Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:36:20.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recognizing the Martuwarra's First Law Right to Life as a Living Ancestral Being

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2020

Martuwarra RiverOfLife ,
Anne Poelina Open the ORCID record for Anne Poelina [Opens in a new window] ,
Donna Bagnall  and
Michelle Lim
Martuwarra RiverOfLife
Affiliation:
Warloongarriy Law, Martuwarra Country.
Anne Poelina
Affiliation:
Nulungu Research Institute, University of Notre Dame Australia, Broome (Australia). Email: [email protected].
Donna Bagnall
Affiliation:
Curtin University and the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) (Australia). Email: [email protected].
Michelle Lim
Affiliation:
Adelaide Law School, University of Adelaide (Australia). Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Traditional custodians of the Martuwarra (Fitzroy River) derive their identity and existence from this globally significant river. The First Laws of the Martuwarra are shared by Martuwarra Nations through a common songline, which sets out community and individual rights and duties. First Law recognizes the River as the Rainbow Serpent: a living ancestral being from source to sea. On 3 November 2016, the Fitzroy River Declaration was concluded between Martuwarra Nations. This marked the first time in Australia when both First Law and the rights of nature were recognized explicitly in a negotiated instrument. This article argues for legal recognition within colonial state laws of the Martuwarra as a living ancestral being by close analogy with the case concerning the Whanganui River. We seek to advance the scope of native title water rights in Australia and contend that implementation of First Law is fundamental for the protection of the right to life of the Martuwarra.

Keywords

MartuwarraFirst LawNative titleRights of natureIndigenous rightsCultural governance
Type
Symposium Article
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , November 2020 , pp. 541 - 568
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This contribution is part of a collection of articles growing out of a Research Workshop on ‘Indigenous Water Rights in Comparative Law’, held at the University of Canterbury School of Law, Christchurch (New Zealand), on 7 Dec. 2018, funded by the New Zealand Law Foundation.

We acknowledge the equal contribution of all authors to engage in a patient and exploratory, reiterative process of evidence, theory and legal principle-gathering, both domestic and transnational. This research is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship. We would like to thank Erin O'Donnell, Ian Perdrisat, and the three reviewers for TEL and our independent reviewers for their helpful comments and feedback.

References

1 The river Martuwarra is also known as Mardoowarra. In this article we adopt the name Martuwarra but recognize that the river sometimes is referred to as Mardoowarra in other publications.

2 Lucy Marshall and Jeannie Warbie, in A. Poelina & M. McDuffie, Three Sisters, Women of High Degree, Madjulla Association, 1 July 2015, available at: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3763387.

3 Carwardine, J. et al. , Priority Threat Management to Protect Kimberley Wildlife (CSIRO Australia and the Wilderness Society, 2011)Google Scholar.

4 Brocx, M. & Semeniuk, V., ‘The Global Geoheritage Significance of the Kimberley Coast, Western Australia’ (2011) 94(2) Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, pp. 57–88Google Scholar.

5 Australian Government, Conservation Guidelines for the Management of Wild River Values (Australian Heritage Commission, 1998), Part A – Wild River Values and Impacts, available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/node/20150.

6 Larson, S. & Alexandridis, K., Socio-economic Profiling of Tropical Rivers (CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, 2009)Google Scholar, available at: http://lwa.gov.au/products/pn30095.

7 Jackson, S., Finn, M. & Scheepers, K., ‘The Use of Replacement Cost Method to Assess and Manage the Impacts of Water Resource Development on Australian Indigenous Customary Economies’ (2014) 135(1) Journal of Environmental Management, pp. 100–9, at 100CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

8 Carwardine et al., n. 3 above; ‘Big Jump in Mining in the Kimberley’, ABC News, 19 Nov. 2012, available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-19/report-details-mining-impact-in-the-kimberley/4379584; Jackson, Finn & Scheepers, n. 7 above.

