ACCOMMODATING THE AUSTRALIAN TRANS-CULTURAL INTERFACE AS A PRELUDE TO RECOGNISING ABORIGINAL (YOLNGU) LAW

These are notes to assist departmental, legal, and research personnel to fully appreciate the complex parameters of Yolngu culture and its interaction with western culture and law.

We are all time-poor, and so what should fill an entire volume, has been condensed to twenty pages of contextual overview. Because much is believed about western culture that is eminently contestable, this document commences with brief glances at how all cultures evolve; the nurturing differences between Aboriginal origins and those of Europeans; and then the specific histories and composition of respective legal systems.

But before progressing further, we need to define the word CULTURE.

To most people, the word denotes ethnic music, arts, cuisine, spirituality, national clothing, and colourful customs. While these are indeed peripheral parts of all cultures, the term has much deeper significance.

Perhaps the easiest way to understand “culture” is to recognise that all humans, breathe, eat, drink, talk, sleep, procreate, and actively value families. We may relegate all of these things that we all have in common as constituting MANKIND; ie the behaviour of man.

But between the hundreds of branches of humanity there are things that we do differently, and these are what we call CULTURE. Moreover, in the science of anthropology, we study what we do differently, and WHY.

Frankly, in this, anthropology has failed and failed abysmally. The first error is to present western culture as either the most evolutionary advanced variant, or “The Norm”, with no incisive dichotomy in this regard whatsoever. In fact, as we will see, most of what we believe about western culture is demonstrably false; even delusional to the extent of being a public mental health issue.

Having clarified salient aspects of western culture, in later ongoing pages we will then look at different concepts of law, and how these came about.

Finally, we look at potential applicability of Aboriginal Law and how in one single application, what is recognised as one of Australia’s most notorious social problems… disproportionate Aboriginal representation in prisons… can finally be resolved.

A warning: There are no platitudes to be found in this document; only easily comprehended explanations followed by recommendations of unambiguous substance and direction. Ideologues will not enjoy this document.

The text herein, pertains directly to the Yolngu people of NE Arnhem Land but can be applied with appropriate adaptations across the NT and, in fact, throughout Australia, albeit, with modifications to accommodate cultural decay. (For the sake of brevity, other areas of applicability of Aboriginal Law will be presented after the Aboriginal Law Conference currently being conducted by the Yolngu Nations Assembly under the aegis of AIATSIS in Canberra).

Please note carefully; that this document observes the outcomes of the Aboriginal Law Conference but is entirely separate and unconnected to the projects administration and parent body. In fact, the genesis of this document predates The Conference by almost five decades, this being launched in 1975.

Introduction

In this project, we are comparing cultures separated by tens of thousands of years of physical and social evolution, nurtured by environments of opposite planetary hemispheres that experienced very different climatic norms and extremes.

For Yolngu, theirs was a monsoonal tropical coastal climate, as compared to the European cool temperate zones. Because we inherit our value systems from interaction with our environment, it is hardly surprising that respective values have evolved that simply do not translate globally.

It is asserted by this researcher that these unresolved value differences, with cascading impacts on belief systems, are the primary reason why few Aboriginal development programmes have succeeded.

But before we address these elements in order to provide clarity, we need to appreciate how environment influences each race’s physical development, languages, and culture. For reasons that will emerge later, few anthropologists will support the following. Put simply, Australian anthropology resides at the opposite end of the human behaviour analysis spectrum.

(1) Variations in human evolution determined by environment

Very briefly, and in compliance with the KISS principle, we have kept this simple. Yet we need to appreciate that even our stature and bone structure are molded by our nurturing environment.

A illustrative albeit simplistic example is the bone structure around our eyes. Peoples who evolved in regions dominated by snow, developed eyes that were protected from the sun above and the glare of sunlight reflected off the snow. As this also incorporated intense cold, eyes were well protected in terms of profile. Because this impacted on survival, adaptation was rapid. Thence, typically Asian eyes; also occur in Inuit, and some ancient linage Scandinavians.

Peoples of the tropics tend to have brow ridges that protect from the sun above, but none is needed from ground reflection, which tends to be covered in foliage and therefore diffuses light. Temperatures are gentle; thus eyes have comparatively full profile.

The food we eat is also an influence. Peoples who emerged from regions where grains and nuts formed a significant part of their diet, developed strong jaws and facial musculature, which promoted the emergence of guttural languages, whereas those who ate predominantly soft foods had correspondingly soft-sound languages. Italians and Polynesians come to mind.

Likewise, access to carbohydrate has shaped values. The northern hemisphere tended to be rich in carbohydrates from grains, which meant that energy was relatively easy to replace. Thus, cultures emerged in which high energy output was valued and industriousness was seen as admirable. People who avoided energy output attracted the derogatory title lazy.

However, the southern hemisphere is deficient in carbohydrate, and energy must never be wasted, this being difficult to replace. In northern Australia, it has been calculated that the locating, digging, and cooking of long yams absorbed 30% of the energy value these provide. Energy must, therefore, be conserved. In the Aboriginal world, those who engaged in frenetic activity were denigrated and dismissed as crazy (ie “bowapmerri”)

Unsurprisingly, as we typically carry our culture with us, regardless of ambient environmental appropriateness, when we northerners settled in the southern hemisphere, we regarded the locals with their economy of movement, as lazy. Meanwhile, from their perspective, southern peoples regarded pointless industriousness as crazy.

This collision of cultural values was highlighted in the unusually perceptive Victorian era song, “only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun”.

Anyway, without labouring the point, we can easily appreciate that what we are, is shaped by our environment and history. Being judgmental in this regard is self-defeating; which is precisely the response new-arrival westerners engaged. Most still do.

