Charlie Jesterson
Alas Poor Yagan is a provocative and widely discussed editorial cartoon created by Australian cartoonist Dean Alston, published in The West Australian on 6 September 1997. The cartoon comprises eight panels featuring prominent Noongar activist Ken Colbung alongside three Indigenous Australian children. Designed as a satirical commentary, the cartoon addressed the internal divisions that emerged within the Noongar community during the repatriation of the head of the Noongar warrior Yagan from the United Kingdom. The cartoon generated significant national and academic controversy, leading to a complaint under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and subsequent rulings by both the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) and the Federal Court of Australia.
Infobox: Alas Poor Yagan
Title: Alas Poor Yagan
Artist: Dean Alston
Published in: The West Australian
Date of Publication: 6 September 1997
Format: Editorial cartoon (8 panels)
Subjects Featured: Ken Colbung, Noongar community members, Indigenous children
Theme: Satirical commentary on Indigenous intra-community conflict
Legal Action: Complaint under Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Section 18C); Federal Court appeal
Outcome: Found offensive but legally exempt under Section 18D as “reasonable and in good faith” journalistic work
Significance: Landmark case in Australian racial discrimination and media law
Background
The cartoon appeared in a fraught socio-political context shortly after the repatriation of Yagan’s head, an event of deep cultural importance to the Noongar people. Yagan, a revered Noongar warrior, had led resistance efforts against British colonisation in the early 19th century. After being fatally shot in 1833, his severed head was transported to the UK where it remained on display before being buried in an unmarked grave in 1964. In the early 1990s, Noongar community leaders initiated a campaign to locate and retrieve the remains. The head was finally exhumed in 1997 and returned to Australia.
However, what should have been a moment of solemn unity was marred by internal disputes among Noongar representatives, each claiming rightful authority over the cultural and ceremonial aspects of the repatriation. These conflicts were widely covered by the media and led to litigation in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, revealing long-standing tensions over Indigenous representation and authenticity.
Publication and Content
Published as part of The West Australian’s extensive coverage of the repatriation, “Alas Poor Yagan” satirised the disunity among Noongar factions through caricature and pointed visual metaphors. Alston depicted key figures, including Ken Colbung, with exaggerated features and humorous dialogue, highlighting perceived opportunism, inconsistencies in heritage claims, and infighting.
The cartoon also touched on sensitive aspects of Indigenous culture, including spiritual beliefs, ancestral lineage, and racial identity, portraying characters with mixed European and Aboriginal traits. While some viewers interpreted the cartoon as a legitimate critique of leadership struggles, others saw it as deeply offensive, accusing it of mocking sacred traditions, trivialising important cultural narratives, and perpetuating racial stereotypes about Indigenous Australians.
Complaint and Legal Proceedings
On 24 September 1997, Hannah McGlade, a prominent human rights lawyer, submitted a formal complaint to the HREOC on behalf of a group known as the Nyungar Circle of Elders. The group comprised Albert Corunna, Richard Wilkes, Violet Newman, Mingli Wanjurri, Leisha Eatts, Robert Bropho, and Ken Colbung, who collectively alleged that the cartoon violated Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which prohibits public conduct likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” based on race or ethnicity.
Initially, the Race Discrimination Commissioner concluded the cartoon qualified as an “artistic work” made “reasonably and in good faith,” thus exempt under Section 18D. The complainants, dissatisfied with this preliminary ruling, sought a public inquiry. Held in 1999, the inquiry provided an extended platform for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians to express their views on cultural representation and journalistic accountability.
In April 2001, the Commission found the cartoon:
- Demeaned the legacy and image of Yagan
- Treated Aboriginal funeral and spiritual practices disrespectfully
- Made derogatory references to the Wagyl, a significant Noongar spiritual entity
- Reinforced alcohol-related stereotypes
- Included offensive commentary on racial mixing and welfare dependency
- Revealed sensitive genealogical details without consent
Nevertheless, the Commission upheld that Section 18D applied, justifying the publication as part of The West Australian’s editorial strategy aimed at promoting public debate.
Federal Court Appeal
Dissatisfied with the Commission’s decision, Robert Bropho filed for a judicial review in the Federal Court of Australia, arguing that the cartoon’s harmful content invalidated the Section 18D exemption. However, in February 2004, the Federal Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that while the cartoon was undoubtedly offensive to some, it was nevertheless legally protected under the provisions of fair and reasonable journalistic expression.
The case became a significant legal benchmark in testing the limits of Section 18D, especially regarding how intention, good faith, and reasonableness are evaluated in media contexts.
Public and Scholarly Reactions
The broader reaction to the case was sharply divided. Media freedom advocates viewed the decision as a victory for editorial independence and the right to satirize public events. Conversely, Indigenous leaders, legal experts, and human rights advocates criticised the ruling for diluting the effectiveness of Section 18C, effectively allowing harmful racial commentary under the guise of journalism.
Hannah McGlade pointed out that while HREOC identified multiple breaches under Section 18C, its acceptance of the 18D exemption rendered those findings moot in practice. Scholars such as Anna Chapman described the ruling as emblematic of how dominant cultural narratives often override minority perspectives, perpetuating systemic imbalances in how Indigenous voices are treated in legal and public discourse.
Legacy and Ongoing Relevance
More than two decades later, “Alas Poor Yagan” remains a touchstone in debates about racial vilification, freedom of speech, and cultural respect in Australia. The cartoon and its legal aftermath continue to be referenced in academic studies, media ethics courses, and political debates concerning the balance between protecting freedom of expression and ensuring respect for cultural diversity.
Its legacy highlights the ongoing challenge of negotiating free speech rights with cultural sensitivity, especially in a pluralistic society grappling with the legacy of colonisation. The case also served as a catalyst for re-examining how Indigenous Australians are represented in mainstream media and how legal structures respond to claims of racial harm.
Ultimately, “Alas Poor Yagan” is not just a controversial cartoon—it is a complex symbol of Australia’s struggles with reconciliation, representation, and rights in a modern democratic society.
