www.synexe.com

1. Introduction
2. Murray
–
Darling Basin
3. Western Australia
4. Northern Territory
5. Queensland
6. New South Wales (NSW)
7. Victoria
8. South Australia
9. Tasmania
10. Australian Capital Territory (ACT)
References
Table 1: Queensland recently established wild river reserves ................................................ 13
15
18
21
24
26
27
1
3
6
9
12
Figure 1: National issues map ................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Murray
–
Darling Basin issues map ............................................................................. 5
Figure 3: Western Australia issues map .................................................................................... 8
Figure 4: Northern Territory issues map .................................................................................. 11
Figure 5: Queensland issues map ........................................................................................... 14
Figure 6: New South Wales issues map ................................................................................. 17
Figure 7: Victoria issues map .................................................................................................. 20
Figure 8: South Australia issues map ...................................................................................... 23

Qld
SA
Tas
WA
ACT Australian Capital Territory
CEWH
CMA
Cwlth
IPP
MLDRIN
NAILSMA
NBAN
NRM
NSW
NT
NWI
Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder
Catchment management authority
Commonwealth
Indigenous Partnerships Plan
Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations
North Australia Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance
Northern Murray-Darling Basin Aboriginal Nations
Natural resource management
New South Wales
Northern Territory
National Water Initiative
Queensland
South Australia
Tasmania
Western Australia

The National Water Commission recognises the need to better understand the interests and
There are many challenges for meaningful Indigenou
management; but there are also many opportunities. This report sets out, state by state, how legislative and governance mechanisms have developed to respond to the National
Water Initiative 2004 (NWI).
Under the NWI, states have committed to ensuring that Indigenous needs in relation to water access and management are recognised in water entitlements and planning by:
 including Indigenous representation in water planning, wherever possible
 incorporating Indigenous social, spiritual and customary objectives and strategies for achieving these objectives, wherever they can be developed
 taking account of the possible existence of native title rights to water and potentially allocating water to native title holders
 accounting for any water allocated to native title holders for traditional cultural purposes.
The capacity for these commitments to benefit Indigenous people is weakened in several ways:

They are mainly discretionary

They offer little guidance to water planners, who must balance competing priorities for water use, with limited knowledge of Indigenous water requirements.

They are limited to protecting Indigenous customary values, which are interpreted as noncommercial interests. This means that economic development is not included.

They frame Indigenous water entitlements as part of the legal requirements of native title
but given the partial, limited and fragmented nature of native title rights, this is likely to be a weak foundation.
Approaches to implementing the NWI vary greatly state by state. This report not only explores the specifically water-related Indigenous participation mechanisms, but it also looks at how other emerging governance structures can and do interface with water planning processes. In
NWI found that Indigenous economic, cultural and spiritual interests should be more effectively incorporated into planning, including by specifically providing for Indigenous water requirements and by effectively engaging Indigenous people in water planning processes.
This finding is still accurate now, but notable progress has been made during the past year and a half. Individual water sharing plans are beginning to provide for specific cultural interests as identified in consultation and research reports, and some limited steps are being taken towards allocating water for economic use and native title holders.
The emergence and strengthening of Indigenous-led governance organisations have also
engage in a more meaningful participation process in water planning efforts. Examples include the New So
Parties, and the Aboriginal Statewide Advisory Committee in South Australia. Comanagement arrangements for specific water resources, either with government or the private sector, are a model that has appeared in Western Australia. How these groups will participate and be engaged in water management planning remains to be seen. Also, official
1

water planning bodies in some predominantly Indigenous-owned areas, such as the
Tiwi Islands in Northern Territory or Alinytjara Wilurara in South Australia, are controlled by Indigenous people.
Many states see Indigenous water as a component of environmental flows, however it has become necessary to consider the relationship of cultural or Indigenous water to environmental flows and whether or not a separate allocation is required. The difficulties surrounding the quantification of cultural water and Indigenous water may present a barrier to cultural and Indigenous allocation. The lack of available methodologies for assessing flow requirements to sustain Indigenous values prevents the transparent negotiation of trade-offs surrounding allocation decisions. In Queensland, this has been addressed through the Wild
Rivers Act 2005 and the subsequent Cape York Peninsula Heritage Act 2007 , which provide for Indigenous reserves in water determined to be Wild Rivers. In the Northern Territory, two water allocation plans have specific allocations for Indigenous requirements.
Currently, many water sharing plans are not yet finalised or are due for review: this provides an opportunity to influence the outcomes. There is also growing interest in the economic use of waters in Northern Australia, which will increase consumptive demand in the future. This makes it imperative to secure Indigenous interests now, before problems of overallocation are allowed to develop.
Figure 1: National issues map
2

Legislative, policy and geographic context
The Murray
Darling Basin
Queensland, New South Wales (NSW), the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), Victoria, and
South Australia. Two million people reside in the basin, including approximately 70,000
Indigenous people (3.5 per cent of the total basin population; 15 per cent of the national
Indigenous population). Indigenous ownership is less than 0.2 per cent of the Murray
Darling basin land area (Jackson 2009, p. 27).
The basin is characterised by overallocation, and although the requirement to provide environmental flows are driving the agenda through watering plans, many Aboriginal people argue that cultural flows are not yet being adequately achieved (Jackson 2009, p.4).
The Murray
Darling Basin Commission was established in 1988 to develop measures for the equitable, efficient and sustainable use of the Murray-
December 2008, it was replaced by the Murray
Darling Basin Authority, which had the
Indigenous people have with the land, and since 2002 they have been formally engaging with Indigenous communities. In addition, the two organisations have been engaged in the development of an Indigenous Action Plan, and an Indigenous Partnerships
Plan (IPP) which explores cultural mapping methods based on Canadian land claims useand-occupancy mapping (discussed below).
The Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations (MLDRIN) is a confederation of ten
Indigenous nations.
1 In 2006 it entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the
Murray
Darling Basin Commission and the Murray
Darling Basin Ministerial Council.
Additional legal frameworks and mechanisms to protect Indigenous water and aquatic resources include: agreements between Indigenous nations and the Murray
Darling Basin Commission (and with local and state governments) cultural heritage management plans, which also provide employment for Indigenous people co-management arrangements with cultural agencies provision of access to traditional owners to sites of significance and for hunting and fishing.
All of these agreements and plans operate outside of native title processes.
The more recently formed Northern Murray
Darling Basin Aboriginal Nations (NBAN) represents 26 nations with two representatives from each nation. The NSW Aboriginal Land
Council is also involved with NBAN. With more than 22,000 members, the NSW Aboriginal
Land Council is the largest Aboriginal member organisation in Australia, holding water licences and significant land assets. Both MLDRIN and NBAN working together have sought assistance in undertaking research to document and measure cultural flow requirements in recognition that the dialogue around cultural flows needs to develop and mature. While the
1
See Murray Lowed Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations, ‘Membership – Nations’, online at
< http://www.mldrin.org.au/membership/nations.htm
>.
3