Now that we comprehend a little about nurturing environments, we can also begin to appreciate how cultures can clash. However, even before values incompatibility becomes apparent, language is the ultimate barrier.

(2) The role of language in communication

For 236 years, Aborigines have been forced to negotiate their survival in a foreign language, Australian English, in which few, if any words have an exact Aboriginal language equivalent.

Further compromising this unworkable equation, are some 70 indigenous languages now extant in the Northern Territory; 40 in common use; nine in North East Arnhem Land. This reality has discouraged official learning of languages by non-Aborigines.

That this eliminated communication, and severely limited the potential for Aboriginal development and participation in the wider Australian community was spelled out in the 1940s by anthropologist AP Elkin. As he put it… “Use of pidgin English and interpreters will ensure developmental failure. Government officers must learn local Aboriginal languages fluently if there is to be any hope of adequate communication”. He repeated this advice many times.

Independently, I reiterated this direction during ten years employed in the Commonwealth and NT Governments, with the same lack of success experienced by Elkin. Because we were enmeshed in a wider colonialism, we were always destined to fail. Elkin’s advice has long been resented by anthropologists, who shared the views of bureaucrats, and he has been cruelly denigrated.

Contemporary anthropologists unjustly vilify Elkin as “assimilationist” yet the reverse is true. Elkin preached intercultural interpretation through the only conceivable medium, Aboriginal languages. Without exception (to the authors knowledge) Anthropologists demand that Aborigines communicate in English, which is the ultimate in assimilationism.

Eventually, Aboriginal interpreter services were set up, the key presumption being that conflicting values can actually be translated. At a departmental level, the miscomprehension was more fundamental, there being no recognition of different values at all. Herein lies the tragedy (because the initiator of the NT Interpreter Service spoke no languages herself, the miscomprehension is understandable).

A case in point: In 1980, NT Government departmental personnel were asked to accord priorities to a list of typical government services. Housing topped their chosen priorities and land was allocated last.

The same survey was conducted with a group of NE Arnhem Land people and in their own languages. They allocated top value to land, with housing last. Yet Housing Associations were recognised as the first “spontaneous” expressions of Aboriginal developmental aspiration throughout the NT. Clearly, this reflected imposed European values, as demanded by then NT Director of Welfare, Harry Giese. (Scholars may wish to read publications by the UC minister Jim Downing to develop insights into this colonialism as it acted out in the Centre. Ref “Country of my Spirit”, Australian National University; North Australia Research Unit).

Almost all other “consultations” have adhered faithfully to this pattern.

At no point has it ever been conceded that the situation in the NT is tantamount to the interface between two foreign nations whose cultures are diametrically opposed in terms of values, priorities, and view of the world.

Compounding this folly, and also illustrating cross-cultural blindness, understanding of the Northern Territory landmass, so essential for agricultural development, could have been solicited from the people who had lived here for tens of thousands of years; but as of 2024, this has yet to happen. Hence the myriad agricultural failures.

We have yet to address the blindingly obvious:

(3) Australia is one landmass, but it hosts two worlds

In the international situation during more profession-dominated periods of world history, legations or embassies were established and highly trained ambassadors, who were multilingual and multicultural, and acutely trained in negotiation, would discuss the transcultural interface and negotiate amicable and jointly comprehended agreements. (Or so tradition tells us. British, Dutch, American, and Belgium history demonstrates a reality somewhat at variance).

With this ambassadorial realm contemporarily dominated by profoundly ignorant political appointees and professional propagandists, we are denied this convenient analogy. Nevertheless, the comparison validly applies.

However, yet another chicane has tripped those seeking enhanced communication.

The multiplicity of NT languages enabled anthropologists to withdraw from the international ethic of demonstrating linguistic proficiency prior to documenting Aboriginal cultures, claiming there were too many languages to make learning even one, cost-effective. Thus, massive tomes have been constructed based on blind guesswork not even tempered by comprehension of the relativity of the anthropologists’ own culture.

Thus, neither culture is understood, nor appreciated. Few Australians appear to understand that this attitude is far from universal.

International condemnation

In 1993, a team of five Austrian investigative anthropologists was sent to Australia to ascertain if reports of these violations were indeed as prevalent as anecdotally described. After three months of surveying across the nation, they reported that the breaches were more outrageous than their worst fears. It was their intention to recommend that all Australian anthropologists who so falsely documented Aboriginal culture, be stripped of their degrees and, if warranted, face charges of fraud.

On their return to Austria, their damning report was shelved; which suggests just how powerful were the global forces that they had unwittingly challenged.

(A separate document exposes how Whitlam’s Policy of Aboriginal Self Determination was terminated in only two years and land rights turned on its head. For a copy of “NLC – GENESIS OF” contact katorivera@gmail.com).

The outcome in Australia is that we have no independent measuring device for anthropological competence or professionalism, so what is described as ‘Aboriginal culture’ suffers from an absence of Aboriginal overview and, hence, correction. (It would be an interesting exercise for readers to ask Yolngu they communicate with how they rate anthropologists in knowledge of Yolngu languages and culture).

This current exercise in research and recording of Aboriginal Law may very well precipitate imposed Yolngu control over future interpretations of Aboriginal culture.

This has been a long time coming.

(4) The above focus takes us unavoidably in the direction of transcultural interpreting

As this currently occurs, there is no official recognition that comparative knowledge of one’s own culture is a critical feature of translation. It is mystifying in the extreme that, in a study realm dominated by anthropologists, there is no analysis of the dominant culture; only that of the subject’s, and even then, devoid of the subject’s approval or authorisation.

