September 23rd 2000

  Buy Issue 2592

Articles from this issue:

Cover Story: Singapore’s changing direction

Editorial: Free trade: it’s time to fight back

National Affairs: East Timor: Whitlam was the culprit

Agriculture: Deregulation cuts a swathe through dairy industry

Law: Why Coalition will keep UN Committees at arms length

Eyewitness Report: S11 protests win few friends

Globalism: Australia out in the cold as three economic blocs form

South Australia: Hindmarsh Island bridge saga continues

Canberra Observed: ALP heads back to the future

National Affairs: Manufacturers, farmers: a natural alliance

Straws in the Wind

New Zealand: From basket case to “case study” ... and back to basket case

The Media

Books: 'PAPUA NEW GUINEA: People Politics and History since 1975', by Sean Dorney

Books: Pioneer police: 'Sand and Stone', by Kevin Moran


Books promotion page

South Australia: Hindmarsh Island bridge saga continues

by Mark Posa

News Weekly, September 23, 2000
It is difficult to understand how Mr Justice John Von Doussa has come to the decision to allow “secret women’s business” to be heard by him in the continuing saga of the Hindmarsh Bridge damages action in the courts. The action has been before the court for more than 90 days at considerable cost to the Commonwealth.

One cannot help wondering how deeply Justice Von Doussa has studied Aboriginal Law to come to the decision “that while aboriginal tradition confirms the disclosure of the restricted women’s knowledge to women ... that restriction was not exhaustive”.

As aboriginal law is based on religious belief, it would be difficult to see how it would be acceptable in any other way than in toto.

Important paper

It is interesting to note the paper presented by Mr Justice Kirby at the opening of the historical exhibition by the Strehlow Research Foundation in Adelaide, October, 1978.

The paper T.G.H. Strehlow and Aboriginal Customary Law contains many opinions by Professor Strehlow regarding the acceptance of Aboriginal Law, and indeed, sounds a strong note of warning to those who would see it as part of this country’s legal system:

“Aboriginal law was devised for the traditional situation with the elders in control and all powerful. This situation no longer exists ...

“Who today can speak with real authority on tribal laws? Who can advise the courts of the validity of claims of breeches of tribal law? ...

“We are creating in our community scope for a small sector to get away with murder or to avoid punishment normally required under European law, on the ground that tribal elders would exact retribution.

“These ill-considered theories could therefore lead to a legal no-man’s land between white and black society in Australia.

“I do not believe that thinking white or Aboriginal people want this.”

Culture clash

Unfortunately, the Hindmarsh Island fiasco has emphasised the problem which occurs when we have a clash of cultures plus a lack of certainty when it comes to Aboriginal customary law.

When one considers the work done in the field of Aboriginal law by people like Professor Strehlow and Professors Ronald and Catherine Berndt, it is a pity that their views have been ignored in the debate regarding Hindmarsh Island.

Strehlow many years ago was critical of the way in which Australian universities handled the anthropology departments in their institutions. “More university training in anthropology or structural linguistics is no substitute for the full acceptance of a researcher by the aboriginal elders, and for detailed instruction by them in their own language”, he said, in a series of articles in Aboriginal Research and Politics.

Professor Berndt and his wife spent five years among the Ngarrinderi people of the Murray River. Their work is preserved in the book, The World that Was.

Professor Strehlow’s view, expressed regarding the misuse of aboriginal law, which could have a profound effect on decisions made today, is best summed up in these remarks.

“ I am concerned by the implications of some recent court cases and some of the theories being put forward by lightweight experts ... [I]t is one of those situations where well-meant sympathy plus a little knowledge is very dangerous and people are attempting to establish very important principles on this sort of shaky foundation.

“There is little real understanding today by either black or white people of traditional Aboriginal law. In some recent instances I suspect the courts and the community have had the wool pulled over their eyes.

“I don’t suggest deliberate intent to mislead but rather an end result of general well-meaning effort based on wrong or unsound premises.”

It seems to me that such wisdom should be the guiding light for those in the legal profession when cases such as the Hindmarsh Island Fiasco come before them.

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am