McCorquodale, Dr J. --- "Clamp Down -- Police Attitudes towards Aborigines in New South Wales" [1986] AboriginalLawB 27; (1986) 1(19) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 14

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback Aboriginal Law Bulletin

In every Australian jurisdiction police were - and are - associated in the Aboriginal experience as a repressive and punitive arm of government.

Aboriginal female, aged 40, charged with the criminal offence of seriously alarm or seriously affront, Nowra, February 1981.[1]

In NSW they were the enforcers of laws relating to vagrancy, drinking, residence; the suppliers of rations and blankets on behalf of 'the Board' ('The Board for Protection of Aborigines'); the persons authorised under the Aborigines Protection Act 1909 to inspect 'any station or reserve on which Aborigines are located, and any buildings, and the stores, stock and any other matter or thing, thereon or therein';[2] the agents who removed Aborigines (and half-castes[3])from reserves or townships;[4] who enforced the separation of children from parents. and placed them in training institutions or employment. with access to them at all reasonable times from 1915 to 1946.[5] Suspected unfair treatment or the likely impairment of the moral or physical well-being of any Aboriginal employee could also prompt police enquiries, access, and removal[6] and in 1940 police could cause Aboriginal children to be charged as neglected or uncontrollable and apprehend them without warrant[7] The Act was also amended that year to give police the power to Institute proceedings for an offence against the Act or the regulations. The Inspector-General of Police (after 1935[8] the Commissioner of Police) was appointed ex officio chairman of the Board under the 1909 Act,[9] a position he retained until displaced in 1940; even then, 'a member of the police force of or above the rank of inspector was a member of the newly constituted Aborigines Welfare Board,[10] an appointment retained until 1969.[11] Even before the 1909 Act, the practice of having the Inspector-General of Police on the Board had been well established. In fact the first Aborigines Protection Board was established in 1883, the then Inspector-General of Police being not only a member but its chairman, a position retained by his successor in 1903 and formalised by statute in 1909.[12] Accordingly, this legal jurisdiction over and 'protection' of Aborigines by police in New South Wales extended to every part of their daily existence, To my knowledge no other communities in the free world have been placed in such proximity to police as have been Australia's Aborigines. The removal of repressive 'Aboriginal' legislation in the 1960's transformed Aboriginal-police relations as the rising black' expectations and demands were opposed and resisted by police denied their long-standing powers over generations of cowed and subdued blacks.[13] The black power movement and the freedom rides were widely perceived in country towns as radical movements. which indeed they were, exposing glaring inconsistencies between legislative precept and administrative practice. The denial of mixed bathing facilities at Moree's famous municipal mineral baths continued for some years after the Sharpevilie massacre in South Africa. But the real impact was perhaps the perception which police had, and have, of their role.

In many ways police occupy an invidious position within a community. They are: firstly, a para-military organisation modelled on army lines, with commissioned and non-commissioned officers; a rigid and disciplined hierarchical structure, uniforms and arms. Until 1935 the chief police officer in the State was styled 'Inspector-General'. Secondly, they are widely perceived by the general community as the enforcers of law. That necessarily requires an ability to initiate contact, forming an unequal relationship based on power and assumed community support for their function. The police have the power in extreme cases to deprive another human not merely of liberty but of their very existence. Thirdly, they see themselves as the upholders of moral standards, adding to their legal authority the lustre of moral authority in maintaining community values. Forthly, they therefore perceive themselves as agents of social stability and cohesion, as protectors of the wider community against external infraction. As a result their role is to assert and maintain. within confined limits, a degree of conformity of behaviour, deviation from which is considered unsettling, threatening. The means for enforcement invest police with power far beyond those of ordinary citizens. The police person stands out in the community, belonging to it but rarely considered to be an ordinary member. In country areas in particular they are endowed with knowledge of intimate detail of family lives, but interpersonal relationships may be difficult to form let alone maintain. An assault on police integrity. a challenge to police authoriity, is perceived as a threat to good order. stability, a form of aberrance inviting use of discretionary powers, legal norms or force not for individual satisfaction but for societal well-being. McIlvanie referred to a sense of cohesion. which I would call solidarity, not in a defensive or paranoid sense but in a functional sense founded on role, the notion of moral persuasion and moral authority, and the continuance of respect for the established order.

Aborigines were, and I consider still are, felt to be outside the ordinary standards of a decent, law-abiding community. In almost every way their behavioural patterns violate the police norm. The drunken neglect of children; the disrespect for self; the public abuse and brawling; lack of care for property; the failure to seek, obtain, or continue in employment; the promiscuity; the visible and audible assaults on (white) values of behaviour, were the paradigm presented to me through most of the State. Older police resented the lack of 'respect' for 'authority' when the Aborigine 'knew how to behave'. The 'good blacks' were those who conformed to the white model by overt and express rejection of freeloaders, 'stirrers', by acquiring first regular employment, then a regular home, and maintaining it. Those who refused to take in relatives or friends were considered neighbourly, 'not like the others' (Armidale, Wellington, Goodooga, Bourke, Broken Hill). Distinctions were sometimes made on a geographical or tribal basis. Thus one policeman at Peak Hill considered Brewarrina Aborigines had 'bad blood' bred into them; one at Coonamble considered they had values not as good as a white person. Other distinctions were made on communal differences. In Tamworth, one police report to the Court described the family as 'a better than average Aboriginal family' as if there were such a black - or even white - model. In Broken Hill I was informed by one policeman that there are many 'black drag queens' in Newcastle, that the Aborigines have to accept it is a white Australia, that gaol gives then contentment through regular food, no alcohol, showers, clothes, and cleanliness; that they are better left in their natural state, being only two generations removed from the desert, and that 'the system can't cope with racist attitudes'.[14] In Taree, finally, I was informed that Aborigines have thick skulls and many are homosexual.[15]

This litany of condemnation from the guardians of moral welfare and community well-being surely recalls the SS description of the 'verminous Jew' as nicht menschen - non-human - so that human feelings of compassion would not accompany their extermination. Some training in Aboriginal culture is given to police cadets - perhaps four hours in 13 weeks[16] - but the basic consideration of Aborigines I found to be one of contempt. Nor do there appear even now to be standing orders of the kind in force in South Australia since 1975, in the Northern Territory since the enunciation of the Anunga guidelines in 1976 and formalised by Circular Memorandum No. 13 of 1979, and a notification system in the Victorian model, although this last example shows signs of breakdown.[17 ]Unfortunately, police are also placed in a situation where so much Aboriginal behaviour properly belongs to welfare agencies rather than to law enforcement. The endemic effect of alcohol has produced a sociological phenomenon of a fragmented and disintegrating society for whom white values have diminishing meaning. Yet these are the values enforced by police.

Offense Statistics

Curiously, though, recourse is often had to police in a domestic situation where a wife uses it in a threatening or inhibiting way.[18 ]Police are reluctant to intervene in a domestic dispute unless physical harm to the complainant is likely to ensue. The result of police intervention often goes far beyond a routine remonstration. A person inflamed by alcohol may well abuse police, and upon arrest, either resist or assault them. Bystanders may join in by endeavouring to have the police desist in their actions and themselves be charged with hindering police. Table 1 (Table 1 is not shown in the publication of this article. It is available on request from AboriginalLB} shows that offences in these categories are committed 82-93% of cases by Aborigines, juvenile Aboriginal males contributing as much as, or more than adult females. The futility of actions for assault of females by males is seen in Table 2 (a) where only 10% of such matters involved white defendants, and 57% of all Aboriginal matters lapsed or were withdrawn. Actions for assault of females by females were wholly Aboriginal, as were those by males for assaults by females (Table 2(b)) and (c)). Actions by males for assaults by males were 93% Aboriginal, but a plea of guilty was there entered in half the cases (Table 2 (d)).

