Keeping the engine room running: key themes and developments in water resources management in the Pilbara region of Western Australia

Water management is a key issue confronting government, the mining industry and the wider community in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. This article will provide an update on three current developments in Pilbara water resource management: preparation of the Pilbara groundwater allocation plan, consideration of facilitating the on-use of mine dewatering surplus ( or excess), and preparation of a guidance note on environmental and water assessments relating to mining operations in the Fortescue Marsh area.! From these developments, we can draw three themes that appear to be guiding water resource management in the Pilbara: limited water allocation plans, diversification of water supply sources (and the associated removal of any potential legislative constraints with respect to the use of mine dewater), and management of cumulative impacts for specific areas of ecological significance. This article seeks to explore these guiding themes and identify issues that require further investigation

Clear Choices in Murky Waters: Leo Akiba on behalf of the Torres Strait Regional Seas Claim Group v Commonwealth of Australia

Those who have travelled between the islands in the Torres Strait will know that much of the water is crystal clear.1 However, the �clear constructional choices� presented in the Torres Strait Regional Seas native title claim have led to murky waters. Twenty-one years after Mabo, 2 the Torres Strait Islander people again find themselves before the High Court. Given the narrow grounds of appeal, this case is not, in any sense, �the Mabo of the sea�. Nonetheless, the appeal presents the High Court with an opportunity to recognise and clarify native title rights. Two distinct issues are before the High Court: whether native title rights to commercial fishing have been extinguished and whether reciprocal native title rights can be recognised. Regarding whether native title rights to commercial fishing have been extinguished, the author argues that the trial judge was correct to identify the �clear constructional choices� involved and that the majority in the Full Federal Court should not be so emphatic in their statement of the �orthodox approach� to extinguishment. The lack of clarity regarding the content of reciprocal rights has made it hard for the Torres Strait Regional Seas Claim Group to succeed on the second issue, but there is no authority to prevent the High Court from recognising such rights

Reconciling Indigenous and Settler-State Assertions of Sovereignty Over Sea Country in Australia’s Northern Territory

In 2008, the High Court of Australia handed down its decision in Northern Territory v Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust (‘Blue Mud Bay Case’). The Blue Mud Bay Case affirmed the legal rights of Aboriginal Traditional Owners to control access to the waters of the intertidal zone in the Northern Territory (‘NT’). Immediately after the Blue Mud Bay Case was handed down, an interim amnesty came into operation that was agreed so that nothing changed in practice ‘on the water’. The NT Government and Traditional Owners agreed that the best way to move forward was to negotiate how the intertidal zone would be governed. As at mid-2020 these negotiations are ongoing. Therefore, the Traditional Owners in the NT are not currently controlling access to the waters of the intertidal zone as the Blue Mud Bay Case determined was their legal right.The pre-history and the aftermath of the Blue Mud Bay Case reveals a series of evolving interactions between Indigenous and settler-state assertions of sovereignty in sea country in the NT. This thesis analyses five historical and contemporary episodes: 1) the Woodward Aboriginal Land Rights Commission and the debates about sea country in the enactment of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) in the 1970s; 2) the first sea closure hearing and declaration under that legislation in the early 1980s; 3) the High Court’s decision in Commonwealth v Yarmirr recognising native title offshore in 2001; 4) the Blue Mud Bay Case in 2008; and 5) the negotiations between the NT Government and Traditional Owners following the Blue Mud Bay Case. These episodes are analysed using a reconciling sovereignties frame that examines the interaction between co-existing assertions of Indigenous and settler-state sovereignty over sea country. This examination reveals that, although these episodes may appear disjointed, some of these assertions of sovereignty range across all the episodes. Further, the analysis demonstrates that the protracted nature of the Blue Mud Bay negotiations has been caused by the underlying struggle of the settler-state to acknowledge the challenge to the settler-state’s assertions of authority over sea country