'Stolen Generations' court decision highlights differing laws for indigeous Australians

• Firstly, its admissibility is questionable since conventional rules of evidence would normally require her to give evidence personally, and be available for cross-examination.
• Her letter, rather than merely providing factual or expert information to the Court, expresses support for the order sought by the plaintiffs and makes findings that ought to have been the sole prerogative of the Court.  The appropriateness of such open intervention is particularly questionable, given her role as a parliamentarian, representing both Indigenous and non-Indigenous constituents.
• The doctrine of Separation of Powers also comes into play.  Ms Burney is a federal MP and was a member of the NSW Parliament responsible for enacting the relevant legislative amendments.  It does not seem to be appropriate for her to be lobbying a Judge implementing such legislation, and I am surprised that the legal fraternity did not react more strongly.  Political interference in court cases is what we see in dictatorships, and we don't expect it in Western democracies.
• The letter was also criticised by the Judge because "Ms Burney identifies no content of the laws, customs, traditions and practices to which she refers", and also "did not provide a clear identification of an Aboriginal community or group to which the deceased can be said to have belonged".
• The judge also doubted "Ms Burney’s characterisation of the deceased’s adoption as “a forced adoption” because "the same fate can reasonably be supposed to have awaited a single mother of non-Aboriginal descent at that time".

The overall tenor of Ms Burney's characterisation of this case as being one of "forced adoption", raises issues concerning the "Stolen Generations".  In my view (supported by the Judge) she "gilded the lily", and in doing so also continued a habit of many Indigenous advocates that has placed much of the "Stolen Generations" narrative under question.

Overall two lessons come out of this case.  The first is that it is important for all adults to make a will.  The second is that hard cases do indeed make bad laws.

If we concede the need for Indigenous specific laws due to different cultures, practices and traditions, then where do we draw the line for other groups?  Should we have separate, marriage, family, and criminal laws for Muslims, for example?