9 Carwardine et al., n. 3 above; Gibson, L. & McKenzie, N., ‘Identification of Biodiversity Assets on Selected Kimberley Islands: Background and Implementation’ (2012) 81(I) Records of the Western Australian Museum, pp. 1–14, at 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Jackson, S., Finn, M. & Featherson, P., ‘Aquatic Resource Use by Indigenous Australians in Two Tropical River Catchments: The Fitzroy River and Daly River’ (2012) 40(6) Human Ecology, pp. 893–908, at 893CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Kwaymullina, A., ‘Seeing the Light: Aboriginal Law, Learning and Sustainable Living in Country’ (2005) 6(11) Indigenous Law Bulletin, pp. 12–5, at 12Google Scholar.

12 Country, Bawaka et al. , ‘Working with and Learning from Country: Decentring Human Author-ity’ (2015) 22(2) Cultural Geographies, pp. 269–83, at 270CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Ibid.

14 Wunan Law is a cooperative model based on principles that respect the sovereignty of the Indigenous nations, but ensure the wellbeing of river and desert country by viewing it holistically and treating it as an integrated, connected whole. Prior to colonization the Wunan was the Indigenous regional governance system for an extensive trade exchange based on coexistence and co-management principles across vast estates of land spanning from the Kimberley to the Northern Territory: see A. Poelina, ‘A Fair Go For All’, Great Australian Story, 21 Feb. 2015, available at: https://greataustralianstory.com.au/story/fair-go-all.

15 Fitzroy River Declaration, Fitzroy Crossing, West Kimberley (Western Australia), 3 Nov. 2016, available at: http://www.klc.org.au/news-media/newsroom/news-detail/2016/11/15/kimberley-traditional-owners-unite-for-the-fitzroy-river.

16 P. Higgins, ‘Eradicating Ecocide’, 2012, available at: http://pollyhiggins.com.

17 Martin, K. & Mirraboopa, B., ‘Ways of Knowing, Being and Doing: A Theoretical Framework and Methods for Indigenous and Indigenist Re-search’ (2009) 27(76) Journal of Australian Studies, pp. 203–14, at 206CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Bawaka Country et al., n. 12 above, p. 270.

19 Martin & Mirraboopa, n. 17 above.

20 Bawaka Country et al., n. 12 above, p. 270.

21 Ibid.

22 Denzin, N., The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods (Prentice Hall, 1989)Google Scholar; Olsen, W., ‘Triangulation in Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods Can Really Be Mixed’, in Holborn, M. (ed.), Developments in Sociology (Causeway Press, 2004), pp. 103–18Google Scholar.

23 J.W. Ehman, ‘Ways of Knowing’ (2015) Penn Medicine, available at: http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/pastoral/cpe/waysofknowing.pdf.

24 Haraway, D., Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene (Duke University Press, 2016)Google Scholar.

25 Kwaymullina, A. & Kwaymullina, B., ‘Learning to Read the Signs: Law in an Indigenous Reality’ (2010) 34(2) Journal of Australian Studies, pp. 195–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid.

28 Watson, I., ‘Kaldowinyeri: Munaintya in the Beginning’ (2000) 4(1) Flinders Journal of Law Reform, pp. 3–17, at 4Google Scholar.

29 Neidjie, B., ‘The Tree’, in Neidjie, B. & Taylor, K. (eds), Story About Feeling (Magabala Books, 1989), p. 36Google Scholar.

30 van Hoecke, M., Methodologies of Legal Research: Which Kind of Method for What Kind of Discipline? (Hart Publishing, 2011)Google Scholar.

31 Pearce, D., Campbell, E. & Harding, D., Australian Law Schools: A Discipline Assessment for the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission – A Summary (AGPS, 1987)Google Scholar.

32 A. Poelina & M. McDuffie, Mardoowarra's Right to Life, Madjulla Association, 2017, available at: https://vimeo.com/205996720 (Password: Kimberley).

33 Under Indigenous law, water brings with it particular rights and responsibilities: Australian Government, ‘Heritage, West Kimberley’, available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=106063.

34 A. Poelina, ‘Blood Line Song Line Part 1’, Great Australian Story, 12 Aug. 2016, available at: http://greataustralianstory.com.au/story/blood-line-song-line-pt1.