Because this is indeed a confusing assertion for many, we need first to examine the actuality of the dominant culture. To underscore this approach, we may recall that most Australians are of the impression that “we white Australians have no culture; this having died out centuries ago”.

This statement provokes uncomprehending dismay and even anger on the part of recent immigrants, whose culture-shock experience tells them that western culture is highly evident and is about as subtle as a train-smash in its impact on newcomers.

Those of us who have lived in other cultures understand well what I mean when I say that western culture is the most powerful and dynamic in history; so much so that it is said by some to be violently out of control and threatens to devour us all.

What are the more obvious manifestations of western culture?

There are too many to identify in this brief document, but we will focus on a few that, more relevantly, often cause confusion in the European/Yolngu interface.

Who and what are we Westerners? Having previously surveyed these perceptions with some 5000 international visitors, the cameo initial consensus was that “we Europeans are a widely educated culture and that we base our decisions upon learned logic and evidence, and that we value extremely highly such concepts as freedom, democracy, family, peace, happiness, and justice”.

We then compared these values with those of other cultures and sought empirical evidence to support our own perceptions. As a group, we discovered that, as a culture, few of these values were actually in evidence in Western culture. No European nationality complied with the agreed-upon definition of democracy. Almost all evidenced a history of colonialism, racial and class repression, poverty, incarceration, slavery, torture, genocide, hegemony, and war.

What became clear was that our actions and attitudes are predicated on our unsupportable western belief system while, in contrast, hunter-gatherers, confronted during every daylight hour by that ultimate and unforgiving reality, nature, made their decisions based on evidential fact. Beliefs, per se, played no part in daytime survival effort.

It soon became apparent to our 5000 European visitors that it was we in the West who are driven by beliefs and that the ”primitive hunter-gatherers” are in fact the educated realists.

Thus provoked to be both thoughtful and insightful, many of these European travelers drew attention to historical use of the word ‘savages’ as applied to a peaceful people who never inflicted slavery or torture, compared to the behaviour of the colonialists, who did.

Clearly, our personal perceptions of our own cherished culture are demonstrably at odds with the evidence. Yet when we compare our culture with that of Yolngu, we present our entirely fictitious personal beliefs. To conclude that this causes confusion is long overdue.

Meanwhile, we are all familiar with the word ‘tribal’ yet few of us comprehend what this really means in a transcultural cultural context. At the risk of being simplistic, it means that the key value for Yolngu is the tribe; more specifically, Family.

Hopefully, it will eventually become apparent to us all in the field, that when we are attempting to impress Yolngu with a concept or event that we believe is very, very, very, important; unless it has some relevance to his family, that person rapidly loses interest in the conversation. That is what being tribal means. Which is, presumably, why early NT administrators gave up trying to communicate. That, plus the fact that most had little interest in communication in the first place.

(5) It takes two to tango

Looking at this interface from a Yolngu perspective, they too, presumed their conceptualization of a given human attribute was the same as that of westerners.

Thus, when we use words such as LEADERSHIP, Yolngu presume we are referring to the roles of people whose knowledge, seniority, and skills, must be deferred to, such as the leading Songmen and Lawmen at ceremonies; or the wisdom and knowledge usually accrued to older people.

It seldom if ever occurs to Yolngu that we are referring to the practice of unilateralism; that is, the dictatorial decision-making of an executive, CEO, or dictator. When this is indeed understood by a particular Yolngu, what is presented is the opportunity to unilaterally accumulate wealth or power for the benefit of one’s own family; or what we white people refer to as nepotism.

Unsurprisingly then, nepotism is rife in Aboriginal hiring and firing.

This happens sans challenge because we Europeans are somewhat schizoid on the subject of unilateral decision-making.

We are often forced to confront socially-approved situations that are offensive to our personal values, so we adopt positively compromising language. In this way, we can admire a person’s “admirable leadership qualities” rather than the more-stark description of “bossy bastard”. Likewise, evidence of political megalomania is softened with reference to “a powerful leader”. Lord Acton, using the language of his times, observed that such accumulation of power is a slippery slope to sociopathy. Indeed, a prominent Californian psychologist found that the majority of politicians and CEOs were victims of Narcissist Personality Disorder or outright psychopathy.

Harkening back to the Aboriginal perception, an oft-heard riposte to another Yolngu who is attempting to apply social pressure outside of gurrutu (the law governing relationships), is “you’re not the boss of me”, meaning your unilateralism is unacceptable. Personal freedom and sovereignty were highly prized in pre-contact Yolngu culture, as they are today.

(6) The key question emerges, precisely how did Yolngu make community decisions?

Although Yolngu journeyed through their own tribe’s country following ancient annual food cycles, seasons differed and sometimes alternate routes were considered. This also might require discussion with wider extended family and so smaller family groups would come together and pool their wisdom.

In 1975, some senior Galiwin’ku Yolngu evidently saw this as a currently pivotal issue because, following my attendance at a funeral in Yirrkala, a charter flight was ordered to send me to Galiwin’ku and, the moment I arrived in town, a delegation shepherded me to a meeting of what appeared to be every ceremony official on the island not otherwise preoccupied at Yirrkala. These were legendary senior lawmen and cultural guardians: Burraminy, Munyu, Djupandawuy, Ngulpurray, Japani, Walalipa, and so on.

It may be significant that George Dayngambu, who was Chairman of the Community Council, was absent. The details of this conversation are insightful, referring to the Law of Garma.

It was announced in very precise 1970s Yolngu Missionary English that they were concerned that European ideas were undermining Yolngu decision-making. In former times, they said, if a decision about ‘country’ had to be made, this subject matter could only be articulated by the person whose birth spirit came from that location under discussion.

