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, 2^nd 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, 6^th 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.