Is an aboriginal oral history admissible as evidence in a civil case?

In Mitchell v. M.N.R. the court says that oral histories (both adaawx and declarations of deceased persons) are admissible as evidence if they are both useful and reliable. Such oral histories may meet the test of usefulness by firstly, offering evidence of ancestral activities and their significance that would not be otherwise available, and secondly, by providing the aboriginal perspective on the right claimed. Oral histories reflect the distinctive perspectives and cultures of the communities from which they originate and should not be discounted simply because they do not conform to the expectations of the non-aboriginal perspectives. They should not be rejected simply because they do not convey historical truth, or contain elements that may be classified as mythology, or lack precise detail, or embody material tangential to the judicial process, or are confined to the community whose history is being recounted.