As Yolngu given names identified their birth-spirit site, the appropriate person was apparent to all. This person would then raise the relevant topic after campfire breakfast and this would be the signal for everybody to enter discussion. Interim explorations and conclusions were guided by song men and women, as appropriate. Discussion was free to all men, women and even children.

Eventually, the topic initiator would cautiously deduce that consensus had been achieved. Nevertheless, he or she would test the climate of opinion for signs of discontent or hostility to the consensus and, when this was clearly not apparent, he would formally announce what would henceforth be regarded as official consensus.

There was no after-discussion and the participants all departed abruptly to their various homes. Being a person of very average ability, it took me another ten years to fully understand what they had told me, and the implications this had for, not only future Yolngu government, but for all peoples of the world.

Later deep research into democracies down through the ages, including the vast studies undertaken by the Irish Monks, the decision-making of other ancient peoples (Kung and Inuit), and the concepts proselytised by Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln and the later American Populist Movement; and then the countering conclusions of Lord Acton, led me to realise that Yolngu had practiced pure democracy. For me, this was a revelation and it forced me to review the conclusions of a lifetime.

Most certainly Aboriginal democracy was purer than the farcical 19% of the Ancient Greeks. We have been badly misinformed about the Athenians. Actually, we have been calculatedly misled by the ruling class, now more commonly referred to as ’the global elite’.

Over the ensuing decades, I have discussed the1975 Galiwin’ku event with appropriate Yolngu and it has generally been agreed that what is needed is a Ngarra (truth-telling and law conference), attended by all Baparru (clans). It seems that this is an idea whose time has come. A real-time analysis of where we all are. As though guided by the hand of destiny, the Yolngu Nations Assembly, of which I am the researcher, under the aegis of AIATSIS has provided the contemporary platform.

Decades later, an annual social event was established near Yirrkala community wearing the title of Garma Festival. The function of this event is pure PR; to present to Australia the advances achieved in Aboriginal development and to showcase indigenous culture. Thus a couple of dozen Aboriginal PhD graduates are paraded before the world, which successfully diverts attention from the 60% of children who are illiterate and innumerate. To my mind, the validity of the PhDs is highly suspect.

Manifestly, Aboriginal Law is now being used as a weapon of repression, ironically, ably assisted by the Yothu Yindi Foundation and the Gumatj Corporation and massively funded by the Prime Minister of Australia using funds in violation of the original Aboriginal Benefits Trust Account… the word ‘Trust’ having been excised by persons unknown. (Because ABTA funding is half royalties and half taxpayer contribution, Treasury Regulations apply which the PM appears to have ignored).

Logical comparisons

When one translates from one culture to another, it is axiomatic that BOTH cultures be defined.

In Australia, this has never happened. The first error was to presume that official Aboriginal interpreters appreciated the reality of western culture. The general attitude seems to have been a shrug, “well… it is self-evident”.

The second error was to presume interpreters adequately comprehended Aboriginal culture. This is problematical for several reasons. Nobody with the full range of skills was making the assessments. It seems that everyone has forgotten that the word culture is purely relative. It has no meaning outside of comparison.

Elsewhere in the world interpretation is a highly skilled role, requiring cross-cultural analysis. Observation of UN interpreters demonstrates the precision required.

Basically, the NT Aboriginal Interpreter Service was actually a direct vocabulary translation service, which is essentially a superficial part of the real interpreter role.

In establishing the NT Aboriginal Interpreter Service, the word ad hoc comes to mind, probably because it was originally launched by people who were monolingual and monocultural.

There were outstanding exceptions, and some ‘interpreters’ are extremely competent at their job but the service per se was woefully inadequate and Aboriginal Territorians deserve a full interpreter service. To achieve this will require an interpreter college, modeled on the consulate role. A properly trained interpreter in the traditional Aboriginal interface with European law, is in fact an ambassadorial role.

In recent times, a private cultural-negotiator service has been established and this augers well for the future (Ref. Consultant Nadezhda Pozzana and Associates).

(7) Comparing the two cultures

All cultures can be said to be driven by a prime determinant.

The prime determinant of western culture is Acquisition. Our culture manifests itself when we acquire wealth, power, land, and resources.

Acquisitions are often made at the expense of others, which creates poverty. Acquisitions also must sometimes be defended, and again sometimes, preemptively.

How did the acquisition value come about?

Many thousands of years ago we were all hunter-gatherers. Then some of us began farming. Crops required storage, which required infrastructure, and sometimes these needed defenses against those whose crops had failed.

As some individuals emerged who defended more ably than others, sons were nurtured to add to the defense effort, with loyalty guaranteed. Thus dynasties were born, and out of powerful families came the need to delegate additional authority. This was the beginning of hierarchies, which were nurtured with more acquisitions.

This became an endless cycle of expanding hierarchies needing to broaden acquisitions to sustain themselves, which in turn deepened the hierarchies. Being an unnatural condition for we endemically social animals, this had a psychological impact on the leaders of hierarchies and, eventually, the accumulation of power became an end in itself; what we often refer to as Narcissist Personality Disorder (triggered by emotional trauma) and megalomania.

The word POWER is key to understanding resultant behaviour. In hierarchical societies, decisions are made exclusively by the leaders and, invariably, these decisions primarily benefit the leaders. We refer to this as pyramidal power.

In non-hierarchical societies, decisions are made by consensus. This is never a loose arrangement and is regulated by tight protocols on one kind or another, such as that described in Chapter 6.

If we were to examine cultures that chose not to evolve hierarchies, such as Inuit, Kung, or Australian Aborigines, we would note that this had a profound impact on their broader and therefore defining social behaviour, in contrast with hierarchical (stratified) societies.