formation of NBAN itself is a significant achievement, it remains under-resourced (Jackson et al. 2010).
Indigenous control, participation and engagement
The Living Murray Initiative and its subsequent environmental watering plans have been developed by the Murray
Darling Basin Commission to release 600 gigalitres of water as environmental flows to achieve ecological objectives at six iconic sites along the Murray River
(Jackson 2009, p. 28). The Living Murray Initiative triggered MLDRIN to develop the IPP, which outlines the process for Indigenous engagement in environmental watering based on: the employment of local Indigenous facilitators; the documentation of Indigenous values; and cultural site mapping. The IPP works to develop engagement mechanisms and assessment approaches for sites of cultural significance, combined with recording oral histories (Jackson
2009, p. 30).
The Murray
Darling Basin Authority is preparing a basin plan.
provide an integrated approach to managing the water resources of the Murray
Darling
Basin in a way that can be sustained through time and in the national interest (Jackson 2009, p. 30). One of the aspects of the plan is to take into account the impact of the protection and restoration of the Murray
Darling Basin on individual communities, industries, regions and the wider economy. In October 2010, the Guide to the Proposed Murray-Darling Basin Plan (the
Guide) was released. Following feedback on the Guide, the Murray
Darling Basin Authority will release a proposed basin plan for further detailed community discussion including the opportunity for a formal submission process, as is required under the Commonwealth Water
Act 2007 . As part of the consultation on the Guide and proposed plan, the Murray
Darling
Basin Authority will be holding public meetings in many towns and cities in the basin with stakeholders, irrigators and basin communities. The Murray
Darling Basin Authority plans to hold an engagement process focused specifically on gaining feedback from Indigenous communities in the Murray
Darling Basin.
Indigenous water allocation and access
MLDRIN has contested whether environmental flows can also achieve cultural objectives, and has been developing its own policies on water allocation and cultural flows. It advocates for allocations based on cultural flows, for the purpose of supporting the Indigenous economy
(Morgan et al. 2004).
Funding mechanisms
The Commonwealth Government has established the Commonwealth Environmental Water
Holder (CEWH), whose role is to protect or restore the environmental assets of the Murray-
Darling Basin and other specified catchment areas. The CEWH has been purchasing water entitlements: $50 million-worth through to May 2008, with an addition $3.1 billion-worth projected through to 2019 (DEWHA 2008).
Thus far, the CEWH has been efficient and effective, with water managed according to the environmental watering plan established by the Living Murray Initiative. It should be noted that the Stakeholder Consultative Committee evaluating the CEWH until June 2009 did not have any Indigenous representatives, but that the Water Recovery and Environmental Use
Stakeholder Reference Panel, which replaced it, includes one Aboriginal member, Steve
Ross (DSEWPC 2010). Furthermore, Victoria is also intending to create an Environmental
Water Holder in 2011 (Office of Water (Victoria) 2010).
4

Outputs fr
concepts to meet cultural flows, and the subsequent policies on water allocation and environmental flows that will come out of the IPP, may help to better define and quantify cultural flows. Water Holder programs may provide a mechanism for purchasing water in the
Murray
Darling Basin system for cultural water, in that public benefit outcomes are a component of environmental water allocations, which could conceivable include Indigenous water allocations. NBAN also has a crucial role to play, but it remains under-resourced.
Figure 2: Murray
Darling Basin issues map
5

Legislative context
the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA); a Water Resources Management Bill is currently being drafted, and has not yet gone before the Parliament.
A licence is needed to take water from areas which the government has declared to be
area, proclaimed areas are around the large northern rivers and large areas of the
Pilbara and South West. Water allocation plans, relating to particular water resources or areas, are currently being developed: not many are finished yet. Outside proclaimed areas, water can be taken so lon
2
Indigenous water allocation and access
Very few water allocation plans have been finalised, and none so far make any separate allocations for cultural or Indigenous economic water. There are no state-wide or statutory mechanisms or policies, though the new legislation may change this (Department of Water
2008:3.2). Indigenous land use agreements may include rights to water, but these will need to be included in water allocation plans. Many of the broader planning documents, such as regional water plans or the NWI Implementation Plan, indicate some willingness to provide for specifically Aboriginal access to water (for example, see Department of Water 2007:3.6, 2009,
2010b). An internal working group in the Department of Water was established to draft a policy paper on the issues involved with Aboriginal access to water resources in Western Australia
(Department of Water 2007); at the time of writing, this paper has not yet been released.
Issues that were identified include the following:
Cultural water
planners commission studies to determine Aboriginal cultural values in water within planning areas (Department of Water 2007). Most water allocation plans assume that environmental allocations are sufficient for Aboriginal cultural purposes.
Indigenous economic water
none of the water allocation plans already produced make specific allocation for Indigenous economic uses. Concerns about need to set aside future entitlements have been raised by traditional owners in La Grange, but no provision has been made (Department of Water 2010a:5.2).
Native title
the new Water Resources Management Bill is likely to specifically recognise native title rights in water (Department of Water 2008:3.6).
Indigenous control, participation and engagement
Western Australia is making some progress with involving Aboriginal people in water resource management and planning. There is no statutory requirement for Aboriginal participation in water planning, but there are mechanisms for consultation in the various plans and policies.
The Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) protects significant sites, and native title has been used to control water-affecting activities indirectly by controlling access to land. The
Department of Water has an Indigenous Affairs coordinator, an Indigenous Support Unit, an
Indigenous trainee program, and an Indigenous Affairs Advisory Committee (this Advisory
Committee does not have any Internet presence but is referred to in a number of publications.
2
Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA), ss.5A
–5E. A s5C licence allows the licence holder to
‘take’ water from a watercourse, wetland or underground source; a s26D licence is required to construct or alter any artesian well or any non-artesian well in a proclaimed groundwater area.
6

