On 5 August 2026, the High Court of Australia ruled for the first time in Australia’s history that the largest groundwater licence in the Northern Territory was unlawfully granted by government, representing a landmark moment for Indigenous water rights in Australia.
Background to Traditional Owner legal action and underlying policy reform urgently needed in respect to rights of Indigenous People
Fortune Agribusiness Funds Management Pty Ltd (‘Fortune Agribusiness’) is the lessee of Singleton Station, situated in the Western Davenport region of the Northern Territory between Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, and located above significant groundwater reserves. A groundwater licence was applied for and granted to Fortune Agribusiness for the Singleton Horticultural Project, which required 40 gigalitres of groundwater each year for a period of 30 years, transforming the existing cattle property into one of Australia’s biggest fruit farming production of mandarins, table grapes, avocados, muskmelons, and other fruits.
The Department of Environment described the application at the time as potentially being the largest volume of water ever sought by a single entity from a single water resource in Australia.
On 15 November 2021, the Northern Territory Minister (‘Minister’) granted Fortune a 30-year licence, however at this time the Water Act 1992 (NT) (‘Water Act’) limited water extraction licences to a maximum term of 10 years unless ‘special circumstances’ justified a longer period.
The traditional owners of the area, the Kaytetye people, represented by Mpwerempwer Aboriginal Corporation (‘MAC’), challenged the Minister’s decision to grant the water licence claiming the Minister could not properly justify granting the water licence for 30 years rather than the standard 10-year period.
MAC further argued the water licence had in fact not been lawfully granted as Aboriginal cultural values had not been considered in the making of that decision, and additionally native title holders had been denied procedural fairness by decision makers.
Coincidentally, the High Court decision in Singelton occurs only months after the Australian Law Reform Commission’s June 2026 publication of its Final Report: Review of the Future Acts Regime (‘Future Acts Report’), which confirms the current future acts regime under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) is unequal, unfair, costly and often ineffective.
The case outcome is a prime example of how the current legislative framework fails Traditional Owners. Equality before the law is a core element of the rule of law in Australia. However, the future acts regime under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) currently treats native title, a property right, as a second-class property right, affording Traditional Owners fewer and weaker procedural rights than those available to freehold title holders for comparable acts. Specifically, for a holder of a property right or interest, the opportunity to comment on a matter which affects their interests, prior to an administrative decision being made is the absolute bare minimum.
The core ruling in Singleton was the High Court’s finding that MAC as the native title holders were denied procedural fairness due to not being given a reasonable opportunity to make submissions or comment on CP 10 before the decision was made by the Minister. CP 10 was in fact a specific condition tacked onto the controversial 30-year Singleton Station groundwater licence which canvassed the implementation of reference points and management regarding Aboriginal cultural values.
Court history, relevant legal grounds and High Court decision – NT Water Act in respect to water licence applications and consideration of Aboriginal cultural heritage
The Minister’s decision was initially upheld by Northern Territory Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, however MAC appealed to the High Court who ruled to quash the licence and place the matter back to within the Minister’s remit and to be determined according to law, after a six-year battle.
MAC argued on three points, firstly that the Minister was required to be satisfied that there were special circumstances that justified the grant of a licence for a period exceeding the standard 10 year period, under s 60(4)(b) of the Water Act.
Additionally, MAC also contended the Minister failed to consider a mandatory relevant consideration, namely the protection of Aboriginal cultural values, in a manner sufficient to comply with s 90(1) of the Water Act.
Lastly MAC argued the delegate Minister failed to accord MAC procedural fairness by not providing MAC with notice that CP 10 would be attached to the water extraction licence, which required Fortune Agribusiness to submit an Aboriginal cultural values impact assessment.
The High Court upheld two of the above three grounds put forward by MAC’s legal representatives, ruling that a licence longer than 10 years could only be granted if the Minister was satisfied special circumstances justified the longer period and that the Minister had failed to discharge her statutory function required by s 60(4)(b) of the Water Act to justify the grant of a water licence exceeding ten years.
