Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content

    Katie O'Bryan

    This article outlines the content of the Gunaikurnai native title consent determination and associated settlement agreements, being the first settlement made under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (Vic). It also canvasses the... more
    This article outlines the content of the Gunaikurnai native title consent determination and associated settlement agreements, being the first settlement made under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (Vic). It also canvasses the background to the native title claim and the hurdles that had to be overcome to reach the settlement.
    Since the momentous release of the Montecristi Constitution of Ecuador in 2008, which recognised Nature, or Pacha Mama, as a subject of rights, the rights of Nature movement across the world has gained exponential momentum, with numerous... more
    Since the momentous release of the Montecristi Constitution of Ecuador in 2008, which recognised Nature, or Pacha Mama, as a subject of rights, the rights of Nature movement across the world has gained exponential momentum, with numerous jurisdictions worldwide now recognising some form of legal subjectivity vested upon Nature. In particular, since 2017, river personhood has dominated news headlines around the world as one of the most recognisable forms of Nature’s novel subjectivity. The emergence of legal personhood for nature, however, has been far from uncontroversial, and numerous critiques have been advanced against the use of such a legal category – traditionally applied to humans and their abstract creations (such as States and corporations) – to the natural world, resulting in numerous calls for an alternative category of legal personhood (one that some rights of Nature advocates have termed an ‘environmental person’). Against the backdrop of this emerging debate, this paper acknowledges the work undertaken by the Martuwarra Fitzroy River Council (Martuwarra Council), which was established in 2018 in the Kimberley region of Western Australia by six independent Indigenous nations to preserve, promote and protect their ancestral River from ongoing destructive ‘development’. The Council believes it is time to recognise the pre-existing and continuing legal authority of Indigenous law, or ‘First Law’, in relation to the River, in order to preserve its integrity through a process of legal decolonisation. First Law differs markedly from its colonial counterpart, as its principles are not articulated in terms of rules, policies and procedures, but rather through stories. This paper, therefore, begins with a dialogical translation of one First Law story relating to Yoongoorrookoo,1 the ancestral serpent being,2 to create a semantic bridge between two apparently distant legal worldviews. A dialogical comparative analysis is then followed to posit and explore the concept of an ‘ancestral person’ as a novel comparative tool that may be able not only to capture the idea of Nature as a legal subject, but also complex Indigenous worldviews that see Nature – in this case instantiated in the Martuwarra – as an ancestral being enmeshed in a relationship of interdependence and guardianship between the human and the nonhuman world. To instantiate and embody such relationships, the paper directly, and somewhat provocatively, acknowledges the River itself, the Martuwarra RiverOfLife, as the primary participant in such dialogue, an embodied non-human co-author who began a conversation then left to human writers to continue.
    In September 2017, the Yarra River Protection (Wilip-gin Birrarung murron) Act 2017 was passed by the Victorian Parliament. An essential element of the Act is the creation of the Birrarung Council, a statutory body to be the ‘independent... more
    In September 2017, the Yarra River Protection (Wilip-gin Birrarung murron) Act 2017 was passed by the Victorian Parliament. An essential element of the Act is the creation of the Birrarung Council, a statutory body to be the ‘independent voice for the river’. Of significance for Indigenous involvement in river management is the mandatory requirement for Traditional Owner representation on the Council.

    This development in river management, although new to Victoria, has some parallel with recent developments in Aotearoa New Zealand, namely the Whanganui River Treaty Settlement. In this settlement, the Whanganui River has been granted legal personality, the embodiment of that legal personality being in the form of a statutory river guardian containing Māori representation, to be the ‘independent voice’ of the river. But giving an independent voice to the environment (or an element thereof) may already have begun to enter the Victorian consciousness in the guise of the Victorian Environmental Water Holder (‘VEWH’).

    This article considers the Whanganui River Treaty Settlement, and in particular the granting of legal personality to the River as embodied in a guardian, and with all of the associated legal rights and responsibilities of a legal entity. It critically analyses various merits and weaknesses identified in the settlement to ascertain whether it enhances Māori participation in river management and can therefore provide a useful model for Victorian Traditional Owners. An important related question is whether this new model is indicative of wider changes to water governance, or merely the creation of just another voice in the already crowded water management debate. Can the guardianship model embrace the concept of Indigenous representation in river management, given that they are conceptually quite different? In that respect, this article argues that this particular guardianship model does not fundamentally change the water governance system, but gives an additional, albeit indirect, voice to Māori, a voice which emphasises Māori river values. The article then considers, by way of comparison with the WhanganuiRiver guardianship model, whether the VEWH is reflective of a move towards a more independent management model, akin to an environmental guardian. Finally, this article examines the potential application of this guardianship model to individual rivers in Victoria, identifying five key issues that would need to be considered.
    The Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (TOS Act) was enacted in response to the deficiencies of the Native Title Act 1993 (NTA) in recognising the Native Title rights and interests of Victoria’s Traditional Owners. It is widely... more
    The Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (TOS Act) was enacted
    in response to the deficiencies of the Native Title Act 1993 (NTA)
    in recognising the Native Title rights and interests of Victoria’s
    Traditional Owners.
    It is widely recognised that the NTA is particularly inadequate
    when it comes to providing for Indigenous participation in water
    management, s 24HA being most notable in that regard.3 While
    the TOS Act delivers on a number of Indigenous aspirations for
    land and natural resource management, the question arises
    as to whether or not it also delivers on Indigenous water
    management aspirations.
    This article focuses on the nature of water rights recognised under
    both the NTA and the TOS Act in relation to Victoria, with particular
    attention paid to procedural rights under s 24HA of the NTA and
    the Land Use Activity regime under the TOS Act.
    Research Interests:
    The Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (Vic) was enacted in response to the deficiencies of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) in recognising the native title rights and interests of Victoria's Traditional Owners. It is widely recognised... more
    The Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (Vic) was enacted in response to the deficiencies of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) in recognising the native title rights and interests of Victoria's Traditional Owners. It is widely recognised that the NTA is particularly inadequate when it comes to Indigenous participation in water management. This article evaluates the TOS Act to see if it improves on the NTA in that regard. After outlining the deficiencies of the NTA and its application in Victoria, it considers the nature of water rights capable of being recognised under the TOS Act. This is followed by an analysis of the procedural rights under the land use activity regime, the TOS Act's equivalent of the NTA's future act regime. Finally, it analyses the role of Aboriginal title (introduced by the TOS Act) and joint management (enhanced by the TOS Act) in facilitating Indigenous participation in water management. It concludes that the TOS Act does little to advance the water management aspirations of Victoria's Traditional Owners. CONTENTS
    Research Interests:
    Research Interests: