Native Title granted to 80% of NT waters

[Chris Ryan]

Today's judgement in the Blue Mud Bay case granted under the Northern Territory Land Rights Act confirmed the exclusive rights of traditional owners over tidal waters along about 80 per cent of the NT coastline and in tidal rivers.

Natural Resources and Water Minister Craig Wallace said coastal indigenous land in Queensland - Deed of Grant in Trust (DOGIT) or Aboriginal Land Act land - extended only to the high water mark and not the intertidal zone, unless a special regulation had been made to that effect.


"Accordingly the issues raised in the Blue Mud Bay case concerning access to the intertidal zone would not appear to arise in Queensland," he said.

[wombat 100]

Is there anyone from the NT who can give as point of view on todays court decision. I trust it doesn't entail more lockouts and green zones or haven't the greens homed in on that yet to capture the land owners vote with a promise to protect the fish

[Mike Delisser]

Yeh I'd like to hear more about it as well. Without knowing all the facts (or any for that matter) I can't help but wonder if native title could in some way be used as a tool to halt the spread of green zones. I'm sure I read somewhere you can fish on Aboriginal land with permision and the right permit, certainly won't be able to fish once the EPA close it off, once they've got their hands on it it's gone forever.
Mike

[TimiBoy]

They did say on the coverage (ABC) yesterday that all stakeholders appeared happy enough with the outcome and that they were all going away now to discuss among themselves how to work it.

I can only hope this doesn't mean non-Indigenous people will be locked out- that won't do much for already strained race relations in this country...

I think the Aborigines are likely to be far better managers of the fishery than the Greens, at least

Cheers,

Tim

[Jeremy87]

It would be a major blow for tourism if they started locking people out of areas. As far as i'm concerned the water belongs to everyone, in saying that I'd happily pay for an indiginous land fishing permit similar to an sip or NSW fishing permit with the funding going back into local communities in ways were they can't waste it on booze.

[Blinky]

It means there is a very real prospect of requiring a fishing licence (currently not required in the N.T.) and/or permit to gain access to the water, this may be in the form of two permits, one to cross the Native Land to get to said water and then another to fish said water.
The N.T. Government, Commercial Fisheries, AFANT and the NLC are currently in talks to thrash out a win-win situation.
Win-win with the NLC! I can't see that happening!

It’s looking like you’re either going to be out of pocket for the license/permits or if you chose to go with a guide operation the cost will be added into the day rates.


CHIEF MINISTER PAUL HENDERSON - MEDIA RELEASE

30 July 2008

Practical Plan to Resolve Blue Mud Bay Issues

Territorians will resolve issues presented by today’s High Court decision in
the Blue Mud Bay case Chief Minister Paul Henderson said today.

“Under my practical plan we will reach agreement with the relevant parties
which guarantees:

· Compliance with the law as now determined by the High Court
· The capacity for recreational fishermen to go fishing on affected waters
without charge or need for an individual fishing permit
· Economic development opportunities for Indigenous Territorians
· Appropriate arrangements for commercial fishing and the protection of
fishing stocks
· Any necessary resource management and regulatory changes required

“Today’s Blue Mud Bay High Court decision presents Territorians, including
traditional owners, professional and amateur fishing and the NT Government
with unique opportunities and challenges.

“To allow time for the new arrangements to be put in place, nothing will
change and the current agreement which allows fishing on waters adjoining
Aboriginal land will remain in place for a minimum of 12 months.

“The statements by the traditional owners and the Amateur Fisherman’s
Association NT following this morning’s ruling are welcomed and highlight the
willingness of Territorians to resolve these matters.

“If re-elected, the Government will meet all parties to commence discussions
closely following the election on 9 August 2008.”

Here's some links if you are after a bit of light reading

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2008/29.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/n...ol_act/ala126/

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...87-421,00.html

http://www.fishing.nt.gov.au/

[FNQCairns]

From what I understand when the original verdict came out, the general public was not going to be excluded, it was all about the commercial side paying dues for access etc. Talk is real cheap in OZ so I wouldn't hold my breath for a truly fair outcome for the general public, if we do get a fair deal hope it gets locked in as absolute for a long period of time, or it will get watered down without justification soon enough.

I wonder if this decision will save the NT from the preservationist factions in wider Government and their radical green views and mates, NTs best practice management deserves to continue, the state governments should be ashamed of their behaviour when viewed by comparison.

cheers fnq

[Blinky]

Just pulled this from another forum:

It appears to have come out as well as can be hoped for given that the general public lost the decision and it could have benefits for all. Very little (possibly nothing) will change for recreational fishos, at least on the short to medium term, and possibly on the long term.

The appeal was partially upheld - it was not dismissed as some reports stated - and the NT Fisheries Act still applies to Aboriginal waters so policing of NT laws can continue and commercial fishers must have a licence.

