Indigenous title holders launch new appeal against Singleton Station groundwater permit

To safeguard water for future generations, Indigenous owners of a cattle ranch in Central Australia have stepped up their legal battle against one of the most significant groundwater permits ever granted in the Northern Territory’s history.

To mark the start of their new appeal against a 40,000 megalitre licence granted to Singleton Station, the holders of the original title held a smoking ceremony on the green lawns of the Northern Territory Supreme Court on Thursday morning.

“It’s not just about us, it’s about the next generation,” said Michael Jones.

“We hope the court makes the right decisions, because we say: ‘No, that is too much water to use for (future) generations.’”

According to Mr Jones, the original owners are concerned about the availability of drinking water for the people living in the communities and outposts in the region.

“There is no water pressure and there is no water in the shower,” he said.

Fortune Agribusiness applied in 2020 for a major annual water permit to grow fruit and vegetables on Singleton Station south of Tennant Creek.

In January, High Court Justice Peter Barr dismissed a legal challenge over whether the Northern Territory government had acted lawfully when it re-granted the permit in 2021, ruling that the parties had “failed to show that the Minister’s decision lacked clear and understandable justification”.

“The minister’s reasoning demonstrates a rational and understandable basis for the decision on the water extraction permit,” he said.

Lawyers appealing the decision on behalf of Mpwerempwer Aboriginal Corporation, the holders of the original property rights, attempted to have the permit again ‘annulled’ during a two-day hearing this week.

Chris Young KC argued that Judge Barr should have ruled that the Minister had not made the decision in accordance with the law and that he should have abided by the current Water Act rather than the old one.

He argued that the Minister had issued a permit without full knowledge of the impact on groundwater levels or sacred sites, and that the judge had wrongly ruled that Aboriginal cultural values ​​were not a “mandatory relevant” consideration.

“The Minister has effectively stated that she believes that these risks and uncertainties need to be better defined before there can be confidence in the decision to supply the quantities of water made available by the licence and still grant the licence,” Mr Young told the court.

Responsibility for re-licensing was delegated by the then Minister for the Environment, Eva Lawler, to Kate Worden, the then Minister for Territorial Families, due to a conflict of interest.

Northern Territory Government lawyer Taylah Cramp told the court it was simply “wrong” that the minister did not have sufficient material to properly assess the availability of water in the area, as she had considered the decision of the Northern Territory water authority.

“The manager has determined that water is available in the estimated sustainable yield allocated for consumptive use. The manager has also taken into account the impacts on ecosystems,” she said.

The judges of the Northern Territory Court of Appeal reserved their decision for a later date.