(The authors were unable to ascertain its current status or activities) Comanagement Boards have been set up for particular areas (Lake Argyle, Weeli Wolli Creek) under Indigenous land use agreements or by private resource companies (see Office of Native Title 2006; Chamber of Minerals and Energy 2007). Other examples of Indigenous control, participation and engagement in Western Australia include Kimberley Land Council managing two Indigenous protected areas, the Kimberley Ranger Initiative is actively involved in waterway management and hopes to become more involved in monitoring water flow and quality (Department of
Water 2009, Chapter 6).
Funding mechanisms
There are a number of environmental and cultural heritage grants available (for example
and Kimberley Aboriginal Reference Group have been involved in a number of natural resourc
Department of Water 2009, Chapter 6). Also the Ord-East Kimberly Expansion project
with
$195 million of Commonwealth stimulus spending for the East Kimberley Development
Package and $220 milli
Irrigation Expansion
will provide opportunities for Indigenous economic development and employment programs (Department of Regional Development and Lands 2011). Some Aboriginal groups, for example Miriuwung Gajerrong Corporation, are seeking private funding for developing agricultural projects.
Emerging issues
Many of the water allocation plans are yet to be made, and so there is still considerable scope to improve engagement and allocation mechanisms. New legislation is still in the drafting process, and it may incorporate native title water rights and a requirement that water plans identify Aboriginal interests and rights. The Ord-East Kimberly Expansion Project will increase the demands on the water resources in those regions, but will also increase funding opportunities for Indigenous economic development and employment programs.
Securing water entitlements for future Indigenous economic use is a priority at this stage.
The discussion papers for the Kimberley Regional Water Plan are currently open for comment. Involvement in the process at this stage seems essential for the protection of
Aboriginal interests.
7

Figure 3: Western Australia issues map
8

Legislative context
Water planning and allocation falls under the Water Act (NT). In the declared water control
public water supply, industry, rural stock/domestic, environmental, cultural) and preparing water allocation plans to distribute water across the beneficial uses.
Consumptive beneficial uses must be licensed, and non-consumptive beneficial uses are protected by limiting the allocation to consumptive uses. Cultural beneficial uses cover both
Indigenous and non-Indigenous cultural needs, and are assumed to be non-consumptive.
Outside the water control districts, water use still must be licensed (except for domestic use and livestock) but there is not necessarily a water allocation plan (see ss.4(3), 22A, 22B,
44, 45, 59, 60 of the Water Act ).
Water allocation and access
There are currently no allocations specifically to Indigenous purposes, but future plans are likely to contain mechanisms for such allocations (see below). Water planning in the Northern
Territory is underdeveloped: only three water allocation plans have been completed, and a further three are under active development.
3 Plans run for a maximum of 10 years, and they are reviewed every five years (s.22B).
Cultural water
most water allocation plans assume that environmental water is enough to serve cultural values, but some explicitly say that if research shows that special allocations are required then they will account for those where possible. The NWI
Implementation Plan commits to reporting annually on the provision of Indigenous cultural use allocations, and to using Indigenous ecological knowledge when deciding environmental water allocations. Further research is necessary to determine the extent to which these commitments are being met.
Economic water
there is no specific provision for Indigenous commercial use of water in the Water Act , though it is of course open to Aboriginal enterprises to apply for extraction licences. There are two water allocation plans (Ti Tree and Tindall Aquifer (Katherine)) that make specific allocations to Aboriginal horticultural and other enterprises. The Tindall
Acquifer Water Allocation Plan (Katherine) sets out a five-year review of licences, and any water recovered in this process goes to a number of purposes, including holding up to
680 megalitres in trust for Indigenous commercial purposes (this amount represents the anticipated gain in Aboriginal land ownership if the Katherine native title claim is successful).
4 Strategic Indigenous reserves are also under development for Oolloo
Aquifer (Daly River) and Mataranka.
Native title
the Northern Territory Government is seeking legal advice on the effect of native title on water rights, and the results will likely be incorporated into a current review of the Water Act (NT) (DNREA 2006:2.7). Strategic Indigenous reserves appear to be a way of ensuring water access for future native title holders.
3
Completed: Alice Springs (due for review in 2011), Ti Tree (currently under review, consultations starting 2011), Tindall Aquifer/Katherine. In development: Darwin region aquifers, Oolloo Aquifer/Daly,
Tindall Aquifer/Mataranka.
4
The calculation begins by stating that the Katherine native title application, if it is successful, would constitute about 2 per cent of the total area of the plan area. It then reasons that this should entitle the native title holders to 2 per cent of the total consumptive pool, which comes out to 680 megalitres.
9

Control, participation and engagement
There is no statutory requirement for Aboriginal participation in planning, but there are mechanisms for consultation and representation. Regional water advisory committees, who are in charge of developing water allocation plans, generally include Aboriginal representatives as committee members (two out of 24 members for Katherine, three out of 15 for Daly River, one out of eight for Mataranka), though there is no statutory requirement. For
Tiwi Islands, where all of the land is Aboriginal-owned, the government is providing a water planner (funded by the National Water Commission) to work with the Tiwi communities to develop a water resource strategy (DNREAS undated).
In Daly River, an Aboriginal Reference Group is being funded to prepare positions, meet and develop strategies and ensure their input to catchment processes has the support of other traditional owners. The three Aboriginal representatives on the Daly River Water Advisory
Committee are members of the Aboriginal Reference Group. Funding and resources are crucial to reference group effectiveness; the Northern Land Council had a government-funded position to support the Daly River Aboriginal Reference Group. The authors could not ascertain whether this position is still funded.
The Indigenous Water Policy Group (funded by the National Water Commission and facilitated by the North Australia Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance
(NAILSMA)) is involved in research on Indigenous water policy issues, promotion of best practice Indigenous engagement in water planning and management, communication and awareness-raising about water policy issues among Indigenous communities, and advising various bodies. It was instrumental in getting the Katherine Strategic Indigenous Reserve implemented. It is uncertain whether the Indigenous Water Policy Group will be funded beyond 2011.
The Indigenous Community Water Facilitator Network (funded by the National Water
Comission and facilitated by NAILSMA) develops linkages both across Indigenous communities and between communities and policy-makers. One facilitator, Peter Pender, is
coordinating meetings, guidance and planning workshops, in relation to the Daly River
Aboriginal Reference Group and the Oolloo and Mataranka planning processes (NAILSMA
2010).
In the NWI Implementation Plan, the government commits to report annually on levels of inclusion and engagement of all beneficial use stakeholders
including Indigenous interests
in all aspects of water allocation planning processes in the Northern Territory
(DNREA 2006:2.7).The authors were unable to find evidence of such annual reporting.
Funding mechanisms
The most relevant funding mechanisms are for research into specific Indigenous cultural values and water uses (for example, the CSIRO project Indigenous values and north
Australian water resource management). Another interesting initiative is Centrefarm
Aboriginal Horticulture Limited, a nation-wide organisation running a number of projects in
Northern Territory. Further investigation into their funding processes may provide useful guidance for future projects.
The National Water Commission has funded a number of initiatives through its Raising National
Water Standards program such as those ment
Corporation to upskill people in remote communities to look after their water supplies. The
1 0

project uses the community water planning tools previously developed with National
Water Commission funding (Power and Water Corporation 2009, p. 43).
The Northern Territory water planning regime is in a state of transition. The process of developing and reviewing water allocation plans seems open to guidance by research or policy advice (such as that developed by the Indigenous Water Policy Group) identifying specific Indigenous cultural and economic interests. The creation of Aboriginal Reference
Groups similar to the Daly River Aboriginal Reference Group may be a workable model if they are properly resourced to undertake community consultation.
Figure 4: Northern Territory issues map
11

Legislative context
Water Act 2000 (Qld) unbundled water rights from rights in land, so that existing entitlements to water are now tradable. Basin-scale water resource plans quantify consumptive and non-consumptive water uses for each basin, based on hydrologic modelling and streamflow data. Each 10-year water resource plan engages a scientific expert panel in its development and incorporates community and user interests through community reference panels. At present, almost all basins in Queensland have finalised water resource plans in place: 18 plans are finalised, one is in draft form (Baffle), and one draft plan is in preparation
(Wet Tropics).
5
Indigenous control, participation and engagement
Section 41 of the Water Act 2000 (Qld) requires the establishment of a community reference panel for each water resource plan to secure the participation of groups and individuals with cultural, economic and environmental interests in the basin. Although these panels are required to have representatives of cultural, economic and environmental interests in the proposed plan area, little research is available showing how extensive Indigenous representation is. In the Gulf region, interviews with the Indigenous community and community reference panel members have indicated that the Indigenous consultation process for the Gulf water resource plan was inappropriate because of the highly bureaucratic and technical nature of the process (Jackson 2009, pp. 34
35). Other than the limited cases where Indigenous working groups are established and cultural assessment is conducted, research indicates that there have been no mechanisms for effective Indigenous input onto the water resource plan process (Jackson 2009).
Indigenous input has been provided through the preparation of Indigenous issues papers in the Georgina and Diamantina basin and the Barron Basin. The Indigenous issues papers supplemented the participation of the two Indigenous participants on the community reference panels in these basins (Jackson 2009). Through a thorough consultation process (including ten regional workshops), the Georgina and Diamantina paper serves three main functions: it provides a profile of the Indigenous population in the planni ng region it summarises the cultural significance of the river system and water-dependent features it identifies issues of concern to the Indigenous communities in relation to water planning.
The final Water Resource (Georgina and Diamantina) Plan 2004 contains specific provisions relating to ecological and cultural flows. In contrast, the Water Resource (Barron) Plan 2002 tries to relate Indigenous values to water flow, although it is not structured to meet the water
members were surveyed, and data were collected to understand the cultural significance of riparian vegetation and flow regimes throughout the basin.
Indigenous water allocation and access
The Queensland NWI Implementation Plan states that the absence of native title rights to water has prevented the development of specific legislative or water resource planning provisions for cultural water (Government of Queensland 2006, p. 27). Traditional water uses
5
See Department of Environment and Resource Management (Queensland), ‘Catchments’, online at
< http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/wrp/catchments.html
>.
1 2

are protected in plans through the provision of environmental flows, and specific provisions in some water resource plans cover special protection for water holes of Indigenous significance. Such provision exists in the Water Resource (Burnett Basin) Plan 2000 , where restrictions are in place for the extraction from water holes or lakes; any water extracted must not negatively affect ecological or cultural values of the water hole or lake. In addition,
Indigenous water reserves are identified in two water resource plans: 1000 megalitres in the
Statten River (part of the Water Resource (Gulf) Plan 2007 ) and 5000 megalitres in the Water
Resource (Mitchell) Plan 2007 .
The Wild Rivers Act 2005 (Qld) is Queensland legislation that protects rivers by recognising existing rights and permits while allowing limited future development. The following development is prohibited in declared rivers: new weirs and dams, new developments that restrict floodplain flows, stocking of non-local fish species, in-stream mining, or stream
-stream storages, or out-of-stream mining activities. In addition, for rivers declared under the Wild Rivers Act 2005 (Qld), only less than 1 per cent of streamflow can be used for consumptive purposes (Jackson 2009, p. 38).
The Cape York Peninsula Heritage Act 2007 (Qld) was passed in response to perceived restrictions of the Wild Rivers Act 2005 in order to help Indigenous communities achieve their economic and social aspirations. Under this legislation, Indigenous communities can have access to set-aside reserves of water in Cape York, which can be accessed through a licensing process that have been allocated based on efficient use for the stated purpose.
Existing uses are not subject to permits (camping, fishing, fire management practices, ceremonies), but new uses will require permits. The exact specifics are still under negotiation.
At present, ten wild rivers have been declared. A moratorium for water licence applications and proposed works exists on the proposed wild rivers: Jardine, Ducie, Watson, Holroyd and
Coleman river basins on the western Peninsula and the Jackey Jackey, Olive-Pascoe,
Stewart and Jeannie river basins on the eastern Peninsula. In addition, the Lake Eyre Basin rivers (Georgina, Diamantina, and Cooper Creek Basins) are being considered for wild river status within the next year.
6
Unallocated water reserves are identified under the wild river declarations, providing
Indigenous and strategic reserves as well as general reserves. Indigenous reserves are to assist Indigenous communities with achieving their social and economic aspirations. Strategic reserves cover developments of state or regional significance (such as ecotourism or municipal water supplies). General reserves are for all other types of development. Table 1 below sets out, by river, the Indigenous, strategic and general reserves established through the determination of the river having wild river status. The six wild rivers that were established in 2007 do not have these reserves.
Table 1: Queensland recently established wild river reserves
Wild River Date declared Reserve type and water allocation (megalitres)
Wenlock
Archer
4 June 2010
3 April 2009
Stewart 3 April 2009
Lockhart 3 April 2009
Source: DERM (undated).
Indigenous
5000
6000
4000
5000
Strategic
2000
6000
800
2000
General
1000
2000
200
500
6
See Wild Rivers at < http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/wildrivers > for more information (DERM undated).
1 3

