Mr LUGG - 1998-02-24
Following his acquittal on Friday, Mr Yunupingu proclaimed to the media at large that Aboriginal law had the same standing as Territory and Australian law. This statement has caused outrage in my electorate. Indeed, I was accosted twice in about 5 m near my electorate office by people who spoke in fairly direct language. Will the Crown challenge this decision in the Supreme Court and, if necessary, legislate to ensure that Territorians, one and all, are subject to the same laws?
Members interjecting.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I had expected members opposite to show a genuine interest in this issue which, whether they like it or not, is a matter of some concern. Notwithstanding statements made by some legal commentators that I appeared to be confused and that Mr Yunupingu had been dealt with under Territory law, not Aboriginal law, let me make it very clear that I understand the salient difference between the two. I understand and accept that Mr Yunupingu was dealt with according to Northern Territory law, but the view of the Crown is that the magistrate was wrong. On that basis, it will be the view of the Crown that the matter should be the subject of review. There are 2 salient issues that emerge ...
Mr Stirling: It was not appealed.
Mr STONE: The shadow attorney-general interjects that we are not appealing.
Mr Stirling: No, I said it was not appealed.
Mr STONE: This is the standard of the opposition spokesman. The first thing he should have discovered is that it is not possible to appeal it. Does he agree with that? Good! We will move on.
The first of the salient points is the extent to which Northern Territory law overrides, or in fact is overridden by, Aboriginal customary law. That is an important issue. It has been debated in this Chamber and elsewhere and it has had a chequered history during the term of self-government. Quite clearly, we are now at a crossroads where we will have to deal with the issue.
The second salient issue, arising from the first, is whether, in the event that there is a view that Aboriginal law stands equal to and is the same as Northern Territory law and indeed Australian law - either statute law or common law - this parliament would be prepared to
Page 6
legislate to make it clear and unequivocal that customary law does not apply. One of the issues adverted to by the magistrate was that, unless it is stated in unequivocal terms in legislation that customary law is excluded, it could be inferred that it is not. That is a matter of concern for those involved in law enforcement in the Northern Territory.
This matter will have its sequel in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory and also in this parliament. Important issues have been raised here, regardless of the facts of the case in which Mr Yunupingu was the defendant. There are important issues that need to be resolved and it deserves more than constant heckling and interjection from members opposite.
Page 7
Members interjecting.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I had expected members opposite to show a genuine interest in this issue which, whether they like it or not, is a matter of some concern. Notwithstanding statements made by some legal commentators that I appeared to be confused and that Mr Yunupingu had been dealt with under Territory law, not Aboriginal law, let me make it very clear that I understand the salient difference between the two. I understand and accept that Mr Yunupingu was dealt with according to Northern Territory law, but the view of the Crown is that the magistrate was wrong. On that basis, it will be the view of the Crown that the matter should be the subject of review. There are 2 salient issues that emerge ...
Mr Stirling: It was not appealed.
Mr STONE: The shadow attorney-general interjects that we are not appealing.
Mr Stirling: No, I said it was not appealed.
Mr STONE: This is the standard of the opposition spokesman. The first thing he should have discovered is that it is not possible to appeal it. Does he agree with that? Good! We will move on.
The first of the salient points is the extent to which Northern Territory law overrides, or in fact is overridden by, Aboriginal customary law. That is an important issue. It has been debated in this Chamber and elsewhere and it has had a chequered history during the term of self-government. Quite clearly, we are now at a crossroads where we will have to deal with the issue.
The second salient issue, arising from the first, is whether, in the event that there is a view that Aboriginal law stands equal to and is the same as Northern Territory law and indeed Australian law - either statute law or common law - this parliament would be prepared to
Page 6
legislate to make it clear and unequivocal that customary law does not apply. One of the issues adverted to by the magistrate was that, unless it is stated in unequivocal terms in legislation that customary law is excluded, it could be inferred that it is not. That is a matter of concern for those involved in law enforcement in the Northern Territory.
This matter will have its sequel in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory and also in this parliament. Important issues have been raised here, regardless of the facts of the case in which Mr Yunupingu was the defendant. There are important issues that need to be resolved and it deserves more than constant heckling and interjection from members opposite.
Page 7
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016