35 Australian Government, n. 33 above.

36 Ibid.

37 Black, C., The Land is the Source of the Law: A Dialogic Encounter with Indigenous Jurisprudence (Routledge, 2011), p. 1Google Scholar.

38 Ibid., p. 46.

39 Poelina, n. 14 above.

40 See the High Court in State of Western Australia v. Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 Aug. 2002), [14], quoting a passage by Blackburn J in Milirrpum v. Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141: ‘[T]he fundamental truth about the [A]boriginals’ relationship to the land is that whatever else it is, it is a religious relationship … There is an unquestioned scheme of things in which the spirit ancestors, the people of the clan, particular land and everything that exists on and in it, are organic parts of one indissoluble whole’.

41 Bawaka Country et al., n. 12 above, p. 271.

42 Kwaymullina, n. 11 above, p. 14.

43 Watson, I., Aboriginal Peoples, Colonialism and International Law: Raw Law (Routledge, 2015), pp. 12–3Google Scholar.

44 Fitzroy River Declaration, concluded at Fitzroy Crossing, West Kimberley, Western Australia, 3 Nov. 2016, Annex 1, available at: http://www.klc.org.au/news-media/newsroom/news-detail/2016/11/15/kimberley-traditional-owners-unite-for-the-fitzroy-river.

45 Ibid.

46 Lim, M., Poelina, A. & Bagnall, D., ‘Can the Fitzroy River Declaration Ensure the Realisation of the First Law of the River and Secure Sustainable and Equitable Futures for the West Kimberley’ (2017) 32(1) Australian Environment Review, pp. 18–24Google Scholar.

47 Kimberley Land Council, ‘Kimberley Traditional Owners establish Martuwarra Fitzroy River Council’, 19 June 2018, available at: https://www.klc.org.au/kimberley-traditional-owners-establish-martuwarra-fitzroy-river-council.

48 Cullinan, C., Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice, 2nd edn (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2011), p. 103Google Scholar, citing Berry, T., The Great Work: Our Way into the Future (Harmony, 1999)Google Scholar.

49 Maloney, M. & Siemen, P., ‘Responding to the Great Work: The Role of Earth Jurisprudence and Wild Law in the 21st Century’ (2015) 5(1) Environmental and Earth Law Journal, pp. 6–22, at 12Google Scholar.

50 Burdon, P., Earth Jurisprudence: Private Property and the Environment (Routledge, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Berry, cited in Cullinan, n. 48 above.

52 E.g., Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgment, 25 Sept. 1997, ICJ Reports (1997), p. 110, per Judge Weeramantry in the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

53 There is an interesting discussion of correlative rights and duties in the context of riparian rights before and after enactment of the New South Wales (NSW) Water Management Act in G. Lilienthal, ‘Water Rights and Correlative Duties in New South Wales’ (2020) Commonwealth Law Bulletin (forthcoming), doi: 10.1080/03050718.2020.1756882, available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03050718.2020.1756882?journalCode=rclb20. The issue is that the legislation has decoupled the rights and the correlative duties. This has caused failure in the accountability and self-enforcing nature of those correlative rights and duties and, when left to the Crown to manage or concede duties, correlative rights fail or lapse.

54 Hohfeld, W., ’Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning’ (1913) 23 Yale Law Journal, pp. 28–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar, available at: http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/cdonahue/courses/prop/mat/Hohfeld.pdf.

55 Berros, M.V., ‘Rights of Nature in the Anthropocene: Towards the Democratization of Environmental Law’, in Lim, M. (ed.), Charting Environmental Law Futures in the Anthropocene (Springer, 2019), pp. 21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Wilson, G. & Lee, D., ‘Rights of Rivers Enter the Mainstream’ (2019) 2(2) The Ecological Citizen, pp. 183–7Google Scholar.

57 Ibid.

58 UN General Assembly, ‘United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ (13 Sept. 2007), UN Doc. A/RES/61/295, available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html.