All hierarchical societies generated enforced poverty, incarceration, torture, hegemony, slavery, and institutionalised war.

Significantly, non-hierarchical societies had no experience with any of these afflictions.

It is not known which factor is the ultimate driver, power in the hands of the few, or hierarchies themselves. Perhaps social scientists of greater ability than the fraudsters who inflict themselves on us today, could provide an explanation as to why this is so, but for our purposes we need only identify the correlations, which are compelling.

Arguably, the most penetrating political mind of recent times, Lord Acton, drew the same conclusion about the impact of the stratified dynamic, noting with reference to the concentration of power in the few, that “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

It should be noted that in 1880s parlance, ‘corruption’ equates with what we today describe as sociopathy. As was then observed by many philosophers: “Power drives men mad”, an observation reiterated by super-analyst Shakespeare.

Ironically, those who reject Lord Acton’s conclusions are always individuals with demonstrably less impressive intellects and little to recommend their own exercise of power. Significantly, their cerebral capacity disallows such self-realisation.

Aborigines had no chiefs, no kings or queens, and in fact no leaders in the western sense of the word, whatsoever. Whereas western law is a mix of pre-Christian beliefs, Christian Bible commandments and remnant royal decrees. It is also the product of various treaties, bills of rights, and compromises reached when subjects rebelled and rulers decided that some power must be conceded or shared, if they wanted to retain power, albeit modified or camouflaged.

In terms of the British Commonwealth Nations, most historically conspicuous of these are:

Magna Carta 1297

Petition of Rights1627

Bill of rights 1688

Act of Settlement 1700

Power-sharing resulted in the creation of parliaments, which created new laws we now know of as statutes. Historical or common law, has been losing ground in recent decades, which makes dovetailing with Aboriginal law problematical.

(8) Aboriginal law had no such genesis in historical conflict.

Perhaps as far back as 24,000 years ago, Aborigines observed that the universe consists of two eternally balancing and counterbalancing forces, and in the Yolngu languages this is called Yirritja and Dhuwa. (In western science, we refer to this as positive and negative, first recognised in Rome of 2000 years ago, resulting in a startling invention in the form of a primitive chemical electrical battery).

It is an interesting contrast that the Chinese conceptualized Yin and Yang three thousand years ago, perhaps 20,000 years after Aborigines, but certainly at least 9000 years later. The Chinese realised that for this observation to be meaningful, Yin and Yang must be fully incorporated into Chinese society but in this they failed.

Not so Aborigines. In a series of philosophical waves, they expanded their comprehension of Yirritja and Dhuwa, eventually applying it to all things, including themselves.

Thus, the sun is Yirritja. The Moon is Dhuwa. Every plant, bird, animal, insect, and fish is either Yirritja or Dhuwa. Likewise, every tribe is either Yirritja or Dhuwa. Every man or woman is Yirritja or Dhuwa, and a Yirritja man can only marry a Dhuwa woman.

An estimated ten thousand years ago, this became even more sophisticated, with these two moieties devolving into two more positions, then four and eventually anything up to eight, which Yolngu today refer to as the Law of Malk.

This is cross-referenced by another set of relationship rules known by Yolngu as Gurrutu. These structures regulate all human behaviour: how reciprocity rules work, who is a preferred spouse, who educates, who defends, who nurtures, who helps, and who is accorded reciprocity.

The positions delineated are the words for all extended family relationships: mother, brother, father, grandfather, and so on; and extend from blood relationships to all other human beings. This is why Yolngu adopt non-Aborigines into families, to ensure the smooth-running of social discourse.

While this sounds prosaically simple, it is anything but. For example, there are three different grandfather roles, each for different nurturing roles. Thus, a grandchild may be addressed as Marratja, Gutharra, or Gaminyarr and a grandparent referred to Mari, Manyi, or Ngathi, each delineating patrilineal or matrilineal descent of either sex parent. There are special relationship names for mother-in-law’s father, mother-in-law’s grandfather, mother’s eldest brother, and so on. The resultant behaviour rules are multitudinous.

Relationship rules can also avoid endemic or potential conflict and it is here that the Harmony Law is most visibly evident to an outsider.

For example, in all cultures it is accepted that two relationships are problematical: Mother-in-law and son-in-law, and brother and sister. Under Gurrutu, from puberty onwards, these relationships cannot speak to each other, say each other’s name, or even face each other. Nevertheless, gifts are mandatory. Respect is essential.

There is a deep thread of common sense to Gurrutu laws.

Aboriginal law also applies to ceremony (Rom/Madayin), foods eaten and by whom and when, places one can go, and words said, but I will leave these micro-specifics to Yolngu to explain.

The observation should be made that Aboriginal Law is homogenous and all encompassing: covering spirituality, family relationships, personal and clan identities, homelands hunting behaviour, sharing of life necessities, marriage, and even child-raising. All is seamless. Nothing is in conflict.

From this ancient cascade of universal perceptions and observations, emerged the Aboriginal Primary Cultural Determinant: HARMONY. (In common Yolngu language, magaya).

An active definition that would be more meaningful to the typical negativist European mind would be: AVOIDANCE OF CONFLICT… conflict with spirits, with nature, and with people.

Confluent with this ethic, is the ceremony known as Makarata, made famous in the movie Ten Canoes; featuring a law that resolves conflict. This meaning has been mangled by urban Aborigines posing as traditional. (The use of the word Makarata was exposed to the Australian mainstream by National Aboriginal Conference representative, Peter Minyipirriwuy Dhamarrandji in the mid-1970s, an offence for which he was punished on his return to Galiwin’ku community. He was advised by elders that his understanding was wrong, that his use of the word was unauthorized, and that it cannot be applied to any treaty with a national government. Unfortunately, the genie, once released, cannot be re-encapsulated).

It should surprise nobody that a culture that aspires to ACQUISITION is in immediate conflict with a culture dedicated to HARMONY.

In many ways, these are diametrically opposite values. However, many in the West are now questioning the wisdom of untrammeled acquisition as typified by exploitative capitalism and the military arm of free trade ideology.

Hopefully, as the western acquisition determinant becomes modified, the interface between Yolngu Law and Western Law will glide into a position of potential interactive synchronicity. Those who comprehend this predict that both cultures will benefit significantly.

None of we observers are holding our breaths.

(9) The application of Aboriginal Law

The following is an illustrative example of why western law should accommodate Aboriginal law.

In Aboriginal culture, mothers and fathers produce the children, feed them and bestow saturation love and affection. But what the west refers to as ‘parenting’ is the role of the wider extended family, each gurrutu position contributing different functions: guidance, nurturing, discipline, comprehension of consequences, wider education, skills apprenticeships, aspirations, and so on.

Because the west has repressed these Aboriginal extended family roles, combined with attrition through illness and death, increasingly, Aboriginal children grow up devoid of 21^st century-requirement ‘parenting’, which includes ensuring they go to school and learn to read.

School in Australia is compulsory and, in Aboriginal communities, school teachers unwittingly replace the Ngapipi (maternal uncle) role. This relation previously regulated skills development, discipline and self-control, hunting, manhood ceremonies, patronage for later ceremonies, and more.

Under the western education system, Aboriginal uncles see their function subverted by school teachers and are made to feel they are obsolete. Thus relegated to oblivion, they withdraw from their traditional role. Their nephew loses respect for his special uncle and misses out on confidence, aspirations, self-discipline, the pathway to approved ambitions, and access to critical ceremonies.

Little wonder that a group of uncles of one community could be heard chuckling when petrol sniffers burned down the school. Because, when the ngapipi eventually gets old, and the apprentice nephew (waku) is then expected to provide meat that he has hunted; now severed by the school system, the Aboriginal social security system has begun to collapse. Naturally, this has caused resentment, and a decay in child nurturing and guidance.

Likewise, the nurse-aid role countermands that of grandparents. Our medical system generates an environment that ultimately destroys social, mental and physical health.

There are other parallels with this loss, with most relationships with children but the pattern is the same.

This destruction commences with birth. Mothers should be with daughters when they have a baby; especially their first. Grandmothers are needed immediately afterwards. Trusted senior men are needed to guard ceremonies for women’s business. The rationale for these support systems was explained by one grandmother as “Who would trust a silly young girl to look after a precious baby”.

In the old Darwin Hospital at the end of Smith Street, a mattress was kept under each new-mother’s bed to accommodate her own mother whilst keeping her off the books, so to speak. The Americanisation of midwifery (inexplicably imported from the world’s most neurotic nation) ended this practice of cultural sensitivity, which is why there are now issues of inadequate mothering/infant bonding.

As one New Zealand anthropologist, himself Maori, Sir Peter Buck, pointed out more than a century ago, culture is like a chain, remove one link and the entire chain falls apart. In Australia’s circumstance, the entire chain has all but been corroded through: Disneyesque misrepresentation of Aboriginal culture, colonialism by medical professionals, the destruction of reciprocity by welfare authorities, and even absolute medical repression.

An entire Aboriginal generation has now grown up without values, discipline, literacy and numeracy, aspirations, or even self-control. Bereft of ‘family nurturing and control’ kids roam the streets at night and soon learn to steal and, later, to partake in gang assaults.

As with many European children, kids play electronic games all night and sleep by day, seldom going to school. 40% school attendance is routine and the average stay of white teachers in communities is four months, which is just enough time to affect lasting damage to impressionable little minds. Education in the NT is synonymous with the word farce. The NT Department of Education has learned nothing and new initiatives are introduced by politicians who have no grasp of culture, communication, values, family, accountability, or even social responsibility.

It is only a matter of time before Aboriginal kids have had their first stint in juvenile detention, soon followed by prison.

Agents of social concern wring their hands and ask why? Why?

Unfortunately, we all lack insight. Because we do not look. And politicians are paid to have their eyes closed. But it does not stop there. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Don Dale punishment of juveniles deliberately jettison the single submission that might explain where government went wrong. Prepared by the only surviving welfare officer from the former era of successful child rehabilitation, this exposed the corruption within corrections and juvenile justice. It is difficult to not conclude that the entire judiciary in Australia is corrupt.

As an update on this unfolding tragedy, the new CLP government of the Northern Territory was voted in on its promise of ending crime, especially that involving Aboriginal young people. Although the central function of this document is termination of this social disaster, the CLP rejected the paper, unread.

(10) History is repeating itself

The government people who are authorised to deal with the regulation of juvenile social behaviour are unaware that three hundred years ago, we in the west made the same transition from children raised by grandparents, to parents on their own.

When we were all rural peasants and worked in the fields planting and harvesting crops, this involved participation by every able-bodied adult and teenager, and only the enfeebled grandparents and great-grandparents stayed at home to look after young children.

The industrial revolution attracted young adults into towns and cities but when they married and had children, it took two centuries for society to realise there was a parenting gulf. Kids fell through the cracks in horrific ways, being forced to work in mines, clean chimneys, and labour in ‘dark satanic mills’.