On 6 August 2009, the Mary River Statement was delivered to the Australian Government.
7 In the Statement, the North Australian Indigenous Land Sea Management Alliance and the
Indigenous Water Policy Group collectively assert their rights to engagement and participation
The mechanisms that will develop to allow for Indigenous communities to access the reserves prescribed by the wild rivers legislation and by separate water resource plans have yet to be streamlined and tested. How cultural and social aspirations translate into licences to access these reserves warrants further study.
8 Furthermore, engagement and participation processes that extend beyond Indigenous representation on the community reference panel need to be developed for meaningful input and involvement in the planning process. The example of cultural mapping in the Condamine Alluvial Basin may provide lessons to other basins regarding Indigenous engagement approaches.
9
Figure 5: Queensland issues map
7
Available online at < http://www.nailsma.org.au/nailsma/forum/downloads/Mary-River-Statement.pdf
>.
8
The Federal Government is approaching this challenge: see DSEWPC (2010).
9
See Water Planning Tools , ‘Queensland’, < http://www.waterplanning.org.au/trials/queensland >
1 4

Legislative context
The NWI triggered the amendment of the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW). In order to comply with this Act, 54 individual water sharing plans) have been developed for 17 separate hydrologic basins. In addition, six water sharing plans are presently in development (see
Office of Water 2011). In NSW, water rights refer to entitlements and licences for quantifiable water allocations.
The Water Management Act 2000 has two key elements of significance for Aboriginal communities: section 13 requires mandatory Indigenous representation on water management committees for the development of water sharing plans it allows for Special Purpose Aboriginal licences to be available (New South Wales
Government 2006).
Overall, NSW is seen as the most comprehensive of the Australian jurisdictions in terms of its approach to Indigenous participation and access to water entitlements (Jackson 2009, p. 20).
However, the arrangements that allow for Aboriginal water rights remain linked with the
Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) and the subsequent Native Title Act 2003 (NSW), 10 whereby water used for traditional purposes does not require a licence when Aboriginal people exercise their land rights, although these rights are subordinate to existing rights of other users. In 2009, of 35 reviewed water sharing plans, only two provided an allocation for native title, despite the 35 determinations of native title existing in NSW 11 and more than
2313 successful land claims under Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW).
12 In NSW, if
Aboriginal communities were to be deprived of native title water rights because of the allocation of that water to other users, the NSW Government would arguably have to compensate for those rights (Jackson 2009, pp. 21
–
23).
Indigenous water allocation and access
Two types of Indigenous Specific Purpose Licences are available under the NSW Water
Management Act 2000 : cultural access licences and commercial access licences. These access licences are specific to NSW in terms of providing water allocation and access to
Aboriginal people.
Cultural access licences are capped at 10 megalitres for each licence, and they cannot be traded. The first and only cultural access licence was allocated to the Nari Nari Tribal
Council near Hay in 2005. The licence has been used to water a culturally significant wetland on Tonngibie property, which is an Indigenous Protected Area, with the purpose being to protect fish life. Whether or not this is actually achieving the objectives is also an area of debate, in that the flooding that is required for the breeding of certain fish populations cannot be replicated (Jackson 2009, pp. 24
–
25).
10
See Fact Sheets by the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council (undated).
11
The list of native title determinations in NSW is available at the National Native Title Tribunal website:
< http://www.nntt.gov.au/Applications-And-Determinations/Search-
Determinations/Pages/Search.aspx?state=NSW%20ACT >.
12
See ‘Land claims’, in
Fact Sheets by the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council (undated) .
1 5

Equity of access and administrative burden emerge as key concerns for Aboriginal communities accessing water through the cultural access licences. The Nari Nari Tribal
Council has had to pay $9000 per annum, in addition to devoting a significant amount of time conforming to the demands of a highly complex regulatory system. For example, applications must be filed every three months to maintain the licence. The NSW Government needs to continue to explore socio-economic considerations this to become viable, as infrastructure requirements and access issues remain a challenge (Jackson 2009, pp. 24
25).
Commercial access licences are also made available under water sharing plans in order to support the commercial enterprises owned by Aboriginal people, although to date, none have been granted. These commercial access licences come with a number of restrictions and conditions. For example, in coastal river areas not affected by the Murray
the licences (1) cannot negatively impact ecological flow requirements, (2) cannot exceed 500 megalitres per annum, and (3) are non-tradable. Furthermore, the unattractive terms, low awareness, and lack of interest in irrigated agriculture amongst Aboriginal communities have been identified as barriers to the uptake of these types of licences. Another barrier is the condition that water storage and infrastructure capacity is required to utilise this licence efficiently. Water must be pumped during high flows, and stored until it is needed.
Opportunities in granting Aboriginal commercial access licences for groundwater allocation in northern NSW have been identified (Jackson 2009, pp. 24
25).
In a recent CSIRO report, other mechanisms to address Indigenous requirements in the NSW water management system are mentioned. For example, a number of NSW water sharing plans recognise the importance of managing the water supply in such a way that water supply to those exercising native title rights would be assured in periods of low flows (for example, the Gwydir Regulated River Water Source Plan) (Jackson 2009, pp. 22
23).
Funding mechanisms
In 2002, the Aboriginal Water Trust was formed, with $5 million available in grants for Aboriginal community-owned commercially viable businesses where water is an essential
and engage in the water planning process were eligible to apply. However, this fund was not set up to cover the cost of Aboriginal water licences. In 2007, twelve applications had been
Jackson 2009, p. 26).
Emerging issues
In NSW, overallocation is emerging as a key management issue for water resources. Although
Aboriginal representation is a requirement under the NSW Water Management Act 2000 , how this participation is playing out in terms of meeting spiritual, social, customary and economic uses of land and water is difficult to assess. The lack of methods for assessing flow requirements to sustain Aboriginal values prevents the transparent negotiation of trade-offs in allocation decisions. Furthermore, the technical and legal complexity of engaging in advisory groups, and negotiating the appropriate terms of engagement for partnerships and intellectual property still remain as outstanding challenges to achieving the objectives of the NWI for the
1 6

