, and has since been sentenced and found guilty and sentenced for that. Now, somehow or other, I think he was involved in the fencing. It didn't have anything to do with the dispute, but it was t at the time when everything ground to a halt. Now, of course, the problem is this is all Cathy's say, so Gina's lawyers, they haven't come in and said that there was any agreement either way or if there wasn't, and of course it was, as Cathy said, a verbal agreement. So whether that holds as well, which you know, that verbal agreements do hold, but that is all yet to be tested.

[B]

Does Gina dispute that there was a verbal agreement or she's just made no statement on that grounds yet?

[A]

They have disputed all of Cathy Pope's claims that I put to them, but then said that we won't comment any further because it's a matter for the courts. But the fact that work stopped in 2022 and Cathy's Pope's failed to get work started again, you know, multiple approaches, you know, calling every senior executive, it seems, in the, you know, Hancock Prospecting and Hancock, you know, and in the farming management team, you know, with no success. That is what has basically culminated in her launching legal proceedings in the Supreme Court now.

[B]

And so, you know, we had a conversation before we started recording because on the face of it, it seems like this David versus Goliath battle, you know, a deeply unequal struggle. One side you've got Australia's richest person, you know, with sophisticated lawyers on speed dial, and, you know, on the other side you've got a hobby farmer, a disability pensioner, who at the moment can't afford legal representation. So is it a bit more complicated than that or is it really simple?

[A]

Now, look, it is, you know, is it a matter of the court just enforcing a simple fencing dispute, you know, the Dividing Fences act, you know, and I'll paraphrase it here, if you don't mind. You know, basically when an old or broken fence is replaced, the cost is shared by you and your neighbour, like, for, like, right? If you want extra finishes, double capped, folded, da da da. Painted bordered, da da da da. And it wasn't there before, then you cop the extra cost, right? But in this case, the question is, is Cathy Pope liable for the costs of the fence that needs to be repaired, or is Gina Rinehart? If so, what type of fence is required? And bearing in mind that at the time Kathy Pope claims she started negotiating, it was an estimated 250,000. Right? And five years later, that will be a bigger cost. You know, I don't know how Cathy Pope would afford that. I'm sure she might be able to, but if you can't afford A lawyer. That's a lot offence. And then there's also the question of whether this verbal agreement in 2019, if there was one, you know, is that enforceable? And if so, it might raise the issue of a promissory estoppel, whereby a promise is enforced without the need for a formal contract, provided one side relied on that promise as like a sort of shield, you know, when the other party breaks a promise, or whether that verbal agreement, you know, was never actually agreed. And, you know, obviously behind it all are two fairly fraught pair of neighbours.

[B]

After the break.

[A]

And there have been offers to settle on both sides. Actually, the Reinhardt side haven't disclosed their settlement offers, but Kathy Pope did say that she'd made a few offers initially. She told me she said she just wanted to get the fence around her and her neighbor's property, you know, where she had just property fixed. But since then, the offers have escalated. And the last one, apparently, she tells me, included about $10 million worth of costs and damages.

[B]

And how fraught. I mean, my understanding is that both have, I guess, experienced lawsuits of their own on each side. Right. I mean, it's fair to say that perhaps both have, if not a litigious nature, then they have been involved in lawsuits, I guess.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Look, Kathy Pope described herself to me in the very first moments that I spoke to her on the phone. She said, I am the sort of person who, when I see any sort of wrong against me, I can't let it go. And it causes me all sorts of problems in my life. And I have never forgotten those words because it is causing all sorts of problems in her life, you know, and she doesn't have the means to fight it. She is, but she's doing so. I really feel for her, whether she's right or in the wrong here. I do feel for her.

[B]

Okay, but it has to be asked. I mean, Gina Reinhardt is worth an estimated $38 billion. So why would she just not settle outside of court? Get the fencing done so everyone can just move on with their lives? Yeah, why not?

