Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5959bf8d4d-xqm7d Total loading time: 0.406 Render date: 2022-12-08T06:39:29.797Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Kumarangk (Hindmarsh Island) and the Politics of Natural Justice under Settler‐Colonialism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Abstract

This article examines the impact of the application of apparently impartial principles of procedural fairness and natural justice on the construction of “authentic” and “inauthentic” knowledge of Aboriginal culture. It discusses the progression of the Kumarangk (Hindmarsh Island) court cases and the legal construction of public participation in the making of political decisions affecting Aboriginal interests in land. In examining the politics of competing interests in land, this article reflects on the tension between Indigenous interests in land and settler developmentalism in relation to the Australian jurisprudence of procedural fairness and natural justice. The arguments running through the article concern the questions of the ways in which the liberal restraint on power is embodied in the impartial principles of administrative law, where that power creates rather than infringes upon rights, why it generates a particular legal construction of Aboriginal interests in land and cultural heritage, and the extent to which this plays a role in the maintenance of relations of settler‐colonial dispossession.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2011 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Allars, Margaret. 1987. Fairness: Write Large or Small? Sydney Law Review 11:306–25.Google Scholar
Allars, Margaret. 1996. Theory and Administrative Law: Law as Form and Theory as Substance. Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration 79:2032.Google Scholar
Andrews, Neil. 1998. Dissenting in Paradise? The Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal Commission. Canberra Law Review 5:576.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1987. The Force of Law: Towards a Sociology of the Juridical Field. Hastings Law Journal 38:814–53.Google Scholar
Brunton, Ron. 1996. The Hindmarsh Island Bridge and the Credibility of Australian Anthropology. Anthropology Today 12:27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, John R., and Morgan, Hugh M. 1991. The Dire Implications of Coronation Hill. Institute of Public Affairs Review 44:3438.Google Scholar
Charlesworth, Hilary. 1997. “Little Boxes”: A Review of the Commonwealth Hindmarsh Island Report. Aboriginal Law Bulletin 1997:2630.Google Scholar
Clarke, Jennifer. 1996. Chronology of the Kumarang/Hindmarsh Island Affair. Aboriginal Law Bulletin 1996:6466.Google Scholar
Cowlishaw, Gillian. 1995. Did the Earth Move for You? The Anti‐Mabo Debate. Australian Journal of Anthropology 6:4363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, P. P. 1990. Public Law and Democracy in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Evatt, Hon. Elizabeth, AC. 1996. Review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
Evatt, Hon. Elizabeth, AC. 1997. Review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984. Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 2:433. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AILR/1997/38.html (accessed August 27, 2010).Google Scholar
Fergie, Deane. 1995. Whose Sacred Sites? Privilege in the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Debate. Current Affairs Bulletin 72:1422.Google Scholar
Fergie, Deane. 1996. Secret Envelopes and Inferential Tautologies. Journal of Australian Studies 48:1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finn, P. D. 1984. Confidentiality and the “Public Interest.” Australian Law Journal 58:497510.Google Scholar
Fish, Stanley. 1999. The Trouble with Principle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
France, Anatole. 1921 1894. The Red Lily. London: John Lane, The Bodley Head.Google Scholar
Goldflam, Russell. 1997. Noble Salvage: Aboriginal Heritage Protection and the Evatt Review. Aboriginal Law Bulletin 3:48.Google Scholar
Gray, John. 2000. Two Faces of Liberalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hancock, Nathan. 1995. How to Keep a Secret: Building Bridges between Two “Laws. Aboriginal Law Bulletin 3:48.Google Scholar
Hancock, Nathan. 1996a. Disclosure in the Public Interest? Is Full Disclosure of Secrets Required by Current Heritage Legislation? Alternative Law Journal 21:1923.Google Scholar