The NT Government's plan for to negotiate an automatic blanket licence for recreational fishermen means we will have to do nothing in future, other than abide by existing laws.

It is possible there may be unforeseen consequences on the longer term, but I think fuel prices etc are going to be bigger issues, as well as managing fish stocks that are already under pressure.

Progress with barra net licence buybacks and net closures are what matter right now and are probably what fishermen should be pushing for.

[Atriplex]

After watching Ten Canoes I reckon this decision will be a good one for the Aborigines and the NT.

We'll have to wait and see. Hopefully if it turns out well we might see a few more of these rulings.

[wombat 100]

I think what gets up the nose of the average person is we ( Australia) are the only country that goes out of it's way to publicly fund court cases challenging the laws of and if the person mounting the challenge loses the case we then go out and fund the appeal. We are turning into a lot of touchy feeley do gooders who a afraid to call a spade a spade . In the US the Indians had to fund their own cases as did the Eskimos . If the Law is seen to be flawed then lobby the pollies to bring about change but using public monies to fund the inital case followed by a challenge in the high courts is an over kill.tory shows that when the government loses the case it dies there and then they seem reluctant to mount a case on behalf of the wider community view . WA now the NT next QLD, NSW is already behind the 8 ball.

[manchild]

The fact is this people were not granted this land but simply acknowledged as traditional owners 30 years ago in the landrights aggrement.For them is merely paperwork as they always saw the tidal area as the part of their land.Whats ridicolous is that they have to go to the court to get the title .They must be a process other than the courtsystem for that sort of thing.So yes its time and moneywasting for everybody.

George

[Mike Delisser]

I know we don't have much info and each state has different regs but I'd just like to ask fellow Ausfishers - hypothetically,
who do you think would do the best job at managing the inshore fish stocks for the future and maintaining rec angler access?

1, State Governments

2, Indigenous groups

Personally I think us rec guys could be better off in the long term with the indigenous groups but I'm not sure the pro's would see it that way.

Mike

[Atriplex]

I know we don't have much info and each state has different regs but I'd just like to ask fellow Ausfishers - hypothetically,
who do you think would do the best job at managing the inshore fish stocks for the future and maintaining rec angler access?

1, State Governments

2, Indigenous groups

Personally I think us rec guys could be better off in the long term with the indigenous groups but I'm not sure the pro's would see it that way.

Mike

Totally agree mate.

The state governments, as can be seen with the whole Murray river saga, are more than happy to put themselves before the country.

The indigenous groups are probably the most knowledgeable when it comes to Australia so why not let them make the decisions?

[TimiBoy]

I know we don't have much info and each state has different regs but I'd just like to ask fellow Ausfishers - hypothetically,
who do you think would do the best job at managing the inshore fish stocks for the future and maintaining rec angler access?

1, State Governments

2, Indigenous groups

Personally I think us rec guys could be better off in the long term with the indigenous groups but I'm not sure the pro's would see it that way.

Mike

Short term I think you are right, Mike, but the problem we'd face would end up being the same as we face now, unless we were very lucky. Decisions will be made on the basis of political and economic influence. The Aborigines who want the job of administering the waters are going to want the job for one of two primary reasons - money or power (or both).

The selection criteria for the Management Board will, I hope, take that into consideration, but I don't know how - money and power are the things that drive the world economy, and it's a very effective combination. Hopefully, as a result of Aboriginal Culture, their perception of the idea of "power" is vastly different from ours... (I don't use the word "their" to try and differentiate Aborigines from white people. I think of all of us as the same, apart from cultural differences).

I know that is a very cynical and jaded view of the world, and I wish it could change, but I don't think it ever will.


Tim

[Mike Delisser]

Short term I think you are right, Mike, but the problem we'd face would end up being the same as we face now, unless we were very lucky. Decisions will be made on the basis of political and economic influence. The Aborigines who want the job of administering the waters are going to want the job for one of two primary reasons - money or power (or both).

The selection criteria for the Management Board will, I hope, take that into consideration, but I don't know how - money and power are the things that drive the world economy, and it's a very effective combination. Hopefully, as a result of Aboriginal Culture, their perception of the idea of "power" is vastly different from ours... (I don't use the word "their" to try and differentiate Aborigines from white people. I think of all of us as the same, apart from cultural differences).

I know that is a very cynical and jaded view of the world, and I wish it could change, but I don't think it ever will.


Tim

Just when I think I've got you pegged as a megalmaniac Timmy you suprise me, there's hope for you (or maybe me) yet.
Spot on about money and power but at least that would be a constant and easier to work with than the blind ideology of highly placed public servents that are animal libers and members of PETA.
Mike