Lisa Larwood

LAW5INT
Essay

This essay was written on the lands of the Wurundjeri People, and I wish to
acknowledge them as the traditional owners of this land whose culture and
traditions I value and respect. I would also like to pay my respects to the Elders
of the Wurundjeri People, past, present, and emerging.

WARNING: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are advised that the
following essay may contain names of deceased persons, and information
pertaining to historical wrongs, which may be distressing.

Discuss the issue of discrimination in the legal sector.

WORD COUNT: 3888

INTRODUCTION
The legal sector covers a range of aspects related to ‘Law’. It includes sectors
that deal with the creation of law, the administration of law, the interpretation of
law, and everything included in these broad areas. So which aspect then
highlights the topic of discrimination in the legal sector.

As an indigenous New Zealander, I understand discrimination. Discrimination

occurs everywhere, in all sectors, within all communities. It may range from
unconscious bias to systemic discrimination to overtly racist behaviours. Most
concerning, however, is when discrimination leads to differential treatment
under the law.

Australia is the place where people from all over the world chose to live,
however, indigenous Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders suffer in their own
country under a legal system that continues to discriminate against them.
Australia’s legal system is apparently based on the rule of law. Yet laws have
been, and continue to be used in a discriminatory fashion, where laws are
created to be used on a specific race and the race of the person also determines
whether they will be arrested or not. A legacy of historic legislation used to
create inequities between Indigenous Aboriginals and everyone one else
continues to impact on Australia’s First Peoples. Despite signing international
conventions and enacting Anti-discrimination legislation, despite inquiries to
understand the reasons and provide solutions for disparity, despite decades of
recommendations, we still fail to have a legal system in Australia that treats
every person equitably.

This essay will discuss these aspects, from historic legislation to international
treaties and specific examples of discriminatory laws, in an attempt to examine
the historic and continuing failure of Australian legislators and the courts, to
uphold the rule of law and end discrimination for Indigenous Australians. It is
not unbiased as the plethora of recent evidence shows that bias and
discrimination are actually acceptable in Australia.

THE RULE OF LAW

Any discussion of the legal system in Australia needs to begin with an
understanding of the foundational principles on which it is built and a very brief
look at the how Australia was built on ‘the fiction of terra nullius.’1

In law, from 1788 until 1992, the legitimacy of the colonisation of Australia
was based on the doctrine of terra nullius which allows for ‘ownership by
seizure of a thing no one owns.’2 The nature of Aboriginal life was so
inherently different to that of those initial explorers, they were discounted as
even occupying Australia. This view of indigenous Australians, set the tone for
the next 200 years, and still does.

The Rule of Law was, and continues to be, one of the legal principles inherited
from England upon which Australia’s legal system is based. This principle
dictates that the law is applied equally to everyone. It has also been interpreted
to mean, among other things, ‘that no man can lawfully be punished except for
an offence against the law; that all persons, whatever their station or status, are
subject to law; that all should be able freely to assert, and by the processes of
law to vindicate, rights under the law.’3.Unfortunately, the way this principle
was enacted with regard to indigenous Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders

1
Justice Jagot, 'The Rule of Law and Reconciliation' (Opening Address, Law Society of New South Wales
Young Lawyers’ Conference, 20/10/2017) 1
<https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-jagot/jagot-j-20171020#:~:text=Terra
%20nullius%20means%20%22nobody's%20land,no%20one%20owns%20is%20legitimate.>.
2
Ibid.
3
Victor Windeyer, 'A Birthright and Inheritance-The Establishment of the Rule of Law in Australia' (Pt
HeinOnline) (1958) 1 Tas. UL Rev. 635.
was to create discriminatory laws to persecute, subjugate, and punish, while
asserting the supremacy of the British settlers.

If we interpret the rule of law, as the early settlers and subsequent governments
did to mean all should follow laws made for the betterment of the ‘white’
majority, then it is fair to say the lawmakers achieved some success. However,
discriminatory legislation enacted over the next 150 years ensured that
Indigenous Australians did not enjoy the same protections as one could
reasonably expect under the rule, and security, of law.

LEGISLATION 1788-1948
Australian legislation progressively aided in the discrimination of Indigenous
Aboriginals and Torrs Strait Islanders from 1824 until, in theory, the
Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act of 1975.

The First Fleet of 9 convict ships arrived in Botany Bay NSW in 1788 and
established a British penal colony consisting of 850 convicts and their Marine
guards and officers, led by Governor Arthur Phillip. From this time until 1824,
the colony was ruled by the military governors whose rights were granted to
them under the New South Wales Courts Act 1787 (UK)4 which ensured that
British law was paramount, and the colony had a basis for law enforcement. The
NSWCA also adapted British court procedures to meet the colony conditions but
allowing for a more ‘summary’ proceeding.5

From 1788 until 1948 numerous laws were created for the young colony, many
of which related to Indigenous Aboriginals. Looking at these historical pieces
of legislation through a 2022 lens, is difficult. What was then acceptable for the
4
New South Wales Courts Act 1787 (UK) (‘NSWCA’)
5
https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-did-36.html#:~:text=It%20ensured%20that%20British%20law,of
%20the%20new%20convict%20colony.
public good is no longer tolerable, our thinking about other cultures and
ethnicities has changed dramatically. In raising this point, it is important to
acknowledge that this examination of the historical legislation enacted in these
early years, contains no judgement despite the feelings of sadness it may have
evoked.

Many laws made from 1788 until 1950 affected Aboriginal people throughout
Australia. However, this essay will broadly discuss discriminatory legislation
affecting the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people generally,
then specific legislation relating to alcohol consumption to highlight the issue of
discriminatory legislation.

DISCRIMINATORY LEGISLATION BROADLY

One of the earliest laws which provides a clear example of discriminatory
legislation was the Supply of Liquors to Aboriginal Natives Act (1838) NSW 2
Vic, 18 496. This Act prohibited the supplying of alcohol to any Aboriginal. It
is self-explanatory in action but what was its intention? Was it about power and
control or protection? If protection, who was being protected, the white settlers
or the indigenous Aboriginals?

Laws prohibiting indigenous Aboriginal people being supplied alcohol

continued to be implemented across the country over the next 100 years7. To
impose unilateral controls over one class of people and not another must be
considered discriminatory8. There is a plethora of evidence regarding the harms

6
Supply of Liquors to Aboriginal Natives Act 2 Vic, 18 49 1838 (NSW)
7
Supply of Liquors to Aborigine Prevention Act 31 Vic. 16 1867 (NSW) , Liquor (Amendment) Act 1905
(NSW), Licencing Act 1908 (SA), The Licensing Act No 32 1911 ( WA), Liquor Act 1912 (NSW),Licensing
Acts Further Amendment (No 2) of 1915 (SA), Licensing Act 1917 (SA), Liquor Ordinance 1929 (ACT),
Licensing Ordinance 1939 (NT),
8
Janani Muhunthan et al, 'Global systematic review of Indigenous community-led legal interventions to control
alcohol' (Pt BMJ) (2017) 7(3) BMJ Open e013932.
of alcohol9 yet evidence also shows that ‘First Nation peoples of Australia, …
are more likely to be non-drinkers than other people in these countries.’10 This
evidence may seem to suggest that prohibition has worked to reduce the
tendency of alcohol abuse for indigenous people, however, the report11 shows
similar statistics for New Zealand Māori who were not subjected to the same
discriminatory legislation.

The 1840’s also saw other measures put in place to discriminate against
Aboriginal peoples. 1844 saw, for the first time, legislation allowing for the
removal of Aboriginal children from their parents ‘to provide for the protection,
maintenance and the upbringing of orphans and other destitute children of the
Aborigines.’12 This piece of legislation authorised the removal of Aboriginal
children from their parents. It was believed that ‘half-caste and orphan children
of the Aborigines are left destitute…and [therefore] it is expedient to provide
for the protection, maintenance and up-bringing of such, as well as of other
children of the Aborigines whose parent or near kindred may be willing’13 to
give them up. This law is clearly discriminatory as it only mentions children of
Aboriginal people, giving parents the ability to give their children away. This
legislation was more akin to slavery than protection as it allowed for the
children to be put into an apprenticeship or given to ‘any master or mistress
willing to receive such a child in any suitable trade, business or employment’14
as if they were of legal age. Most telling is the mention that if an Aboriginal

9
C. H. Freyer, K. C. Morley and P. S. Haber, 'Alcohol use disorders in Australia' (Pt Wiley) (2016) 46(11)
Internal Medicine Journal 1259-1268.
10
Gemma C. Purcell-Khodr et al, 'What can primary care services do to help First Nations people with
unhealthy alcohol use? A systematic review: Australia, New Zealand, USA and Canada' (Pt BioMed Central)
(2020) 15(1) Addiction Science & Clinical Practice 1-21.
11
Ibid.
12
An Act to provide for the Protection, Maintenance and the Upbringing of Orphans and other Destitute
Children of the Aborigines No. 12 1844 (SA)
13
Ibid.1
14
Ibid 1
child is indentured to a master and that master dies, the child can be transferred
to another person15, like a chattel.

Legislation of this type continued to be implemented throughout the other States

and Territories as part of the discriminatory ‘protectionist’ regime. The
Aborigines Protection Act (1886)16 established Western Australia’s Aborigines
Protection Board which controlled all areas of life including employment but
did not guarantee a wage be paid.

1897 saw similar legislation in Queensland17gave a strict definition of

‘Aboriginality’ which included ‘half-casts’ and tightly regulated where they
could live. It also established Protectors and Reserve Superintendents. In NSW,
the 1909 Act18 gave the Board of Protection of Aborigines powers to control
Aboriginal movement and activities, and the power to take children from their
families.

A 1905 equivalent Western Australian law19 gave the Chief Protector legal
guardianship of all Aboriginal children under the age of 16 and stopped non-
Aboriginal people from living with Aboriginals. This discriminatory piece of
legislation also gave the Chief Protector power of land owned by Aboriginal
people and created a raft of laws only applicable to indigenous Aboriginals.

The impact of this and other such discriminatory legislation was

intergenerational trauma and the shaping of the collective Australian psyche

15
Ibid 2
16
Aborigines Protection Act 50 Vic.25 (1886) (WA)
17
Aboriginal Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act (1897) Qld
18
Aborigines Protection Act (1909) NSW
19
Aborigines Act (1905) WA
into believing that Aboriginal people were somehow ‘less’ than other
Australians, despite being ‘denied [their] basic rights for 180 years.’20

TREATIES, CONVENTIONS AND ENQUIRIES

Despite appalling past actions which could be interpreted as a major violation of
human rights, Australia showed its commitment to human rights by being an
original signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights21. This
declaration, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, set the
minimum rights that all people should have in a free and democratic society.
160 years after the arrival of the First Fleet, Federal legislation slowly began to
appear to remove the barriers historically faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islanders.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1962(Cth)22 finally gave Aboriginal

Australians the right to vote, in theory, but it wasn’t until 196723, 19 years after
signing the UDHR referendum, 24 that Aboriginal peoples were finally granted
recognition as part of the Australian population in a Constitutional
amendment.25 The Whitlam government continued this ‘progress’ with the
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)26. This Act aimed to ‘entrench new
attitudes of tolerance and understanding in the hearts and minds of the people.’27
However, it was not easy getting the Bill passed through both houses with
vigorous debate and opposition highlighting the discriminatory thinking that
existed, and still exists, today.
20
Gough Whitlam, ‘It’s Time for Leadership’ (Speech delivered at the Blacktown Civic Centre, Sydney, 13
November 1972)
21
UDHR
22
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1962 (Cth) (‘CEA’)
23
Hon Linda Burney, 'Reconciliation and referendum : 1967 to present' (Pt HOBOKEN: Wiley) (2017) 76(4)
Australian journal of public administration 409-411.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
26
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (‘RDA’)
27
Gough Whitlam, 'Proclamation of the Racial Discrimination Act' (1975).
There had been three unsuccessful attempts in the years prior to have the Racial
Discrimination Bill passed. On its 4th attempt, there were concerns about
creating ‘an official race relations industry with a staff of dedicated anti-racists’
intent on persecuting white Australians28. Some could not see why this
legislations was needed as ‘racialism in …Australia… probably is practised less
than it is in the big majority of countries.’29 Even the future Prime Minister
doubted using ‘legislative coercion to promote tolerance’30 yet the Bill did
become law in October 1975. However, legislation on its own is unlikely to
achieve social change31 but it did give us the ability to conduct research into the
causes of Aboriginal disparity.

In 1991 the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC)

handed down its final report. This report bought to the public’s attention the
over-representation of Indigenous people in Australia’s prisons and criminal
justice system in general. If the question is, why is there an over-representation,
does the answer indicate continued discrimination in our legal system? I
imagine for many this over-representation reinforced the belief that Aboriginals
and Torres Strait Islanders are criminals to be locked away, especially if you
look at the statistics that ‘prove’ this thinking.

The RCIADIC showed how ‘the attitudes of the dominant non-Aboriginal

society, [and] racism both overt and hidden [including] institutional racism,
adversely affect[s] Aboriginal people. It [also] shows how some laws bear
unequally upon Aboriginal people.’32 \One law that is known to be used against
Aboriginal people more than others relates to public drunkenness. Of the 99
28
G Sheil, ‘Second reading speech: Racial Discrimination Bill 1975’, Speech, The Senate, 15 May 1975, 1.
29
I Wood, ‘Second reading speech: Racial Discrimination Bill 1975’, Speech, The Senate, 22 May 1975, 1.
30
J Howard, ‘Second reading speech: Racial Discrimination Bill 1975’, House of Representatives, 8 April 1975.
31
Tim Soutphommasane, 'Forty Years of the Racial Discrimination Act' (Pt SAGE Publications Ltd) (2015)
40(3) Alternative Law Journal 153-156.
32
Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, National Report Volume 1, 1.7.2
Aboriginal deaths investigated by the RCIADIC, 27 were ‘in custody for the
sole offence of public drunkenness.’33

Despite numerous recommendations34 to decriminalise these laws, in 2020, the

Victorian Government finally acknowledged the ‘unacceptable, [and]
disproportionate impact that Victoria’s current public drunkenness laws have
had on Aboriginal people,’35 after an Expert Reference Group issued a report on
public drunkenness.36

EXAMINATION OF PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS

Public drunkenness offences can be found in section 13-16 of the Summary
Offences Act (1966) Vic37. ‘Any person found drunk in a public place shall be
guilty of an offence’38 and ‘may be arrested’ by ‘a police officer’39 or ‘a
protective services officer.’40 Statutory Interpretation of the use of the word
‘may’ in this section of the SOA shows a discretion. Having discretion to arrest
or not makes policing of public drunkenness difficult as the limits of
drunkenness have not been ‘defined by judicial or statute interpretation.’41
Unfortunately, ‘discretions can easily end up operating adversely against those
who lack power and influence.’42

33
34
Victorian Parliament’s 2005 Implementation Review of the Recommendations from the Royal Commission
into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, 2001 Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee’s Inquiry into Public
Drunkenness
35
https://www.justice.vic.gov.au/public-drunkenness
36

37
Summary Offences Act (1966) Vic (‘SOA’)
38
Ibid. s 13
39
Ibid. s15(1)(a)
40
Ibid. s15(1)(b)
41
Annie Wright, Parliament of Victoria, Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public
Drunkenness) Bill 2020 (Bill Brief, February 2021).
42
Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, Report of the Inquiry into the Death of Harrison Day,
9 August 1990, Commissioner JH Wootton.
In 2019, the death of Tanya Day was the impetus for the Victoria government to
finally announce it would amend the Summary Offences Act43 and ‘replace the
offence with a health-based response.’44 This new regime would mean that
people drunk in public ‘will be supported to access the care and services they
need, thereby enhancing the health and wellbeing of the drunk person and the
safety of the community as a whole.’45

TANYA LOUISE DAY

On 5 December 2017, Tania Day a proud Yorta Yorta woman, was travelling on
the Vline from Echuca to Melbourne. Despite other passengers not reporting
anything unusual, the Vline ticket inspector rang the Police as he believed she
was being ‘unruly’ lying with her feet across the aisle. In reality, she was
asleep.

Ms. Day was subsequently arrested and taken to Castlemaine police station and
detained in the cells. According to CCTV footage of the cells, Ms. Day fell and
hit her head on the concrete wall at approximately 5.00pm. Police procedures
require that a physical check on prisoners be undertaken ever 30 minutes, yet
Ms. Day was not checked until 8.03pm, three hours after she hit her head.

Police called an ambulance for Ms. Day after noticing a dark, oval bruise on her
forehead, and she was subsequently taken to Bendigo Hospital. A scan revealed
a ‘large 7.7 x 5.2 cm cerebral bleed involving the temporal, frontal and parietal
lobes’46, and she was flown to St Vincent’s Hospital in Melbourne where she

43
(SOA) n 38
44
Jill Hennessy, Attorney General (2019) New health-based response to public drunkenness, media release, 22
August.
45
Jill Hennessey, Attorney General (2020) ‘Second Reading Speech: Summary Offences Amendment
(Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Bill 2020’, Debates, Legislative Council, 9 December, p. 3926.
46
Inquest into the Death of Tania Louise Day Coroner’s (Coroner’s Court of Victoria, Coroner English, 11
November 2019) 9.
had emergency surgery. Tania Day died seventeen days later on 22 December
2017 at the age of 55.

In December 2018, the Coroner foreshadowed that she would recommend the
repeal of public drunkenness offences at the first directions hearing into Tanya
Day’s death. In response to this, on 22 August 2019, the Andrew’s Government
announced their intention to replace public drunkenness offences with a public
health response.’47 In May 2019, Coroner Caitlin English advised, as part of the
inquest, that she would consider whether systemic racism contributed to the
death.

To determine whether systemic racism or unconscious bias contributed to the

decision making which led to Tanya Day’s death, the coroner had to ‘consider
the evidence of related facts,’48 including written or oral evidence, CCTV
footage taken of the events that day, and other circumstantial evidence.
Unconscious bias ‘affects how we observe and interpret the behaviour of a
person in a stereotyped group…[the outcome of which can be] …seeing the
behaviour …as disruptive or disturbing to others’49 when it is actually not. In
cases where discrimination based on race has been determined, evidence based
on inferences drawn from conduct is needed as people are not likely to admit in
direct evidence that racism was a cause for their actions.

The Coroner, upon hearing evidence from the Vline conductor, found that the
‘decision-making process [of the conductor]was influenced by an unconscious
bias in immediately deciding Ms Day was unruly…[and]..the decision to define
her unruly …has been influenced by her Aboriginality.’50 The coroner also
found that the Police did not meet the Victoria Police Manual Guidelines or the
47
https://www.hrlc.org.au/tanya-day-overview, Accessed 23/09/2022 10.46
48
(n 48) 23
49
Coronial Brief (CB) 488 Report on Unconscious Bias Professor Jill Klein.
50
(n 48) 42
Castlemaine Police Standard Operating Procedures and some officers
demonstrated ‘a cultural complacency regarding people who are drunk.’51
More importantly, she formed a belief ‘that an indictable offence may have been
committed’52 and directed that the Director of Public Prosecutions be notified.

As stated earlier in the essay, the death of Tanya Day was the impetus for the
Victoria Government to consider decriminalising offences for public
drunkenness in 2019. In 2020, an Expert Reference Group provided its report
which included 86 recommendations including repealing the drunkenness
offences and also on the design of a possible health-based response. The report,
titled ‘Seeing the Clear Light of Day’ for the part Tanya played in the creation
of the report, described the current legislation as ‘unsafe, unnecessary and
inconsistent with current community standards.’53 However, despite the
Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Bill
coming into existence in 2020, no changes have been implemented and the Bill
has not been passed. Opponents of the Bill use arguments around ‘unintended
consequences’ or the need to ‘wait for a proper implementation plan’, or the
‘impact on emergency departments’ or possibly how it will ‘compromise the
work of Police.’54 I argue, it will save lives. I argue, now is the time and learn
as we go.

CONCLUSION
Australia is a wonderful country to live in. There are many opportunities here
as immigrants from all over the world will proclaim. However, this country
was built on discriminatory legislation and practices leading to oppression of its
First Peoples. In researching this essay, I have cried more times than I wish to
count. My faith in the law shaken by the way a principle I believe in, The Rule
51
52
(n 48) 104
53
54
Bill Brief
of Law, can be used to inflict such ongoing harm to Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples. My view of Australia irrevocably changed, the gloss has gone,
replaced by the knowledge of the racist legislation and policies foundational to
what exists now.

There are so many topics I could have included in a discussion about

discrimination against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples within the
legal sector. There was no room for the ‘White Australia Policy’, ‘The
Northern Territory Intervention’, whether the RDA changed discriminatory
views of everyday Australians, or a look at the implementation, or lack of, 30
years of recommendations since the RCIADIC. The headlines I discovered in
my research were enough to show if we have changed, it is nowhere near
enough. Indigenous man’s death in Victorian custody the second in a month’55,
‘Australia had a record number of police shootings in the past year. Should we
be concerned?56 'Don't draft anyone with skin darker than mine': Explaining
Hawthorn's messy past with Indigenous players,’57 ‘Tony Abbott tells CPAC an
Indigenous voice to parliament would promote ‘discrimination’58, ‘First
Nations children account for 84% of Queensland youth detainees put in solitary
confinement’59, ‘Kumanjayi Walker inquest: racism a ‘broader’ issue in NT
police, superintendent says.’60
55
‘Indigenous man’s death in Victorian custody the second in a month’, The Guardian, 13 September 2022
AEST, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/13/indigenous-mans-death-in-victorian-custody-
the-second-in-a-month#:~:text=An%20Aboriginal%20prisoner%20in%20central,are%20devastated%20by
%20his%20death.
56
Australia had a record number of police shootings in the past year. Should we be concerned? The
Conversation, 11 October 2021 https://theconversation.com/australia-had-a-record-number-of-police-shootings-
in-the-past-year-should-we-be-concerned-169354
57
No club can claim immunity from racism, but Hawthorn has a messy history with its Indigenous players
ABC News 21 September 2022 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-21/inside-hawthorns-ugly-past-with-
indigenous-players/101454616
58
Tony Abbott tells CPAC an Indigenous voice to parliament would promote ‘discrimination’ The Guardian 1
October 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/01/tony-abbott-tells-cpac-an-indigenous-
voice-to-parliament-would-promote-discrimination
59
First Nations children account for 84% of Queensland youth detainees put in solitary confinement, The
Guardian, 28 September 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/28/first-nations-children-
account-for-84-of-queensland-youth-detainees-put-in-solitary-confinement
60
‘Kumanjayi Walker inquest: racism a ‘broader’ issue in NT police, superintendent says’ The Guardian, 27
September 2022 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/27/kumanjayi-walker-inquest-racism-a-
Australia’s Indigenous Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders continue to bear
the burden of a discriminatory legal system, under discriminatory practices, and
implementation of legislation in a racially discriminatory manner. The impact of
these practices is a country based on unconscious bias, racist practices, and
replication of a way of thinking that makes it difficult to fight for what is right.
Until we in the legal sector make a conscious effort to address this history, and
to make amends for it, we are cursed to watch Indigenous Aboriginals and
Torres Strait Islanders continue to suffer and continue to die.

broader-issue-in-nt-police-superintendent-says
BIBLIOGRAPHY

*WILL BE EMAILED SEPERATELY AS FORMATTING CONTINUING

(SEE BELOW)
Annie Wright, Parliament of Victoria, Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of
Public Drunkenness) Bill 2020 (Bill Brief, February 2021)

Burney, Hon Linda, 'Reconciliation and referendum : 1967 to present' (Pt HOBOKEN:
Wiley) (2017) 76(4) Australian journal of public administration 409-411

Freyer, C. H., K. C. Morley and P. S. Haber, 'Alcohol use disorders in Australia' (Pt Wiley)
(2016) 46(11) Internal Medicine Journal 1259-1268

Jagot, Justice, 'The Rule of Law and Reconciliation' (Opening Address, Law Society of New
South Wales Young Lawyers’ Conference, 20/10/2017)
<https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-jagot/jagot-j-
20171020#:~:text=Terra%20nullius%20means%20%22nobody's%20land,no%20one
%20owns%20is%20legitimate.>

Muhunthan, Janani et al, 'Global systematic review of Indigenous community-led legal

interventions to control alcohol' (Pt BMJ) (2017) 7(3) BMJ Open e013932

Purcell-Khodr, Gemma C. et al, 'What can primary care services do to help First Nations
people with unhealthy alcohol use? A systematic review: Australia, New Zealand, USA and
Canada' (Pt BioMed Central) (2020) 15(1) Addiction Science & Clinical Practice 1-21

Soutphommasane, Tim, 'Forty Years of the Racial Discrimination Act' (Pt SAGE
Publications Ltd) (2015) 40(3) Alternative Law Journal 153-156

Whitlam, Gough, 'Proclamation of the Racial Discrimination Act' (1975)

Windeyer, Victor, 'A Birthright and Inheritance-The Establishment of the Rule of Law in
Australia' (Pt HeinOnline) (1958) 1 Tas. UL Rev. 635

Supply of Liquors to Aboriginal Natives Act 2 Vic, 18 49 1838 (NSW)

Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (‘RDA’)
G Sheil, ‘Second reading speech: Racial Discrimination Bill 1975’, Speech, The Senate, 15 May 1975, 1.
I Wood, ‘Second reading speech: Racial Discrimination Bill 1975’, Speech, The Senate, 22 May 1975, 1.
J Howard, ‘Second reading speech: Racial Discrimination Bill 1975’, House of Representatives, 8 April 1975.

Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, National Report Volume 1, 1.7.2