Hancock, Nathan. 1996b. Is This the Spanish Inquisition? Legal Procedure, Traditional Secrets and the Public Interest. In Heritage and Native Title: Anthropological and Legal Perspectives, ed. Finlayson, Julie and Jackson‐Nakano, Ann, 91112. Canberra: AIATSIS.Google Scholar
Harlow, Carol. 1994. Changing the Mindset: The Place of Theory in English Administrative Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 14:419–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Mark. 1996. The Narrative of Law in the Hindmarsh Island Royal Commission. In Law and Cultural Heritage, ed. Chanock, Martin and Simpson, Cheryl, 115–39. Melbourne: La Trobe University Press.Google Scholar
Kamen, Henry. 1998. The Spanish Inquisition. London: Phoenix.Google Scholar
Loughlin, Martin. 1992. Public Law and Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malbon, Justin. 2003. Avoiding the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Disaster: Interpreting the Race Power. Flinders Journal of Law Reform 6:4166.Google Scholar
Marchetti, Elena, and Ransley, Janet. 2005. Unconscious Racism: Scrutinizing Judicial Reasoning in “Stolen Generation” Cases. Social & Legal Studies 14:533–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathews, Justice Jane. 1996. Commonwealth Hindmarsh Island report pursuant to Section 10(4) of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act (1984). Canberra: Australian Government Printer.Google Scholar
McMillan, John. 2002. Judicial Restraint and Activism in Administrative Law. Federal Law Review 30:335–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neate, Graeme. 1989. Power, Policy, Politics and Persuasion: Protecting Aboriginal Heritage under Federal Laws. Environmental & Planning Law Journal 6: 214–48.Google Scholar
Partington, Geoffrey. 1995. Determining Sacred Sites: The Case of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge. Current Affairs Bulletin 71:411.Google Scholar
Pengelley, Nicholas. 1998. Before the High Court: The Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act. Must Laws Based on the Race Power Be for the “Benefit” of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders? And What Has Bridge Building Got to Do with the Race Power Anyway? Sydney Law Review 20:144–57.Google Scholar
Rose, D. B. 1996. Land Rights and Deep Colonising: The Erasure of Women. Indigenous Law Bulletin 3:613.Google Scholar
Rowse, Tim. 1998. The Modesty of the State: Hasluck and the Anthropological Critics of Assimilation. In Paul Hasluck in Australian History: Civic Personality and Public Life, ed. Stannage, Tom, Kay Saunders, Richard Nile, 119–32. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
Ryan, Susan. 1984. Second Reading Speech: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984, Senate, Debates, 6 June 1984. http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F1984‐06‐06%2F0051%22 (accessed August 27, 2010).Google Scholar
Saunders, Cheryl. 1994. Report to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs on the Significant Aboriginal Area in the Vicinity of Goolwa and Hindmarsh (Kumarangk). Melbourne: Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Sened, Itai. 1997. The Political Institution of Private Property. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simons, Margaret. 2003a. Habits of Disdain: Myth, Evidence and Culture Warriors. Overland 172:32–9.Google Scholar
Simons, Margaret. 2003b. The Meeting of the Waters: The Hindmarsh Island Affair. Sydney: Hodder Headline.Google Scholar
Smart, Carol. 1989. Feminism and the Power of Law London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stevens, Iris E. 1995. Report of the Hindmarsh Island Royal Commission. Adelaide: State Printer.Google Scholar
Taubman, Aliza. 2002. Protecting Aboriginal Sacred Sites: The Aftermath of the Hindmarsh Island Dispute. Environmental & Planning Law Journal 19:140–58.Google Scholar
Tehan, Maureen. 1996. To Be or Not To Be (Property): Anglo‐Australian Law and the Search for Protection of Indigenous Cultural Heritage. University of Tasmania Law Review 15:267305.Google Scholar