In 1835, child labour was finally outlawed but nobody knew what to do with the children. They were rounded up and kept in very large rooms, basically town halls, wherein zealous Christians decided children should learn to read the bible and thereby grow into decent “god-fearing” human beings. Thus schools were born.

Later, some employers realised that literacy and numeracy enhanced productivity, and brutal child minders wielding beating-sticks (the notorious ‘rod’), were replaced by those who could read and write. Eventually, school teachers received special training.

By the late 1880s, a wide range of intensely judgmental ‘experts’ drew attention to the lack of quality supervision provided for children, philosophically noting that the extended family of rural times was no longer there and that a new generation of urban grandparents had little if any wisdom to fall back on.

And this is when governments introduced regulations to contain inadequate parenting. What was considered to be fashionable in parenting held sway, some of it tantamount to child abuse and cruelty, by today’s standards. The term “spare the rod and spoil the child” was heard daily, emitted by emotionally-deprived martinets. But it was the trade unions who improved wages, which enabled mums and dads to live in their own room, and later still, an apartment or house in which to raise their family. Thus, modern parenting was born, which became the paramount social interest.

But parenting is not just four walls and food. Austere and emotionally-stunted doctors called for hygiene and discipline in the raising of children. Archetypal was Sir Truby King who demanded that mothers cease destructive cuddling and “change nappies on a clean cold marble slab’ and in silence. Babies began to die. In hospitals and orphanages this became an epidemic and, inexplicably, the more modern and efficient the hospital, the higher the death rate of what was dubbed Wasting Disease.

In 1946, one American hospital, proudly the most efficient of all, experienced a death rate of 100%. They hired a noted paediatrician, Doctor Spock, to investigate the disease. Spock’s assistant recommended they hire women whose sole qualification was compulsive motherliness to pick up and cuddle each baby for twenty minutes. Wasting Disease went from 100% to zero overnight.

Dr Spock became an overnight parenting sensation and, soon, every family read his book. Thus, by 1950, parenting came to be focused on emotional and social development and in the sixties and seventies, this was the primary focus.

Unfortunately, nutrition and emotional development were soon forgotten and in the mass media, social conditioning replaced love as the priority. Meanwhile, school teachers, now university inculcated with new UN values, were urged to sever the intergenerational transfer of values, and view parents and communication skills with contempt. Epidemics of childhood obesity, emotional deprivation, and maturation retardation emerged. Many children are now confused about who and what they are, and this is not ameliorated by BPA and other food toxicities they injure sexual development. It has been estimated globally that half of all male children may be sterile. There is evidence that girls, also, have been affected.

This is the global environmental context in which we must address Aboriginal parenting and the role of the now-existentially-threatened extended family.

The above-notwithstanding, by 1975, the Parent Education Programme (PET) was made available in Australia for parents to fully comprehend their role. These incremental advances took three centuries to be introduced, and now Aborigines are going through the same extended-family-attrition. We need to be accommodating of the consternation and confusion this will generate, even before we all come to terms with the current nutritional toxicity and educational crisis.

It is anticipated that ignorant urban activists will label the adjustment racist but in fact this is simply the same adjustment whites had to make, but in a different period of history. In truth, some whites have yet to make the transition and so it will be of diplomatic value to apply the new understanding across the board. Bogan parenting is every bit as inadequate as Aboriginal, as is ‘Wokeism’.

(11) Using past history to help navigate into the future.

Politicians and child development regulators should be sending suitably-trained Aboriginal teams into communities to explain the new position to Aboriginal parents, but these officials do not seem to comprehend the problem; history of both cultures having been excluded from curriculum decades ago.

Perhaps this is an opportunity for the NT and Australian Law Reform Commissions to reinstate Aboriginal Law in this regard so that Aboriginal Parent Education Programme teams can be promoted and supported from within the community by the Gurrutu component of Aboriginal Law, which are concomitantly supported by other facets of Aboriginal Law.

To paraphrase, parent education must also comply with Gurrutu or it will be rejected.

Public servants are notoriously reluctant to step into the unknown but in this instance, this is not a pioneering venture, by any means. The belief that Aboriginal Law has not been applied with Western Court endorsement, is erroneous, as we shall see…

CAN ABORIGINAL TRADITIONAL LAW BE EFFECTIVE IN 2025?

Bamyili/Burunga 1979

In 1979, the very large Top End community of Bamyili was considered by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to be entirely dysfunctional. “A basket case” was the routine description. This was made especially apparent one night when petrol sniffers wrung the necks of 1,500 hens, just for fun.

The NT Director of Welfare, Bruce Alcorn, had already implemented the new policy interpretation of non-intervention in mixed race births previously and erroneously regarded as “at risk” (NT Welfare Branch Child & Family Welfare File 7/77 refers).

Accordingly, the families of the kids to be prosecuted were addressed by the author (then Welfare Officer) under the spreading and ancient mango trees behind the old Katherine Court. Three conditions of immediate family and community autonomy were presented to the six most senior ceremony men:

(1) All petrol sniffers over the age of 13 were to attend a specifically-named ceremony that promoted self-discipline, enhanced self-image, spiritual respect, and adult aspirations;

(2) The grandparents were to attend the school classes and encourage their grandchildren to learn to speak correct English (rejecting pidgin) and to count number;

(3) The families were to take their children out bush every weekend and teach them their own language and culture, and how to hunt (there were seven languages operational*).

(*Rembarrnga, Djarun, Miali, Ngalbong, Dhalwangu, Dhalabong, and Djinang).

The visibly exuberant seniors put the deal to the families and there was immediate affirmative consensus.

The local Maranbuy police officer, Dave Walter, who fully endorsed the project, was able to deliver in his three-monthly report that, not only had there been a cessation of petrol sniffing, all juvenile crime had ceased along with all adult crime. Bamyili was now a model community.