Table 2(a) Actions by Females for Assault by Males (n=78)

Defendant	Plea of Guilty	Matters Withdrawn	No Evidence Offered	No Appear	Not Guilty Plea
Aboriginal	18	15	7	18	12
%	25.7	21.4	10.0	25.7	17.1
White	4	1	1	2	-
%	50.0	12.5	12.5	25.0	-

Table 2(b) Actions by Females for Assault by Females (n=17)

Defendant	Plea of Guilty	Matters Withdrawn	No Evidence Offered	No Appear	Not Guilty Plea
Aboriginal	4	3	2	5	3
%	23.5	17.6	11.8	29.4	17.6
White	-	-	-	-	-
%	-	-	-	-	-

Table 2(c) Actions by Males for Assault by Females (n=7)

Defendant	Plea of Guilty	Matters Withdrawn	No Evidence Offered
Aboriginal	3	1	3
%	42.9	14.3	42.9
White	-	-	-
%	-	-	-

Table 2(d) Actions by Males for Assault by Males (n=42)

Defendant	Plea of Guilty	Matters Withdrawn	No Evidence Offered	No Appear	Not Guilty Plea
Aboriginal	21	2	1	6	9
%	50	4.8	2.4	14.3	21.4
White	2	-	-	1
%	48	-	-	2.4	-

Table 3 – Offences against Police
(a) Defendants Charged or Summonsed (n=143)

	Aboriginal Defendant			White Defendant
No of charges / offences	Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	Total
1	33	6	39	2	-	2
2	22	7	29	5	1	6
3	23	4	27	4	-	4
4	13	3	16	1	-	1
5	7	2	9	-	-	-
6	3	1	4	-	-	-
7 or more	5	-	5	-	-	-
	106	23	129	13	1	14

(b) Defendants Convicted (n=54)

	Aboriginal Defendant			White Defendant
	No of convictions	Male	Female	Total	Female	Male	Total
1	2	-	2	-	-	-
2	2	-	2	-	-	-
3	3	-	3	2	-	2
4	2	-	2	-	-	-
5	-	-	-	-	-	-
6	2	-	2	2	-	2
7 or more	34	-	34	5	-	5
	45	-	45	9	-	9

Table 4 – Prior Convictions of defendants (Where Known) (n=55)

	Aboriginal Defendant			White Defendant
	Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	Total
1	2	-	2	-	-	-
2	2	-	2	-	-	-
3	3	-	3	2	-	2
4	2	-	2	-	-	-
5	-	-	-	-	-	-
6-10	13	1	14	2	-	2
11-15	7	-	7	-	-	-
16-25	8	-	8	1	-	1
26-40	5	-	5	1	-	1
40	3	-	3	3	-	3

Table 5 – ‘Motor’ Convictions for Multiple Offences (n=143)

	Aboriginal Defendant			White Defendant
No of offences	Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	Total
2	42	3	45	39	1	40
3	21	-	21	12	1	13
4	9	-	9	7	-	7
5	4	-	4	1	-	1
6	1	-	1	1	-	1
7	1	-	1	-	-	-
	78	3	81	60	2	62

Table 6 – Multiple (Non-Traffic) Offences
(a) by Charge of Summons (and Percentages) (n=567*)

* This represents actual defendants and not the number of charges. Thus 171 Aboriginal defendants were charged with a total of 342 offences; 20 Aboriginal defendants with 140 offences.

	Aboriginal Defendant					White Defendant
	Male	%	Female	%	Total	Male	%	Female	%	Total
2	142	64.8	29	13.2	171	46	21.0	2	1.0	48	219
3	81	73.6	11	10.0	92	18	15.4	-	-	18	110
4	48	72.7	7	10.6	55	11	16.7	-	-	11	66
5	34	75.6	4	8.6	38	7	15.5	-	-	7	45
6	23	82.1	2	7.1	25	3	10.8	-	-	3	28
7	20	95.2	-	-	20	1	4.8	-	-	1	21
8	15	93.8	-	-	15	1	6.2	-	-	1	16
9	13	92.9	-	-	13	1	7.1	-	-	1	14
10	10	90.9	-	-	10	1	9.1	-	-	1	11
11+	35	94.6	-	-	35	2	5.4	-	-	2	37
	421		53		474	91		2		93	567
	74.3		9.4			16.0		0.3			100.0

(b) by Conviction (n=230)