59 Watson, n. 43 above, p. 145.

60 J. Anaya & S. Wiessner, ‘The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Towards Re-empowerment’, Jurist, 3 Oct. 2007, available at: http://jurist.org/forum/2007/10/un-declaration-on-rights-of-indigenous.php; Felipe, G.I., ‘The UNDRIP: An Increasingly Robust Legal Parameter’ (2019) 23(1–2) The International Journal of Human Rights, pp. 7–21, at 12Google Scholar.

61 Arts 1 and 8 UNDRIP.

62 Art. 8 UNDRIP.

63 Lemkin, R., Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation – Analysis of Government – Proposals for Redress (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1944), pp. 79–95Google Scholar; Crook, M. & Short, D., ‘Marx, Lemkin and the Genocide-Ecocide Nexus’ (2014) 18(3) The International Journal of Human Rights, pp. 298–319, at 300CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Watson, n. 43 above, p. 112.

65 Hay, A.M., in ‘David Zierler, The Invention of Ecocide: Agent Orange, Vietnam, and the Scientists Who Changed the Way We Think About the Environment (University of Georgia Press, 2011)’ (2012) 2(1) H-Environment Roundtable Reviews, pp. 1–25, at 8–12Google Scholar (reviewing Zierler's book, quoting Yale plant biologist Professor Arthur Galston at a Conference in 1970 on ‘War Crimes and the American Conscience’, available at: https://networks.h-net.org/system/files/contributed-files/env-roundtable-2-1.pdf).

66 Crook & Short, n. 63 above, p. 307.

67 Ibid., p. 308; see also Higgins, n. 16 above.

68 New York, NY (US), 9 Dec. 1948, in force 12 Jan. 1951, available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%2078/volume-78-i-1021-english.pdf.

69 Harris, D., ‘The Sources of International Law’, in Cases and Materials on International Law, 6th edn (Sweet & Maxwell, 2004), p. 40Google Scholar.

70 Genocide Convention, n. 68 above, Art. 11(c).

71 Watson, n. 43 above, pp. 109–36.

72 Re Thompson, ex parte Nulyarimma & Ors [1998] 136 ACTR 9.

73 Transcript, ACTSC No. 457 of 1998, 14 Sept. 1998, in FCA A5/99, para. 78.

74 Watson, n. 43 above, p. 114.

75 Ibid.

76 Ibid., p. 121.

77 Crook & Short, n. 63 above, p. 300.

78 Ibid.

79 Ibid.

80 Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2) [1992] HCA 23, (1992) 175 CLR 1 (Mabo), per Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ; Dawson J dissenting.

81 Mabo, ibid., [39] and [41]–[42].

82 Mabo, n. 80 above, per Brennan J at [4].

83 Commonwealth of Australia, National Native Title Tribunal, Geospatial Services, ‘Kimberley Native Title Claimant Applications and Determination Areas as per the Federal Court’, 31 Dec. 2019, available at: http://www.nntt.gov.au/Maps/WA_Kimberley_NTDA_schedule.pdf.

84 R. French, ‘Western Australia v Ward: Devils and Angels in the Detail’ [2002] Federal Judicial Scholarship, pp. 1–4, at 3.

85 Determinations are made under s. 13 NTA 1993, in accordance with s. 225, in respect of native title rights and interests as defined by s. 223.

86 Fortescue Metals Group v. Warrie on behalf of the Yindjibarndi People [2019] FCAFC 177, 18 Oct. 2019, [43]–[45] and [80]–[81].

87 NTA 1993, ss. 10 and 11 respectively. ‘Native title’ is defined in s. 223(1) NTA.

88 Fortescue Metals Group, n. 86 above, [288].

89 Godden, L. & Cowell, S., ‘Conservation Planning and Indigenous Governance in Australia's Indigenous Protected Areas’ (2016) 24(5) Restoration Ecology, pp. 692–7, at 696CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

90 National Native Title Tribunal, 1999: see, e.g., the Nyikina-Mangala claim, available at: http://www.nntt.gov.au/searchRegApps/NativeTitleRegisters/Pages/NNTR_details.aspx?NNTT_Fileno=WCD2014/003.