With sudden adoption of confidence and social dynamism, the community renamed itself Burunga, and launched the first Burunga Festival, that is now famous nationwide.

Although this was not immediately apparent to departmental and court authorities, this was a direct application of Aboriginal Traditional Law, suitably camouflaged to prevent white-anting by authorities. Essentially, the three elements applied were Ceremony Law (Rom-Kunapipi), Family Law (gurrutu), and Songline Law (Manikay/Madayin).

It needs to be stated that when the success of the Bamyili project became better understood, its history was ruthlessly repressed by social workers and magistrates (McGregor, Thomas, Cavanagh), a status that continues to this day.

Nevertheless, the Burunga case demonstrates the almost magical efficacy of Aboriginal Law in regulating and uplifting Aboriginal social behaviour.

Another example of application of Aboriginal Law restoring law and order and community peace, was the Makarrdhini of Galiwin’ku, Elcho Island. Officially-approved organisations withdrew funding from the organiser, Yolngu Nations Assembly (NT Chief Minister’s Department and ALPA) and the subsequent collapse was followed by an epidemic of lawlessness and migration to Darwin of both perpetrators and victims.

Having said that, in traditional Aboriginal Australia, which describes all Yolngu communities, the application of Aboriginal Law will be of limited value unless Homelands are recognised as the ultimate source of community strength and authority, because homelands are the specific geology of Songlines, which record Aboriginal Law and are associated with every personal and clan identity.

Because Aboriginal Law is homogenous, we cannot cherry-pick. The entire chain needs to be raised to universal visibility and every link respected and reinforced with Western Law. Contrary to reflexive belief, rather than cost government more money, this will actually result in massive savings in Aboriginal housing and from a reduction in prison populations.

Moreover, Aboriginal health will begin to improve, which will permit a proportionate shrinking of the health budget.

Back to country

Contemporarily, very large communities cannot become the crucible of a successful Aboriginal future because most inhabitants see themselves as aliens on another clan’s country; their own country increasingly being placed beyond reach by government policies.

This active process of destruction needs to end, and governments need to realise that the exorbitant cost of homelands is due almost entirely to housing costs that reflect the needs of construction industry profits and not intrinsic Aboriginal needs for shelter.

This researcher is aware of a high-quality-materials Aboriginal house design that is a mere $56,000, as opposed to NT Housing Department-approved failures that cost $700,000 to $900,000 each. Moreover, the Aboriginal design, with its flexibility and high cross breeze-flow capacity, mitigates disease transmission whereas the western designs are in conflict with both good health and family harmony.

Likewise, poor communication will continue to inhibit success. Government officers charged with liaison functions must learn local Aboriginal languages fluently, and there are no shortages of potential applicants.

Conversely, a lot of liaison deadwood needs paring. The absurd policy of demanding departmental racial quotas of Aboriginal public servants has resulted in hundreds of urban people with some claimed Aboriginal ancestry, occupying liaison positions for which they are entirely linguistically and culturally unqualified. This has the double whammy effect of preventing qualified people from being employed.

Bush veterans tend to observe that government has installed every conceivable measure and policy that might mitigate success; hence oft-heard claims of genocide.

Conclusion

· Aboriginal Law is the skeleton and sinews of the full-body culture. Without it the body flops lifelessly into extinction.

· Aboriginal languages are the only possible means of effective communication in traditional Aboriginal communities.

· Homelands are the source of all Aboriginal strength, resourcefulness, identity, developmental direction, financial independence, authority, and confidence.

These three: Law, Language, and Homeland, are the indivisible components of any Aboriginal future prosperity and productivity.

Arguably, a fourth component is economic sovereignty. Buffalo are a resource that can provide economic independence though harvesting, domestication, and export as wild-caught, for which there is a massive and lucrative market. Naturally, government is currently planning to shoot all buffalo in the absurd greenie belief that after two hundred years, buffalo are an environmental threat.

*

It is hoped that the above brief clarification of the Aboriginal/ European interface demonstrates in real-world and tangible terms how Aboriginal Law can eliminate what so many “experts” have concluded are insurmountable and inscrutable problems.

As we have demonstrated, Aboriginal Law can be officially recognised to immediately revive families; to become healthy, fully-functional, and productive. This can bring an end to Aboriginal incarceration. This has been achieved in the past (Galiwin’ku and Bamyili/Burunga) and these concrete examples show these are not mere romantic platitudes.

Anthony Hayward-Ryan

North East Arnhem Land, NT.

(Notes for researchers:

(1) The full and enlightening narrative of the Burunga community redemption can be read in the book “The Lost Track”, available free on docx or PDF until the publisher commences print and/or movie rights. To request a copy, apply to the email below.

(2) Addendums for this paper are available specifically for lawyers and public servants, and these provide compelling reasons why these occupational groups should support recognition of Aboriginal Law. Essentially, the theme is that each group benefits significantly.

(3) Terminology: Aborigine versus Indigenous:

Preference for ‘Aborigine’ is given because it communicates identity within Australia and internationally, whereas the word Indigenous does not. The term indigenous covers 4000 of the world’s 7000 languages and pertains to people as diverse as Brazilian tribes, African tribes, and even the Finns.

Moreover, in Australia there is the complication of two separate DNA derivatives: the Negrito remnant of Tasmania and north Queensland (formerly of Atherton rainforests), and the dominant people of the mainland. Further complicating the picture is the frequent application of the term indigenous to Micronesian, Polynesian and Melanesian people resident in Australia for up to two centuries, to which none of the considerations inherent in this document apply.