Hear Their Voices: Australia’s First Nations Women and the Legal Recognition of Their Rights to Water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to highlight the expertise of First Nations women in water management and use, and the necessity of having their voices heard in this space, as their voices have not received the attention or respect, yindyamarra, they deserve in Australian water law and policy. Before critically examining the articulation of a right to water in the international human rights framework as it applies to First Nations women, this article opens by introducing the nature and importance of First Nations women’s water rights. The article then turns to Australia, outlining the emergence of First Nations rights generally, before turning its attention to water rights. In that respect, Commonwealth law and policy is analysed, given that it is the nation-state with legal personality in international law. Two contrasting case studies follow, illustrating the importance and fragility of First Nations women’s water rights. The article concludes that international law evidences a deficit discourse, providing little basis for nation-states to recognise the holistic nature of water rights of First Nations women, and that Commonwealth law and policy, although showing promising signs, has yet to provide any meaningful scope for First Nations women to use and manage water according to First Nations law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".