Figure 6: New South Wales issues map
17

Legislative context
In Victoria all water for consumptive purposes is taken through entitlements under the Water
Act 1989 (Vic). Planning is done at two levels: at the regional level there is a sustainable
management authorities (CMAs) are responsible for waterway, floodplain, drainage, and environmental water reserve management, in addition to other catchment health-related responsibilities (DPI undated). CMAs have employed Indigenous liaison officers, and the
North Central CMA has developed a protocol for engaging with the North West Nation and the Yorta Yorta Nation (Victorian Catchment Management Council 2003).
Indigenous control, participation and engagement
In order to meet NWI requirements, two main processes have been established: the
Indigenous Partnership Strategy, established in 2001, and the Indigenous Land
Management Framework, launched in 2004. Indigenous values are also recognised in the
Victorian River Health Strategy (2002), and Indigenous consultation is required for all river health plans (Government of Victoria 2006, pp. 20
23). However, there is little evidence of
Indigenous consultation in the bulk entitlement conversion process nor statutory plan development (Tan 2009, p. 33).
Registered Aboriginal Parties are appointed by the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council, and they are recognised by the government as the voice of Aboriginal people at the local level in the management and protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage under the Victorian Aboriginal
Cultural Heritage Act 2006 . At present, there are nine Registered Aboriginal Parties in
Victoria, including the Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation.
13
Indigenous water allocation and access
Water access has been provided primarily through the native title process, and thus far has been non-exclusive. Native title claims have taken an average of ten years to be resolved through the Fed
Victoria alone.
14 In Victoria there has been no native title awarded yet, with approximately twenty registered claims yet to be determined. Two native title consent orders were recently granted by the Federal Court, involving the Gunditjmara in the north-west and the
Wotjobaluk 15 people around the Wimmera River, north of Dimboola (Jackson 2009, p. 33). At
Lake Condah, in the Mount Eccles National Park, mediated native title resulted in the joint management and purchase of water to return the lake to a condition that would support eel
establishment of permanent flows to Lake Condah may represent the first water allocation to meet Aboriginal
2009, p. 33).
Native title and traditional owner settlement in Victoria is an evolving process. In June 2009, the Victorian Native Title Settlement Framework was established to provide out-of-court
13
See < http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/indigenous/aboriginal-cultural-heritage/registered-aboriginal-parties > for a list of Registered Aboriginal Parties.
14
Department of Justice (Victoria), ‘ Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 FAQs: native title and the new sys tem’, online at < http://www.justice.vic.gov.au
>.
15
Wotjobaluk, Jaadwa, Jadawadjali, Wergaia and Jupagulk peoples.
1 8

-
16 Components of this framework include:
 land access and use
 natural resource use and access
 measures for recognising and strengthening culture
 alignment with cultural heritage processes
 claims resolution.
It had been expected that the framework would be put into operation by April 2010 (Victorian
Traditional Owner Land Justice Group 2009).
In July 2010, the Traditional Owner Settlement Bill was proposed to the Victorian government as a more flexible, less technical, less costly mechanism for recognising native title and delivering land justice.
17 The Bill was negotiated in close consultation with the Victorian
Traditional Owner Land Justice Group, which has representatives from seventeen Aboriginal groups (Victorian Traditional Owner Land Justice Group 2010). Settlements will be given only where all traditional owners are recognised within an agreement area. All agreements are binding, and Federal native title claims must be withdrawn. The Bill does not exclude freehold land entitlement. Costs for the settlement process will be shared with the Commonwealth. In addition, the Bill establishes join management of natural resources (including water), through a Natural Resource Management Collaborative Body, which is designed to facilitate knowledge and information sharing between the government and Traditional Owners.
Furthermore, a Joint Management Board (with Aboriginal representation) will be appointed and a Traditional Owner Management Board will be developed.
Emerging issues
of the proposed Traditional Owner Settlement Bill, is currently under development. How land title will translate into water allocation and access, and how the Bill will influence other statewide plans and frameworks remains to be seen. In addition, Victoria has an unbundled system, where water rights are no longer attached to land, allowing for flexibility in trading and transferring (DSE 2009). How the Bill impacts water allocation and access, beyond the
Aboriginal participatory mechanisms that are being proposed, is unclear.
Although there appears to be a proliferation of strategies and frameworks for Aboriginal participation, it is challenging to uncover how these have been effective in consultation and engagement of Aboriginal groups. Furthermore, there is the potential opportunity for
Registered Aboriginal Parties, which are focused on cultural heritage, to effectively engage in the water entitlement and allocation process.
16
National Native Title Tribunal, ‘Victoria and Tasmania’, online at < http://www.nntt.gov.au/Native-Title -
In-Australia/Victoria/Pages/Victoria.aspx>.
17
The Department of Justice (Victoria) is preparing Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 FAQs at < http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/justlib/doj+internet/home/your+rights/indigenous+victoria ns/native+title/justice+-+e+traditional+owner+settlement+act+2010>
1 9

Figure 7: Victoria issues map

Legislative context
Water planning is done under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA). All prescribed water resources must have a water allocation plan created by the relevant regional natural resource management (NRM) board.
All major water resources in South Australia have already been prescribed: most have existing water allocation plans, but four are having plans drawn up, and there are two more water resource areas that will be prescribed soon. There are 12 plans currently being reviewed or amended (Department for Water 2011). In areas where water resources are not prescribed, there is no limit to the volume of surface water or groundwater that can be taken,
outside the
Murray-
DWLBC 2009).
Indigenous water allocation and access
Currently the South Australian water resource management system does not provide specific allocations for Indigenous cultural or economic use. Many of the water allocation plans do not mention Aboriginal people or interests at all, even though the relevant regional NRM plans do.
18 None of the plans have an express entitlement for cultural or economic Indigenous uses.
Two plans (Tatiara and Padthaway prescribed wells areas) allow unlicensed access and use for social, cultural and spiritual use, provided the flow of water is not diverted, or impeded for the pu
with traditional owners to identify and quantify those needs (DWLBC 2005:4.2.3;
SANRM 2010:4.2.4). In the Far North Prescribed Wells Area, there is a recognition of existing interests under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (SA), Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and
Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989 (SA), which protect
no actual allocations of water (SAALNRMB 2009:6.2). But the plan does not set out any concrete mechanism for incorporating statutory or native title rights into the mainstream allocation process. This suggests an assumption that Indigenous uses will be adequately served by environmental allocations.
Indigenous control, participation and engagement
There is no statutory requirement for Indigenous consultation on water planning. There is a requirement that one of the statewide NRM Council members must be nominated after consultation with representative Indigenous groups, but there is no requirement that the member actually represent Indigenous interests or be an Indigenous person ( Natural
Resources Management Act 2004 , s.13). In fact, the Council currently has one Aboriginal member
Karina Lester, a Yankunytjatjara Anangu woman. The Natural Resources
Management Act 2004 (SA) sets an objective that Indigenous interests will be considered, but there is no requirement (s.7(3)(h)). There is a statutory Aboriginal Statewide Advisory
Committee, which has the right to advise the NRM Council, but there is no statutory requirement that it be consulted. The Department of Water has produced a generic manual for NRM engagement with South Australian Aboriginal communities. The Natural Resources
Management Act 2004 also specifies some requirements for appointing regional NRM Board
18
For example: Clare Valley, Morambro Creek, Musgrave Prescribed Wells Area, Northern Adelaide
Plains Prescribed Wells Area, Southern Basins Prescribed Wells Area.
2 1

