meaningful form. He submitted that there was a danger of law creating “a synthetic which is neither Aboriginal He said: nor Australian.” is little real understanding today by either black or white people of “There traditional Aboriginal customary law ... Who today can speak with real authority on tribal law? Who can advise the courts of the validity of claims of breaches of tribal law? … long as aboriginal beliefs were strong, and there were no prisons for offenders “As ... aboriginal law played a vital role in holding groups together and in keeping aboriginal Australia safe for its inhabitants ... Today there would be few people left in Australia, black or white, who have any detailed knowledge of what really stood for. It was in no way a black mirror– image of our ‘aboriginal law’ own body of laws: and the most common modern aboriginal offences that come before our own courts violent assaults, thefts, offences due to drunkenness, and – murders were never punishable by those persons who are today – called ‘tribal in the press ... Some of these offences did not even occur in the old elders’ ‘tribal’ days. I therefore believe that justice would be best met in our own days if the principle of one system of law for all Australians was firmly adhered to, with the proviso that the proved norms of should be taken into account ‘aboriginal law’ when determining the actual punishments … is probably dead everywhere. It could not change, for there were “True ‘tribal law’ no aboriginal agencies that had the power to change any of the traditional ‘norms’”. Two knowledgeable experts from different fields whose views are certainly deserving of respect (one a lawyer: Russell Goldflam, and one an anthropologist: Professor Peter Sutton) share the skepticism of Professor Strehlow about the desirability of recognising an evolving form of customary law. Russell Goldflam writes: has also been suggested that some may from severe physical violence “It ‘move to other forms of maybe shaming, or fining or exiling people, things which aren’t as traumatic or as violent to the individual or the But how authoritative family’. and viable could such a diluted, synthetic Law “Customary Lite” be?” In relation to the recommendation of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee of Enquiry into Aboriginal customary law that each community should define its own problems and solutions, while insisting that women, young people and less dominant
meaningful form. He submitted that there was a danger of creating “a synthetic law which is neither Aboriginal nor Australian.” He said: “There is little real understanding today by either black or white people of traditional Aboriginal customary law ... Who today can speak with real authority on tribal law? Who can advise the courts of the validity of claims of breaches of tribal law? … “As long as aboriginal beliefs were strong, and there were no prisons for offenders ... aboriginal law played a vital role in holding groups together and in keeping aboriginal Australia safe for its inhabitants ... Today there would be few people left in Australia, black or white, who have any detailed knowledge of what ‘aboriginal law’ really stood for. It was in no way a black mirror– image of our own body of laws: and the most common modern aboriginal offences that come before our own courts – violent assaults, thefts, offences due to drunkenness, and murders – were never punishable by those persons who are today called ‘tribal elders’ in the press ... Some of these offences did not even occur in the old ‘tribal’ days. I therefore believe that justice would be best met in our own days if the principle of one system of law for all Australians was firmly adhered to, with the proviso that the proved norms of ‘aboriginal law’ should be taken into account when determining the actual punishments … “True ‘tribal law’ is probably dead everywhere. It could not change, for there were no aboriginal agencies that had the power to change any of the traditional ‘norms’”. Two knowledgeable experts from different fields whose views are certainly deserving of respect (one a lawyer: Russell Goldflam, and one an anthropologist: Professor Peter Sutton) share the skepticism of Professor Strehlow about the desirability of recognising an evolving form of customary law. Russell Goldflam writes: “It has also been suggested that some may ‘move from severe physical violence to other forms of maybe shaming, or fining or exiling people, things which aren’t as traumatic or as violent to the individual or the family’. But how authoritative and viable could such a diluted, synthetic “Customary Law Lite” be?” In relation to the recommendation of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee of Enquiry into Aboriginal customary law that each community should define its own problems and solutions, while insisting that women, young people and less dominant