	Aboriginal Defendant					White Defendant
	Male	%	Female	%	Total	Male	%	Female	%	Total
2	57	64.8	12	11.9	69	31	30.7	1	1.0	32	101
3	33	73.3	3	6.7	36	9	20.0	-	-	9	45
4	22	81.5	2	7.4	24	3	11.1	-	-	3	27
5	15	83.3	1	5.6	16	2	7.7	-	-	2	18
6	12	92.3	-	-	12	1	7.7	-	-	1	13
7	9	100.0	-	-	9	-	-	-	-	-	9
8	6	100.0	-	-	6	-	-	-	-	-	6
9	4	100.0	-	-	4	-	-	-	-	-	4
10	3	100.0	-	-	3	-	-	-	-	-	3
11+	4	100.0	-	-	4	-	-	-	-	-	4
	165		18		183	46		1		47	230
	71.7		7.8			20.0		0.5

The magistracy in the country are generally energetic in imposing substantial penalties for charges against police successfully prosecuted. As one magistrate put it at Wilcannia: 'You must accept the authority of the police'.[19] Table 4 gives a small example of the kinds of results which obtain: Aboriginal prior convictions exceeding six (67%) vastly outnumber those for white defendants (13%).

In traffic matters, too, police discretions are used in a manner which seriously disadvantages Aborigines more than whites. A motor vehicle is an essential part of economic life for country Aborigines who follow seasonal work as unskilled labour over great distances. Table 5 Illustrates the disproportionate number of Aborigines charged with multiple motor traffic offences Invariably relating to unregistered and uninsured vehicles, therefore carrying car number plates 'likely/ calculated to deceive'. For cases involving three or more convictions for these offences. Aborigines outnumbered whites 36 to 22 or 62% to 38%. These are absolute figures: given the financial condition of Aborigines, loss of licence or motor vehicle has far greater consequences than for the average white. Moreover, the greater ownership of vehicles by whites puts a greater perspective on the extent of use of police discretions against Aborigines. Aborigines were also charged more frequently than white for multiple non-traffic offences. Table 6(a) analyses the results of charges brought against 567 defendants, of whom 474 (or 84%) were Aborigines. Table 6(6) analyses the number of charges recorded against 230 defendants (80% Aborigines) convicted of multiple non-traffic offences.

Aborigines accounted for not less than 79% of all non-traffic multiple offences. The greater number of offences, the higher was the proportion of the 'Aboriginal' element. Thus, in those cases of six or more such offences, Aborigines accounted for 89% (Table 6 (a)). A sexual bias is also seen: Aboriginal women accounted for 96% of all female multiple non-traffic offences, and 100% of those involving three or more charges. Aboriginal men accounted for 82% of all male multiple non-traffic charges, and 93% of those involving six or more such charges: the ratios below that are comparable. However, charges involving six or more counts were proffered against Aboriginal males counted as a proportion of all such offences were three times the ratio for white males.

Convictions for multiple non-traffic offences show a similarly disproportionate burden of convictions borne by Aborigines (80%) (Table 6(b)). Aborigines convicted of four or more offences accounted for 89% of all such convictions. Aboriginal males convicted of six offences accounted for 92% of the total and in the case of seven or more offences 100%.

The proportion of convictions for two such offences by Aboriginal males 135%I contrasts with that for whites (67%): convictions for three offences represented the same proportion for black and white males (20%) but the ratios thereafter move decisively against blacks and in favour of whites. Thus convictions of Aboriginal males for four such offences represented 13% of their total (whites 7%): for five offences the respective proportions were 9% and 4%: for six offences 7% and 2%.

Aboriginal females accounted for 95% of all convictions for multiple offences, and 100% for those for three or more charges.

Police Discretionary Power

Aborigines are thus charged and convicted both as to frequency and to number on a basis grossly disproportionate to whites. The opportunity for the exercise of appropriate police discretions in the prosecution and conviction of offences is seen to militate heavily against blacks and strongly to the advantage of whites.

Discretions can be used also in way which goes beyond threats to the means of livelihood or the pin-pricks or minutiae of harassment. Rule 56(b) in the Police Regulation Act obliges police not to arrest a person for a minor offence when it is clear that a summons will ensure the offender will be dealt with by a magistrate. Yet it is clear that the arrests are still made in breach at least . of the spirit of the Act. a course criticised by the (NSW) Ombudsman.[20] While these may be rare or isolated cases. they have consequences extending beyond the individual affected, raising tensions and exacerbating a tenuous or strained relationship. Complaints to the Police Commissioner and to the responsible minister tended to be treated as 'political' and to be ignored.

Five instances of discriminatory police discretions in one area - not the Far West - can be given. All occurred at the time of my fieldwork and the factual details are recorded from Aboriginal Legal Service (ALS) records.

In 1980 X-an Aboriginal man aged 25 - was forced at gunpoint to commit indecent sexual acts with a senior constable of police, aged about 34. X later attempted suicide. The matter was investigated by police with the following result:

Ex. Snr. Const. Z was permitted to resign without penalty and without answering questions. A tape recording of the officer discussing the event was made and was handed to the police at the time of investigation.

In December 1980 an Aborigine aged about 40 was picking mushrooms with his wife and another couple. The owner of the property appeared and allegedly produced a rifle which in their presence he loaded and pointed at them, cursing and threatening them all the time. The police were notified. They referred it to detectives who took no action. The Aborigine, a highly respected local, went to the Chamber Magistrate who refused to act. A field officer of the ALS attended at the Court House with the complainant and, making it clear that the events were being recorded, a summons was finally issued.

In 1979 an Aboriginal youth and a white youth were caught stealing from the local council. The Aboriginal youth was charged but the white youth was not. The criterion used by the police was basically that the Aboriginal youth had offended before while the white youth had no previous convictions.

However in 1980, two Aboriginal youths aged 10 and 14 years were involved with some other boys in a stealing matter. Neither had previous offences, nor did they take anything, their involvement essentially being passive. Family conditions were reported as excellent. The police were reminded of the criteria in the previous case but the prosecution was continued. The last case, also in 1980, involved a young Aborigine who was seriously assaulted at a hotel. He was hospitalised for about two weeks. The matter was reported to the police who interviewed him nine days later. The police took no further action and it was necessary in view of the facts and the serious nature of the injury for the victim to lay a private information for Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm. Detectives from the same location as in the second case were again involved.

The pattern demonstrated in these cases is quite clear. Before the prosecution of a white person can take place where the substantial complainant is an Aborigine, a higher standard of proof seems required merely to bring the matter before a court.

In 1979 two riot situations at Taree between Aborigines and police resulted in the charging of numerous Aborigines on multiple counts.[21]

What is interesting about those cases, in the particular context of Aboriginal-police relations, is that the police prosecution went outside the statute law in charging people with unlawful assembly and affray-offences deriving from the time Elizabeth 1 - and revived as common offences in England only as recently as 1966. This form of 'Star Chamber' control of deviant behaviour was obviously an expression of legal ingenuity. The Magistrate response was equally remarkable. The fines imposed were moderate, but the time granted to pay extraordinarily long-between-12 and 29 months. The Magistrate was obviously endeavouring to assist in the defusing of a highly volatile situation by rendering inoperative for an appreciable period further recourse to punitive measures such as imprisonment in default of payment of the fines.

Civil Action

There are only two (unrecorded) instances of successful civil actions taken by New South Wales Aborigines against police. More than a decade ago the barrister who is now Mr Justice St. John of the Federal Court of Australia appeared for Ken Brindle in a District Court action in Sydney against police and recovered damages awarded by the jury. In 1984 a jury in the Sydney District Court awarded Max Conlon $6,500 against two Dubbo policemen, one of them a sergeant, for false imprisonment. Compensation awarded was $5.000, but $1,500 was also awarded by way of exemplary damages.

This was the first case of false imprisonment by police purporting to rely on the Intoxicated Persons Act; the award of exemplary damages was a pointed reminder to police of the community's anger at an abuse of police powers and discretion. Mr Conlon sought a medical examination and an analysis of alcohol content mill in his blood immediately on his release three hours after his original detention. He was described as a teetotaller, who has not consumed liquor since he was 16 years old, and a dedicated member of the Aboriginal Inland Mission Church. One other private prosecution - for 'unseemly words' - was taken against an Enngonia policeman by a 'Reserve' Aborigine in 1979, but was dismissed when the complainant failed to appear.