Tickner, Robert. 2001. Taking a Stand: Land Rights to Reconciliation. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Tonkinson, Robert. 1997. Anthropology and Aboriginal Tradition: The Hindmarsh Island Bridge Affair and the Politics of Interpretation. Oceania 68:126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Krieken, Robert. 2000. From Milirrpum to Mabo: the High Court, Terra Nullius and Moral Entrepreneurship. University of New South Wales Law Journal 23:6377.Google Scholar
van Krieken, Robert. 2002. Reshaping Civilization: Liberalism between Assimilation and Cultural Genocide. Amsterdams Sociologisch Tijdschrift 29:138.Google Scholar
Weiner, James F. 1995. Anthropologists, Historians and the Secret of Social Knowledge. Anthropology Today 11:37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, James F. 1999. Culture in a Sealed Envelope: The Concealment of Australian Aboriginal Heritage and Tradition in the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Affair. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 5:193210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, James F. 2002. Religion, Belief and Action: The Case of Ngarrindjeri “Women's Business” on Hindmarsh Island, South Australia, 1994–1996. Australian Journal of Anthropology 13:5171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wootten, Hal. 1995. Mabo and the Lawyers. Australian Journal of Anthropology 6:116–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wootten, Hal. 2006. Resolving Disputes over Aboriginal Sacred Sites: Some Experiences in the 1990s. In Negotiating the Sacred: Blasphemy and Sacrilege in a Multicultural Society, ed. Coleman, Elizabeth Burns, Kevin White, 191204. Canberra: ANU Press.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Aboriginal Sacred Sites Protection Authority v. Maurice (Re Warumungu Land Claim) (1986) FCR 10 104.Google Scholar
Annetts v. McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596.Google Scholar
Chapman v. Luminis (No 4) (2001) 123 FCR 62.Google Scholar
Chapman and Ors v. Tickner and Ors (1995) 55 FCR 316. (Chapman v. Tickner).Google Scholar
Commissioner for ACT Reference v. Alphone Pty Ltd (1994) 127 ALR 699.Google Scholar
Commonwealth v. Tasmania (1983) CLR 158 1 (Tasmanian Dam).Google Scholar
Kartinyeri v. Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337.Google Scholar
Kioa v. West (1985) 159 CLR 550.Google Scholar
Mabo and Ors v. Queensland (No. 2) (19911992) 175 CLR 1.Google Scholar
Minister for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Affairs v. State of Western Australia (1996) 66 FCR 40 (Crocodile Park 3).Google Scholar
Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v. FCT (1963) 113 CLR 475.Google Scholar
National Companies and Securities Commission v. News Corporation Limited (1984) 156 CLR 29.Google Scholar
Norvill v. Chapman (1995) 133 ALR 226.Google Scholar
Russell v. Duke of Norfolk (1949) 1 All ER 109.Google Scholar
State of South Australia v. O'Shea (1987) 163 CLR 378.Google Scholar
State of Western Australia & Others v. Minister for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Affairs (1994) 54 FCR 144 (Crocodile Park 1).Google Scholar
State of Western Australia & Others v. Minister for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Affairs (1995) 37 ALD 633 (Crocodile Park 2).Google Scholar
Tickner v. Bropho (1993) 114 ALR 409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tickner v. Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Victorian Broadcasting Network (1983) Pty Ltd v. Minister for Transport and Communications (1990) 21 ALD 689.Google Scholar
Western Australia v. Minister for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Affairs (1994) 54 FCR 144.Google Scholar
Wilson v. Minister for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Affairs (1996) 189 CLR 1.Google Scholar
Wiseman v. Borneman 1971 AC 297.Google Scholar

Statutes Cited

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth).Google Scholar
Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth) (Heritage Act).Google Scholar
Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997 (Cth).Google Scholar
3
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Kumarangk (Hindmarsh Island) and the Politics of Natural Justice under Settler‐Colonialism
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Kumarangk (Hindmarsh Island) and the Politics of Natural Justice under Settler‐Colonialism
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Kumarangk (Hindmarsh Island) and the Politics of Natural Justice under Settler‐Colonialism
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *