An Anthropologist Considers the Single Noongar Judgment

1 end of October. But other media outlets which pride themselves on their commitment to the serious discussion of indigenous issues, such as The Australian and the ABC, have presented a succession of laudatory commentaries on the judgment without examining whether Noongar people really had a sound basis for their native title claim. As an anthropologist who gave evidence in the Single Noongar case, I find much that is puzzling, questionable and inconsistent in the reasons Justice Wilcox gave for his decision. And I am genuinely mystified by his statement that, unlike the Yorta Yorta, 'the southwest community did not suffer a cataclysmic event that totally removed them from their traditional country' (S. 599). The Yorta Yorta, like most other Aboriginal groups, suffered greatly as a consequence of European settlement, but there have always been Yorta Yorta people living at various locations within the bounds of their traditional country. 2 Although Justice Wilcox should be commended for incorporating lengthy sections from documents before the Court and from the transcript of evidence into his reasons, a great deal of other relevant material was not included. Unfortunately, much of this material is unavailable to the public, or at best, difficult to access. The anthropological literature on south west Western Australia points to very serious problems with the Wilcox judgment, and given the potential long-term significance of his findings, these need to be brought to public attention.