The only case I know where an Aborigine has succeeded in a civil action for aggravated and exemplary damages for assault against a policeman was in the Northern Territory, where the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the policeman who was ordered to pay $5,000 damages to a 25 year old Aborigine he bashed unconscious with a stick or police baton while the plaintiff was in protective custody. The plaintiff was also attacked and bitten by a dog allegedly owned by the defendant. That case - Jamarin v Hinds - reported as the first successful civil action by an Aborigine against a police officer - was decided in December, 1983.[22]

Aborigines in country areas, and certain parts of city areas, are highly visible. In Wilcannia and Wee Waa there was considerable community resentment at a modern form of Aboriginal 'parasitism': not 'intelligent', to borrow Elkin's notorious description, but civic, in the sense that these communities and others felt that Aborigines were making no genuine attempts to obtain employment, to better themselves, to put something back into the community. Rather, their unearned, therefore undeserved, social welfare, their continuing affronts to circumspect behaviour, were seen to invite a response within the law. The cases analysed indicate a continuing police invocation of legal power and legal sanctions for behaviour and causes whose geneses properly form no part of the criminal justice system.[23]

Power, Law and Order

The paradox of police discretions and moral guardianship continues to bedevil Aboriginal-police relationships. At one level - as in Verwoerd's, or Vorster's, or Botha's South Africa, or in Mayor Daley's Chicago, or in Joh Bjelke-Petersen's Queensland - they are generally perceived by the community as the instruments not simply of law but of someone's political order. Sometimes their resentment and hostility at the established political order belies the politicisation of their status.[24] The opposition of NSW police to their Minister's reforms of the original street offences legislation and their success in having it amended are cases in point. But beyond that, the implementation of government policy as in all machinery measures. reposes considerable discretionary power in the individual. As Reiss and Bordua put it: 'On the one hand, the police are a fundamental representative of the legal system and a major source of raw material for it. On the other, the police adapt the universalistic demands of law to the structure of the locale by a wide variety of formal and informal devices'[25] Police malpractice can thus be considered in their use of power or the exercise of discretions when not justified, or the non-use or non-exercise when justified.[26] The manner in which people perceive the policing of their area is as important as the reality of policing.[27]

The Individual police person as 'protector' of Aborigines was an exemplar of Lord Acton's dictum that 'power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. When the 'protection' is also a moralist. a guardian of the established societal order and values, the latitude given to individual abuse of discretion to enforce. cajole. harass, reinforced by group prejudice is so much greater. Their sense of moral outrage at disturbance to established order is similarly enhanced.

Education and training of police in Australia falls woefully short of exposing to proper. objective scrutiny the nature and incidents of ,prejudice particularly when it is entrenched as a normative or institutional value. The Scarman Report in respect of police training is both pertinent and illuminating. Lord Scarman was appointed to inquire into the riots in the Brixton area of South London. During the weekend of 10-12 April 1981, 270 police and 45 members of the public were injured, 28 buildings damaged or destroyed, and police and other essential service vehicles - ambulance, firebrigade - attacked with petrol bombs, bricks, iron railings and bottles. Brixton is a largely black community of high unemployment, low education, and heavily populated with young people suffering acute frustration and deprivation borne of discrimination. Does this not evoke Redfern, NSW? Lord Scarman was of opinion that good policing can help to diminish tension and avoid disorder.[28]

He recommended that the modern police force should fairly represent the whole of the community it serves, including racial minorities. The problems of policing modem society should receive priority in the education of recruits, particularly in the handling and defusing of potential conflict situations with the public in the streets.[29] Community relations should be included in compulsory training courses up to. and including the rank of superintendent, included in the courses should be the role of the police as part of the community, the operational importance of good community relations, the techniques of consultation, and the moral and legal accountability of police to the public.[30] Local consultative or liaison committees comprising selected local councillors. other community representatives. and appropriate police representatives should be established so that the gulf between police and the community, or police and discrete parts of the community can be narrowed or even bridged.[31]

It would be easy, but unfair to lay an equal amount of blame for short comings in Aboriginal-police relationships on Aborigines. They have little or no discretions, and less legal power to enforce them, against police. Their smouldering resentment and the pin-pricks of what they see as police harassment, the patent hostility at the abuse of discretion by individual police, sometimes surfaces as a group protest. The 'Redfern riots' of 1983 were a clash between two antithetical value-systems-nurtured and sustained by a heritage of mutual antagonism - as much as between the legal power 'haves' and 'have-nots'. Episodic racial violence, I suggest is not something that can be individually trained out or educated away.