[A]

Yeah, yeah. And there have been offers to settle on both sides. Actually, the Reinhardt side haven't disclosed their settlement offers, but Kathy Pope did say that she'd made a few offers. Initially, she told me she said she just wanted to get the fence around her and her neighbor's property, you know, where she adjusts property fixed. But since then, the offers have escalated. And the last one, apparently, she tells me, included about $10 million in worth of costs and damages, as well, as having 200 hectares of land of Reinhardt land surrounding, you know, that is nearest to Kathy Pope's house, transferred into Kathy Pope's ownership. So, yeah. Is that outrageous? It sounds pretty bold. I can't help, you know, but wonder if the damage that's been done is that high. Maybe I'm wrong and it was rejected. So, yeah, I don't think Reinhart was having a moment of it. But at the end of the day, Kathy felt like she had no other option than to go to court. And for now, as she, you know, I think I quoted her on this, she's left paying off for a loan for offence that isn't there and still dealing with the issue of stock coming and going over the boundary.

[B]

Okay. And on the other side, I do have to ask, you know, it's, it's, it's one thing to say, okay, shouldn't just Gina just pay up? But is it perhaps arguable that Kathy Pope gives as good as she gets and that perhaps she would have been better off just taking one of Hancock Prospecting's offers to settle? Like, do we know why Kathy is persisting? I mean, I know that in your piece she mentioned something about, you know, adhering to a farmer's code. So maybe you can begin by telling us, you know, what she meant by that. She feels like Gina Reinhart has breached some sort of social norm amongst farmers.

[A]

Well, I think what her point is, is in the country, you know, the neighbours chip in and help each other. And I'm sure that, you know, people lean into Gina Rinehart and say, can you help out your neighbours here, there and everywhere? And I'm sure that happens. And certainly, you know, there is obviously that going on. You know, there are reports from Hancock Agriculture that some of Kathy Pope's animals have been treated for disease and then returned. There's also Cathy Pope's contention that animals have gone missing. She blames, you know, the lost fence and all this sort of stuff. I mean, there has been a bit of give and take, but I think as Cathy Pope's, you know, calls for this fence work to be recommenced that started, you know, in 2021 and to get work done has got louder and louder. It hasn't been received positively, let's just say that, to say the least.

[B]

Now, I know that, you know, we're not going to find out more until March 5th, which I believe is when we're going to find out whether, you know, I guess the court is even willing for this case to go Forward. But just to wrap up, Lucy, you know, from your research into this dispute, does it seem like there's one party that's wronged more than the other? Or perhaps do we just have two litigious neighbours, neither of whom wants to sort of give in to the other side?

[A]

I think the latter, actually, you know, both of them are not shy of a court fight. And that's, you know, certainly in Gina Rinehart's case, that's documented. And Cathy Pope has certainly fronted up for quite a few court cases of her own self represented, too, in the latest one, without knowing the actual settlement offers and the terms of the agreements previously, I'm not going to hazard a guess on either side. I will leave that to Justice Hummuslag. But he did, you know, when it came up before him in court, it was only a mention, a quick, you know, directions, five minute matter. Kathy wasn't in the courtroom. She was, you know, remotely tuning into the court material. There were about half a dozen lawyers representing Gina Rinehart and her various interests. But it was basically just a chance for the judge to warn Kathy that if the material she had submitted to the court so far was just not going to cut it and that, you know, it wasn't even vaguely enough to pass for a decent statement of claim. And he gave her 21 days to file a workable statement of claim or he would dismiss the case before it had even started. You know, so, yeah, we'll find out on March 5th if the case is going forward from here or if Kathy Pope's lack of legal representation has brought.

[B]

It all undone after doing the research. Because I know you did speak to Kathy Pope at length.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

And obviously you've dug into the Fences Act. Who knew that? Who knew there was one? Is there any lesson in this for us, for the listeners?

[A]

I don't know. But I did sit in court today and I looked across at the half a dozen senior counsel and lawyers and so forth, and they were just the ones in the room and the media minders and all of that. And I did wonder for the cost of this appear, five minute appearance, you know, maybe you just fence the whole place.

[B]

At whose cost? Lucy Mackin.

[A]

Okay. Okay. As long as I'm not paying for it. Whatever.

[B]

Well, Lucy, you always have really interesting yarns, so thank you so much for your time.

[A]

Thank you.

[B]

Today's episode was produced by Josh Towers. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills. And our podcasts are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy and Tom McKendrick. If you like our show, follow the Morning Edition and leave a review for us on Apple or Spotify. Thanks for listening. Sometimes you just want a good story.

[A]

On TikTok, you'll find short dramas emotional.

[B]

Fast and impossible to stop watching. Download TikTok now.