International obligations and enforcement of the rights of Indigenous Peoples including prior consent for state sanctioned activities
Due to the High Court’s judgement Fortune Agribusiness no longer has the right to use the water licence that previously granted the company licence to extract and use 40 billion litres of water every year for 30 years.
The licence application process will continue to be on foot however, and the Minister will have to consider the territory’s environmental approvals processes associated applicable to the area when re-considering the water licence application.
The company now has to wait for the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority to complete an environmental impact assessment, likely in 2029, before the NT government reconsiders the water licence.
Fortune must also pay the costs of MAC’s appeal, but only those costs related to the aspect of the claim regarding procedural fairness, with the Supreme Court to determine other costs.
Whilst the High Court’s decision provides important guidance about the administrative decision-making by ministers when rights and interests of Indigenous Peoples are directly affected, broader investigation into government actions in respect to rights of Indigenous Peoples is indicative of what can be read between the lines of the publicised Singelton case, and echoes across other jurisdictions in Australia.
The Productivity Commission’s Closing the Gap Annual Data Compilation Report, released in July 2026 (‘Compilation Report’), identified the Northern Territory as the worst performing jurisdiction with the highest number of outcomes showing no improvement or worsening in connection with Closing the Gap, the Australian government’s formal commitment and strategy to work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to achieve health and life equality.
According to the recent Compilation Report, the Northern Territory has in fact worsened against six of the closing the gap targets including: 1 (female life expectancy), 4 (children develop mentally on track), 7 (youth engagement), 8 (employment), 10 (adult imprisonment) and 11 (youth detention).
Within the current legislative framework in the Northern Territory, the government is not required to abide by its own water plans and government policy does not prevent the destruction of groundwater dependent ecosystems.
The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (‘Declaration’), which Australia voted in favour of, contains a number of key foundational human rights which include participation in decision-making and equality and non-discrimination, among other principles.
The Declaration is clear that action should be taken to make sure that Indigenous peoples can realise the rights in the Declaration and governments of countries in support of it are expected to work with its Indigenous communities to achieve the goals of the Declaration and take action to see that these rights are exercised in practice.
In particular Article 19 of the Declaration provides that states must consult and cooperate in good faith with Indigenous peoples through their own representative institutions to obtain their free, prior and informed consent (‘FPIC’) before adopting legislative or administrative measures that affect them.
Additionally, Article 32 provides that states must consult and cooperate in good faith to obtain FPIC prior to approving any project affecting Indigenous lands or territories and other resources (especially regarding mineral, water, or other resource development).
The recent Future Acts Report released by the Australian Law Reform Commission, makes 86 recommendations to reform the native title system, with recommendations 40, 41(b), 42, 45, 49(b) and 51 all addressing native title procedural rights equivalent to freehold title procedural rights.
Whilst the decision in Singelton is an important and landmark case in respect to the protection of water on Indigenous Peoples lands, the lack of procedural justice afforded to Traditional Owners is cause for concern about Australia’s current legal system and its failure to protect fundamental human rights.
A legal framework that permits one class of property right to be more readily impaired, used or extinguished than another undermines the principle of equality before the law and denies fundamental human and procedural rights to Indigenous Peoples.
Additional resources
- Mpwerempwer Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v Minister for Territory Families and Urban Housing as delegate of the Minister for the Environment [2026] HCA 23
- Singleton Native Title Holders Win Landmark Water Rights Case – Central Land Council
- High Court rules in favour of native title holders fighting Northern Territory water licence
- Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory (APONT) Media Release on Closing the Gap targets
- The Community Guide to UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
- Closing the Gap: Annual Data Compilation Report – July 2026
- Fulfilling the Promise of Mabo: Reforming the Future Acts Regime in the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) – Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) Final Report
October 16, 2026