The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Attorney General or of his Department.

[12] Susan Lindsay Johnston, 'The New South Wales Government policy towards Aborigines. 1880-1909', University of Sydney, 1970, M.A Thesis. p. 138.

[13] See, for example, Peter Read, 'Fathers and Sons; A Study of Five Men of 1900', Aboriginal History. [1980]. 4:1. pp. 97-116, at p. 109.

[16] 'To assist Police the Department has Incorporated segments on Aboriginal matters at all levels of training. During their Initial training every recruit attends a two hour talk and discussion on understanding the Australian Aborigine' conducted by a Mrs Fay Nelson who is a full-blooded Aboriginal. Police attending Sergeant's courses receive a one hour talk and discussion on Aboriginal affairs generally, the Aboriginal culture and what the Government is doing for Aboriginals. A two hour period is also devoted to 'The Ethnic Community' and this also touches on Aboriginal matters. Mr Ken Cavanagh of the Premier's office who deals with Aboriginal affairs for the State Government attends each Senior Police Course for a period of I -h hours and discusses Aboriginal culture. Government policy and action taken by the Government in respect of welfare and special care required by Aboriginals. These police are also given assignments on social studies and one of the topics frequently given is 'The Aboriginal Community'. Some may say that the time devoted to Aboriginal matters in police training is minimal but a balance has to be struck with the tremendous amount of other material that has to be covered In the various courses'. Spt. F. L. Killen 'Aboriginals and the Criminal Law: Police-Aboriginal Relations. paper delivered to the Institute of Criminology Seminar on 'Aboriginals and the Criminal Law in New South Wales'. Sydney. July 1980. Later published in Proceedings. No. 44, p. 40. at pp. 41-2.

[18 ]A prime example of the second role of Police. as keepers of the peace; the other two being law enforcement and provision of service to the community: see generally John Avery, Police - Force or Service?. Butterworths. Sydney. 1981.

[21] See my article 'Aborigines and the Police: Unlawful Assembly, Affray and the Incidents at Taree. Australian journal of Social Issues. 17. (41. November 1982. pp. 288-294.

[22] Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. O'Leary J., between 12-16 December 1983: Sydney Morning Herald. 19 December 1983.

[23] See also Fay G. Cohen. Duncan Chappell and Paul R. Wilson. 'Aboriginal and American Indian relations with police, in Duncan Chappell and Paul Wilson (eds.) The Australian Criminal justice System, Butterworths, Sydney. 1977. at pp. 112-154. esp. pp. 147-154, 'Improving Aboriginal-Police Relations: Program Development, Implementation and Evaluation'.

[24] In 'The Politics of the Police'. New Society. 6 March 1969. Seymour Upset quoted from Ortegay Gasses The Revolt of the Masses. which 'argued that those who rely on the police to maintain order are foolish If they I magine that the police "are always going to be content to preserve ... order (as defined by government) ... Inevitably (the police I will end by themselves defining and deciding on the order they are going to impose - which naturally, will be that which suits them best.

[25] A. Relss and D.Bordua, 'Envlronment and Organlsatlon: A Perspective on the Police'. in D. Bordua (ed.). The Police: six sociological essays. Wiley, New York, 1967.

[26] John R. Lambert 'Race Relations: the Role of the Police' in Sami Zubalda, Race and Racialism, Tavistock Publications. London, 1970. at p.93. Avery also distinguishes the 'humanitarian and 'authoritarian role styles of peace-keeping by police; op. cit., p. 41.

[27] 'The Brixton Disorders 10-12 April 1981', Report of an Inquiry by the Rt. Hon. the Lord Scarman. O.B.E., (cmnd. 8427). (1981). P. 90.

Aboriginal Law Bulletin