members
the Minister must notify Aboriginal representative bodies when appointments are going to be made, and should ensure that each board represents a range of knowledge, skills and experience, including in Aboriginal interest in the land and water, and Aboriginal heritage (s.25(4)(a)(ix)). One of the regional NRM boards (South Australia Arid Lands) has an Aboriginal Engagement Officer, distributes a targeted community newsletter, and assists the community to develop projects that meet their needs (SAALNRMB 2008). Another NRM
Board (Alinytjara Wilurara) has an all-Aboriginal membership.
Funding mechanisms
Some of the regional NRM Boards are offering small grants. For example, the Northern and
Yorke NRM Board provides funding of up to $50,000 to community groups and organisations
undertake regional natural resources management.
19 Within the SA Arid Lands NRM Region,
Aboriginal people have gained access to land by purchasing a number of pastoral properties in the Far North, often with the assistance of the Indigenous Land Corporation (SAALNRMB
2010:5.1.1). The Alinytjara Wilurara NRM Board receives funding from a number of different sources, including federal Landcare, Working on Country and Caring for our Country grants,
Networking Abori
Emerging issues
The frequency of reviews of water allocation plans means that there is a window for improving engagement. Two of the plans indicate that the water needs, present and future, of Aboriginal people have not been identified yet. There is clearly scope for work here to engage with the regional NRM boards to specify the uses and priorities of Aboriginal people. The Aboriginal
Statewide Advisory Committee may be a valuable body for coordinating this at the statewide level.
Alin
draft regional plan is not yet finalised, but the feedback period ended in February
2010. There are no prescribed areas in Alinytjara Wilurara requiring individual water allocation plans. Alinytjara Wilurara have set up a statewide Aboriginal NRM website
< www.aboriginalnrm.com.au
>, which includes a skills register, a contact database, and regional noticeboards. This may be a useful resource for Aboriginal water planning activities in South Australia.
19
Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board, ‘Grants’, online at http://www.nynrm.sa.gov.au/FindingInformation/Funding/Grants.aspx.
2 2

Figure 8: South Australia issues map
2 3

Legislative context
most of these are diverted to only a minor proportion of their total flow. None of the groundwater resources are highly developed (DPIWE 2005, p. 36). Water is allocated in
gulated systems generally have sufficient flow to meet environmental and user demands in most years (DPIWE 2005, p. 4). In 1995 the government stopped issuing new water entitlements for extraction during summer, and this has protected the rights of existing users and the environment from overallocation. As a result, Tasmania does not have any identified overallocated river systems (DPIWE 2005, p. 4).
The Water Management Act 1999 (Tas) does not include any direct reference to Aboriginal water rights. The Tasmanian National Water Initiative Implementation Plan states that the
2005 review of the Act. It says that, nevertheless, Indigenous rights are covered through prov
(DPIWE 2005, p. 28).
Indigenous water allocation and access
There are no mechanisms to allocate water specifically to Aboriginal purposes. None of the water management plans, nor any of the draft plans yet to be finalised, make any mention of
Aboriginal people or their interests.
Indigenous control, participation and engagement
There is no statutory requirement for Aboriginal participation. Tasmania has a generic policy to guide community consultation (DPIWE 2005, p. 28). Generally, the Tasmanian
preferred option is to establish a consultative group representing the various interest groups. The role of such a group is to advise the government on local water management issues; to seek advice from their representative organisations and to represent their economic, social and environmental interests; and to facilitate education of and dialogue with respective stakeholder groups (DPIW 2009). Consultation with peak stakeholders will primarily be through direct or indirect representation on a consultative group. The stakeholders will include the Tasmanian Aboriginal Land and Sea Council or the Aboriginal
Land Council of Tasmania where a management plan cover
DPIW 2009, pp. 14
15). There is no evidence to suggest that any consultation with
Aboriginal people has occurred in any of the water plans developed in Tasmania. The generic policy for water management planning has been amended to incorporate cultural and heritage objectives, but many of the plans still do not deal with these objectives.
Funding mechanisms
Nature Conservation Strategy 2002
2006 recommended that resources and expertise should be provided to Aboriginal communities for land and resource management, including funding and assisting with surveys, inventories and management advice (State
Biodiversity Committee 2003, p. 45). It is not clear what, if anything, has happened in this regard.
2 4

Emerging issues
All of the water management plans have review mechanisms built into them. Future engagement or advocacy could be directed to these review processes.
2 5

Legislative context
Prior to 1998, water extraction and use was not regulated in the ACT. The current controlling legislation is the Water Resources Act 2007 (ACT). The primary planning documents under the legislation are: the environmental flow guidelines which set out the environmental flow requirements needed to maintain aquatic ecosystems the water resources management plan, which describes the water resources of the ACT, including the flows required to meet the environmental needs of individual waterways or aquifers and proposed allocations for urban water supply, industry and other uses.
Infrastructure planning in ACT combines the functions undertaken by both local and state governments in other jurisdictions. When combined with the ACT system of leasehold land tenure, this approach results in stronger controls over land use. Low levels of extraction in the
ACT have allowed the Water Resources Act 2007 (ACT) to be structured to ensure that environmental requirements are secured before consumptive allocations are made (Australian
Capital Territory 2006, p. 4).
Indigenous water allocation and access
There are no mechanisms to allocate water specifically to Aboriginal purposes.
Indigenous control, participation and engagement
There is no statutory requirement for Aboriginal
Initiative Implementation Plan states that Indigenous groups in the ACT were consulted in the
entitlement issues identified during this process (Australian Capital Territory 2006, p. 18).
Consultation with Aboriginal groups appears to have played a part in the preparation of Future water options for the ACT Region – implementation plan: A recommended strategy to increase the ACT’s water supply (ACT Government 2005), with cultural heritage values influencing decisions about the damming or diverting of particular watercourses.
Bush capital legacy (ACT Natural Resource
Management Council 2009) sets short-term and medium-term goals for increasing the participation and employment of Indigenous people, and the application of Indigenous knowledge, in natural resource management. This pertains particularly to Namadgi National
Park.
2 6

