Gunditjmara and Ngarrindjeri: Case Studies of Indigenous Self-government

Rigney, D; Rose, D; Vivian, A; Jorgensen, M; Hemming, S; Berg, S

Gunditjmara and Ngarrindjeri: Case Studies of Indigenous Self-government

Rigney, D

Rose, D Vivian, A

Jorgensen, M Hemming, S

Berg, S

Permalink

Publisher:: Cambridge University Press
Publication Type:: Chapter
Citation:: The Cambridge Legal History of Australia, 2022, pp. 204-224
Issue Date:: 2022-08-04

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	CSP_ Vivian and Halloran_final.docx	Submitted version	80.92 kB	Microsoft Word	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Rigney, D https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9642-9906
dc.contributor.author	Rose, D
dc.contributor.author	Vivian, A https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7177-0809
dc.contributor.author	Jorgensen, M
dc.contributor.author	Hemming, S https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3284-1264
dc.contributor.author	Berg, S
dc.contributor.editor	Cane, P
dc.contributor.editor	Ford, L
dc.contributor.editor	McMillan, M
dc.date.accessioned	2024-03-27T23:40:32Z
dc.date.available	2024-03-27T23:40:32Z
dc.date.issued	2022-08-04
dc.identifier.citation	The Cambridge Legal History of Australia, 2022, pp. 204-224
dc.identifier.isbn	978-1-108-49922-4
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/177299
dc.description.abstract	Chapters 9.1 (by Tim Rowse and Jennifer Green) and 9.2 (by Daryle Rigney, Denis Rose, Alison Vivian, Miriam Jorgensen, Steve Hemming and Shaun Berg) present case studies of past and present of Indigenous governance. In 9.1 Rowse and Green show that Arrernte jurisdiction has persisted in certain ways in Alice Springs/Mparntwe since the 1870s, notwithstanding the colonists’ expectation – at least until the reforms of ‘welfare colonialism’ in the 1970s – that ‘detribalisation’ was rapidly and inevitably extinguishing customary law. Their chapter outlines some episodes of recognition that have arisen from the overlapping of two systems of law in a space inhabited by both Arrernte and non-Arrernte people. The first example discussed is the acknowledgement and protection of sacred sites, and the second the decreasing accommodation of customary law within the criminal law. In 9.2 Rigney et al explore the experiences of two Aboriginal nations, the Gunditjmara People and the Ngarrindjeri Nation, asserting their status as distinct peoples and, in so doing, demonstrating their capacity to achieve their Indigenous Nation Building goals. While both face significant challenges in establishing Indigenous self-governing systems and accommodating them within the Australian federation, their intention to self-govern according to Gunditjmara and Ngarrindjeri norms is indisputable.
dc.format.extent	32
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	Cambridge University Press
dc.relation	http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DP190102060
dc.relation.ispartof	The Cambridge Legal History of Australia
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1017/9781108633949.009
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.title	Gunditjmara and Ngarrindjeri: Case Studies of Indigenous Self-government
dc.type	Chapter
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Provost
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Provost/Jumbunna
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Strength - SIC - Strengthening Indigenous Communities
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	false
dc.date.updated	2024-03-27T23:40:30Z
pubs.place-of-publication	Cambridge
pubs.publication-status	Published
dc.location	Cambridge

Abstract:

Chapters 9.1 (by Tim Rowse and Jennifer Green) and 9.2 (by Daryle Rigney, Denis Rose, Alison Vivian, Miriam Jorgensen, Steve Hemming and Shaun Berg) present case studies of past and present of Indigenous governance. In 9.1 Rowse and Green show that Arrernte jurisdiction has persisted in certain ways in Alice Springs/Mparntwe since the 1870s, notwithstanding the colonists’ expectation – at least until the reforms of ‘welfare colonialism’ in the 1970s – that ‘detribalisation’ was rapidly and inevitably extinguishing customary law. Their chapter outlines some episodes of recognition that have arisen from the overlapping of two systems of law in a space inhabited by both Arrernte and non-Arrernte people. The first example discussed is the acknowledgement and protection of sacred sites, and the second the decreasing accommodation of customary law within the criminal law. In 9.2 Rigney et al explore the experiences of two Aboriginal nations, the Gunditjmara People and the Ngarrindjeri Nation, asserting their status as distinct peoples and, in so doing, demonstrating their capacity to achieve their Indigenous Nation Building goals. While both face significant challenges in establishing Indigenous self-governing systems and accommodating them within the Australian federation, their intention to self-govern according to Gunditjmara and Ngarrindjeri norms is indisputable.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/177299