91 Ibid., para. 5(b).

92 s. 211 NTA 1993.

93 A. Poelina, Managing Kimberley Water Now for the Future, Madjulla Inc., 31 Mar. 2015, available at: http://majala.com.au/mardoowarra/managing-kimberley-water-now-for-the-future.

94 NTA 1993; cumulative provisions limit the right to negotiate. See also Triggs, G., ‘Australia's Indigenous Peoples and International Law: Validity of the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (Cth)’ (1999) 23(2) Melbourne University Law Review, pp. 372–415Google Scholar.

95 M. McDuffie & A. Poelina, Standing Together for Kandri (short film and paper presented at the WACOSS 2012 Conference, 8–10 May 2012, Perth (Australia)), available at: https://vimeo.com/87175648.

96 A. Poelina, personal communication, 2016.

97 Commonwealth of Australia, ‘National Heritage Listing: The West Kimberley’, Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, 31 Aug. 2011, available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/ed0b4e39-41eb-4cee-84f6-049a932c5d46/files/10606305.pdf.

98 Australian Government, ‘Our North, Our Future: White Paper on Developing Northern Australia’, June 2015 (White Paper), p. 18, available at: https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/our-north-our-future-white-paper-on-developing-northern-australia.

99 White Paper, ibid., p. 97.

100 Triggs, n. 94 above.

101 Commonwealth of Australia, ‘National Heritage Listing: The West Kimberley’, n. 97 above.

102 The Native Title Determinations of Martuwarra are broken down into six claimant groups.

103 Commonwealth of Australia, ‘National Heritage Listing: The West Kimberley’, n. 97 above; H. Hobbs, ‘Will Treaties with Indigenous Australians Overtake Constitutional Recognition’, The Conversation, 20 Dec. 2016, available at: https://theconversation.com/will-treaties-with-indigenous-australians-overtake-constitutional-recognition-70524.

104 Government of Western Australia, Heritage Council, State Heritage Office, ‘Geikie Gorge (Place Number 04434)’, InHerit, 21 Aug. 1995, available at: http://inherit.stateheritage.wa.gov.au/Public/Inventory/Details/931de8a8-7503-4535-883e-1cee7af9ecf5.

105 Government of Western Australia, Heritage Council, State Heritage Office, ‘Geikie Gorge National Park (Place Number 18638)’, InHerit, 21 Jan. 2009, available at: http://inherit.stateheritage.wa.gov.au/Public/Inventory/Details/0920c55d-ee8c-4bfc-9845-a0254ef6b065.

106 Subdivision P – Right to Negotiate, ss. 36A, 42 and 43. Also B. Kruse (personal communications, Broome Workshop, 28 Sept. 2016).

107 Waitangi Tribunal, ‘The Whanganui River Report, Case WAI167’, available at: https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_68450539/Whanganui%20River%20Report%201999.pdf (Waitangi Tribunal (1999)).

108 Burdon, P. et al. , ‘Decolonising Indigenous Water “Rights” in Australia: Flow, Difference, and the Limits of Law’ (2015) 5(4) Settler Colonial Studies, pp. 334–49, at 343CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

109 Ibid.

110 Mabo (No. 2), n. 80 above, per Brennan J and majority judges (Dawson J dissenting).

111 ‘Iwi’ is the Māori word which refers to a Māori tribe or nation.

112 Waitangi Tribunal (1999), n. 107 above, p. 343.

113 Ibid., p. 337.

114 Ibid., pp. 338 and 343.

115 Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act, available at: https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/00DBHOH_BILL68939_1/te-awa-tupua-whanganui-river-claims-settlement-bill. The Act declares that Te Awa Tupua is ‘an indivisible and living whole and comprises the Whanganui River from the mountains to the sea, incorporating all its physical and metaphysical elements and is a legal person with all the rights, powers, duties and liabilities of a legal person’. The Act received Royal Assent on 20 Mar. 2017, and gives effect to the Whanganui River Deed of Settlement signed on 5 Aug. 2014, which implemented the Waitangi Tribunal decision (Case WAI167) in 1999.

116 Waitangi Tribunal (1999), n. 107 above, p. xiv.

117 Ibid., p. 39.

118 Mabo (No.2), n. 80 above, per Brennan J. Yet, to date in Australia, as it has not been challenged, native title water rights have been administered in terms of the common law dissected view, contrary to the native title doctrine principle that such title must be recognized in customary law terms.

119 Waitangi Tribunal (1999), n. 107 above, p. xiv.

120 Ibid., p. 338.

121 Ibid., p. 335.

122 Davis, P.N., ‘Nationalization of Water Use Rights in the Australian States’ (1975) 9(1) University of Queensland Law Journal, pp 1–25Google Scholar. Davis argued that the ‘nationalization clauses’ abolished common law riparian rights. However, in Rapoff v. Velios [1975] WAR 27, the WA Supreme Court held that common law riparian rights endure but are subject to the state's superior right to allocate to the contrary.

123 Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA), s. 9 (originally s. 14).

124 Current provisions are Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA), s. 5A; Water Act 1989 (Vic), s. 7; Water Management Act 2000 (NSW), s 392; Water Act 2000 (Qld), s. 26; Water Resources Act 2007 (ACT), s. 7; Water Act 1992 (NT), s. 9.

125 McPherson, E., Indigenous Water Rights in Law and Regulation: Lessons from Comparative Experience (Cambridge University Press, 2019), p. 56CrossRefGoogle Scholar (citing ICM Agriculture Commonwealth [2009] 240 CLR 140).

126 Akiba on behalf of the Torres Strait Regional Seas Claim Group v. Commonwealth of Australia [2013] HCA 33, [68].

127 Keon-Cohen, B., ‘From Euphoria to Extinguishment to Co-existence’ (2017) 23 James Cook University Law Review, pp. 9–30, at 15Google Scholar.

128 Brennan, S., quoted in Webb, R., ‘The 2016 Sir Frank Kitto Lecture: Whither Native Title?’ (2015–16) 19(2) Australian Indigenous Law Review, pp. 114–28, at 123 (Webb (2016))Google Scholar.

129 Ward, n. 40 above, [578].

130 J. Gray, ‘Is Native Title a Proprietary Right?’ (2002) 9(3) Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law online articles, para. 62 (paper presented at the Australasian Law Teachers’ Association Annual Conference, Perth (Australia), 29 Sept.– 2 Oct. 2002, available at: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurdochUeJlLaw/2002/32.html).

131 Fejo v. Northern Territory of Australia (1998) 195 CLR 96, p. 128.

132 Lilienthal, G., The Australian ‘Songlines’: A Re-Framed Symbol of Ancient Continental Common Law? (Carrington Rand, 2016), p. 4Google Scholar.

133 Ibid., p. 3.

134 Ibid., p. 25.

135 Fortescue Metals Group, n. 86 above. See Bagnall, D., ‘Fortescue Metals Group v Warrie on behalf of the Yindjibarndi People’ (2020) 34(9&10) Australian Environmental Review, pp. 226–31Google Scholar. Fortescue Metals' application for special leave to appeal to the High Court against the Full Federal Court’s decision was rejected by the High Court on 29 May 2020.

136 Fortescue Metals Group, ibid., per Jagot and Mortimer JJ at [288], with Robertson and Griffiths JJ concurring at [397], and White J concurring at [528] (emphasis added).

137 Fortescue Metals Group, n. 86 above, [81].

138 Western Australia v. Fazeldean (No. 2) [2013] FCAFC 58; 211 FCR 150, [35].

139 Fortescue Metals Group, n. 86 above, [140] (emphasis added).

140 In Birtchnell v. Equity Trustees, Executors & Agency Co Ltd (1929) 42 CLR 38, p. 407, Dixon J held that the relationship of mutual agency between partners meant they are under a fiduciary duty to refrain from actions which conflict, or which might possibly conflict, with the interests of those they are bound to protect. Also, in United Dominions Corporation Ltd v. Brian Pty Ltd [1983] 1 NSWLR 490, p. 506, Samuels JA concluded that ‘joint venturers owe to one another the duty of utmost good faith due from every member of a partnership towards every other member’.

141 Rose, D., ‘Common Property Regimes in Aboriginal Australia: Totemism Revisited’, in Larmour, P. (ed.), The Governance of Common Property in the Pacific Region (ANU Press, 2013), pp. 127–44Google Scholar.

142 Waitangi Tribunal, ‘The Stage 2 Report on the National Freshwater and Geothermal Resources Claims’, WAI 2358, paras 2.6.5 and 2.6.6, available at: https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_152208791/Freshwater%20W.pdf. (Waitangi Tribunal (2019)). The Tribunal recommended a percentage of water allocation to be set aside for Māori, a national co-governance/allocation body, and Resource Management Act reform.

143 Ibid., p. xxi.

144 NTA 1993, sub-s. 4(6).

145 See the High Court in Wik Peoples v. Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1.

146 Yanner v. Eaton (1999) CLR 351 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Kirby and Hayne JJ), p. 369, [28] and [37].

147 Contrast the High Court in Ward, n. 40 above. The current approach to determining extinguishment by necessary implication is outlined in Akiba, n. 126 above: legislation that is regulatory rather than prohibitory is consistent with the ongoing exercise and recognition of native title rights and interests; therefore there is no extinguishment. See also Karpany (2013) 303 ALR 216, p. 224, [32].

148 O'Bryan, K., ‘Giving a Voice to the River and the Role of Indigenous People: The Whanganui River Settlement and River Management in Victoria’ (2017) 20 Australian Indigenous Law Review, pp. 48–77, at 72Google Scholar.

149 Fortescue Metals Group, n. 86 above; Akiba, n. 126 above; also, Western Australia v. Brown [2014] HCA 8.

150 Keon-Cohen, n. 127 above, p. 30.

151 Noongar (Koorah, Nitja, Boordahwan) (Past, Present, Future) Recognition Act 2016 (WA); see also O'Bryan, n. 148 above, p. 73.

152 O'Bryan, ibid., p. 73.

153 O'Bryan, ibid.

154 Brierley, G. et al. , ‘A Geomorphic Perspective on the Rights of the River in Aotearoa New Zealand’ (2018) 35(10) River Research and Applications, pp. 1–12Google Scholar.

155 Note that this governance model would also effectively implement the concept of ‘Earth Community’ as advocated by Burdon, P., ‘Earth Jurisprudence and the Murray Darling: The Future of a River’ (2012) 37(2) Alternative Law Journal, pp. 82–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, as Indigenous custodians manage Country in a way that values and respects ecological integrity and equilibrium within connected systems: ‘Earth Jurisprudence seeks to catalyse a paradigm shift in law from anthropocentrism to the eco-centric concept of “Earth Community”. This term refers specifically to two ideas. First, human beings exist as one interconnected part of a broader community that includes both living and nonliving entities. Second, the Earth is a community of subjects and not a collection of objects that exist for human use and exploitation’ (ibid., p. 84); ‘Earth Jurisprudence advocates the concept of Earth Community as an alternative paradigm for law and recognises the intrinsic value of ecosystems. This alternative focus offers a unique holistic insight into the management of the Basin and suggests modelling founded on the principle of ecological integrity’ (ibid., p. 85).

156 Watson, n. 43 above, p. 15.

157 See, e.g., O'Donnell, E. & Talbot-Jones, J., ‘Creating Legal Rights for Rivers: Lessons from Australia, New Zealand and India’ (2018) 23(1) Ecology and Society online articles, Art. 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, available at: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss1/art7; O'Donnell, E. & Macpherson, E., ‘Voice, Power and Legitimacy: The Role of the Legal Person in River Management in New Zealand, Chile and Australia (2019) 23(1) Australasian Journal of Water Resources, pp. 35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

158 See Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, available at: http://therightsofnature.org.