ACT Government 2005, Future Water Options for the ACT region – Implementation Plan: a Recommended Strategy to Increase the ACT's Water Supply , Canberra.
ACT Natural Resource Management Council 2009, Bush Capital legacy , Plan for managing the natural resources of the ACT, ACT Government, Canberra.
Australian Capital Territory, ACT National Water Initiative Implementation Plan , August 2006.
Chamber of Minerals and Energy (Western Australia) 2007, Indigenous Participation in
Western Australia’s Resources Sector .
Department of Regional Development and Lands (
-East
Royalties For Regions website
< http://www.royaltiesforregions.wa.gov.au/Content/MajorProjects/Ord/Default.aspx
>
Our Water Our Future, Allocation and trading, Victorian Government.
< http://www.ourwater.vic.gov.au/allocation/entitlements/unbundling >.
DSEWPC [Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities]
Australia Water Futures Assessment
Water for the Future , < http://www.environment.gov.au/water/policy-programs/northernaustralia/cultural-social.html
>.
Water for good – Ensuring our water future , < http://www.waterforgood.sa.gov.au/waterplanning/waterallocation-plans/prescribed-water-resources/ >.
Department of Water (Western Australia) 2007 , Western Australia’s Implementation Plan for the National Water Initiative , April 2007;
2008, Western Australia’s Achievements in Implementing the National Water
Initiative: Progress Report , November 2008.
2009, Desert Subregion Overview and Future Directions: Kimberley Regional Water
Plan Working Discussion Paper , October 2009.
2010a, La Grange: groundwater allocation plan, February 2010.
2010b, Pilbara: regional water plan 2010 –2030 , June 2010.
DERM [Department of Environment and Resource Management] (Queensland) undated,
Wild Rivers , Queensland Government, < http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/wildrivers >.
DEWHA [Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts] 2008, Review of the
2007-08 Water Entitlement Purchases, Final Report, September 2008.
DNREA [Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts] (Northern Territory)
2006, Northern Territory Implementation Plan for the Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative , June 2006.
DNREAS [Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport]
(Northern Territory)
< http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/water/tiwi/ >.
DPI [
Victorian Resources Online ,
< http://www.land.vic.gov.au/DPI/Vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/catchment_roles >.
DPIW [Department of Primary Industries and Water] (Tasmania) 2006, Implementation
Plan for the National Water Initiative Tasmania , September 2006.
2 7

DPIW [Department of Primary Industries and Water] (Tasmania) 2009, Generic Principles for
Water Management Planning , Water Resources Policy #2005/1, February 2009.
DPIWE [Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment] (Tasmania) 2005, Water
Governance Arrangements for Tasmania: Report to the National Water Commission ,
December 2005.
DSEWPC [Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities]
Water for the Future , < http://www.environment.gov.au/water/policyprograms/entitlementpurchasing/stakeholder-panel.html
>.
DWLBC [Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation] (South Australia)
2005, Water Allocation Plan for the Padthaway Prescribed Wells Area, April 2005.
DWLBC [Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation] (South Australia)
2009, Unbundling Water Rights – what does it mean?
Government of Queensland 2006, Queensland’s National Water Initiative State
Implementation Plan , January 2006.
Government of Victoria 2006, Victoria’s NWI Implementation Plan , April 2006.
Jackson S, Background paper on Indigenous participation in water planning and access to water , report prepared for the National Water Commission, CSIRO Sustainable
Ecosystems, February 2009, at 27.
ater availability on
Indigenous people of the Murray-
Darling Basin Authority, June 2010, at 155, in Murray
Darling Basin Authority,
2010, online at
<http://www.mdba.gov.au/communities/latest-news/feedback-from-tamworth-meeting>.
MDBA undated, About the Murray –Darling Basin Authority , Murray
Darling Basin Authority,
< http://www.mdba.gov.au/about >.
Morgan, Strelein and Weir 2004, Indigenous Rights to Water in the Murray –Darling Basin ,
Research Discussion Paper No 14, AIATSIS.
NAILSMA [North Australia Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance] 2010, Indigenous
Community Water Facilitator Network News Bulletin , June 2010,
< http://www.nailsma.org.au/nailsma/projects/downloads/ICWFN-News-Bulletin-June-
2010.pdf
>
New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council undated, Background to Aboriginal Land Rights in
Fact Sheets , < http://www.alc.org.au/newsroom/fact-sheets/background-landrights-in-nsw.aspx
>.
Fact Sheets , < http://www.alc.org.au/newsroom/fact sheets/common-myths.aspx>.
Fact Sheets , < http://www.alc.org.au/newsroom/factsheets/land claims.aspx>
< http://www.naturalresources.nsw.gov.au/water/info_aboriginal_water.shtml
>.
< http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/Water-management/Water-sharing/default.aspx
>
Our Water our Future ,
Government of Victoria, < http://www.ourwater.vic.gov.au/environment/environmentalwater-holder >.
2 8

Office of Native Title 2006, Ord Final Agreement (Miriuwung Gajerrong) 2006 , Department of the Attorney General (Western Australia),
< http://www.ont.dotag.wa.gov.au/O/ord_agreement.aspx?uid=1068-4770-1355-5016 >
Power and Water Corporation (Northern Territory) 2009, 2009 Sustainable Water
Management Report: Indigenous Communities of the Northern Territory.
SAALNRMB [South Australian Arid Lands Natural Resources Management Board] 2008,
Aboriginal NRM News 2008 .
SAALNRMB [South Australian Arid Lands Natural Resources Management Board] 2009,
Water Allocation Plan for the Far North Prescribed Wells Area , February 2009.
SAALNRMB [South Australian Arid Lands Natural Resources Management Board] 2010,
Regional Natural Resources Management Plan , May 2010, at 5.1.1
SANRMB [South East Natural Resources Management Board] 2010, Water Allocation Plan for the Tatiara Prescribed Wells Area, June 2010.
State Biodiversity Committee (Tasmania) 2003, Tasmania’s Nature Conservation Strategy
2002 –2006 , Final Report.
Tan PL 2009, A review of the legal basis for Indigenous access to water, report prepared for the National Water Commission, February 2009.
Victorian Catchment Management Council 2003, Protocols, Principles and Strategies
Agreement for Indigenous Involvement in Land and Water Management ,
< http://www.vcmc.vic.gov.au/Web/Docs/Indigenous%20Protocols.pdf
>
Victorian Traditional Owner Land Justice Group 2009, Newsletter July 2009 ,
< http://www.landjustice.com.au/document/LJG-newsletter-july2009.pdf
>.
release July 2010,
< http://www.landjustice.com.au/document/LJG%20Media%20release%20280710.pdf
>.
2 9