Constitution(recognition(and(the(rights(of(Indigenous(Australians(
Chapter( Eight( ,( Michael( Donachie,( Constitution(
recognition( and( the( rights( of( Indigenous( Australians
100
Constitution( recognition( and( the(
rights(of(Indigenous(Australians
Michael(Donachie(
Daley, speaking on behalf of Galarrwuy Yunupingu, stated that: ‘[s]ince the days of
the Bark Petition, [Indigenous Australians] have been aware that the protection
offered by legislation… is only as secure as the Government of the day.’1
This paper will reflect on Daley’s statement and discuss whether Indigenous Australians’ human
rights will be sufficiently recognised under the changes proposed to the Constitution, 2 as
recommended by Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition (the Committee).3 It will
also consider whether such recognition will adequately protect Indigenous rights against racial
discrimination by Government.
Stratton notes that under international law:
Australia has ratified [seven] of the major UN human rights treaties, and [as such] is
accountable to the international community for implementation of its treaty
obligations... [H]owever, Australian law does not recognise treaty obligations…
unless the treaty is specifically incorporated into [domestic] law… [through an
enabling process known as] an “act of transformation”.4
Notwithstanding, as former Chief Justice Brennan stated, a treaty can be ‘a legitimate and
important influence on the development of the common law, especially when international law
declares the existence of universal human rights,’5 as exemplified by the Mabo6 and Teoh7 cases.
1
John Daley, Northern Territory Statehood and Constitutional protections: issues and implications for Aboriginal
governance
(Speech
delivered
at
the
Indigenous
Governance
Conference,
Jabiru,
4-7/November/2003) quoted in Mick Gooda, Human Rights and Australia’s Indigenous Peoples, in Paula
Gerber and Melissa Castan, Contemporary Perspectives on Human Rights Law in Australia, (Thomson-Reuters,
1st ed, 2013) 315.
2
Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Act 1900 (IMP).
3
Commonwealth of Australia, Committee Reports (Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, Interim Report, July/2014, Progress Report, October/2014, Final
Report June/2015.
<http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Constitutional_Recognition_of_Aborigin
al_and_Torres_Strait_Islander_Peoples/Completed_inquiries>.
4
Jane Stratton, Human Rights (Library Council of NSW, Hot Topics 85, 2013), 16 and 19-20.
5
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1, 42.
6
Ibid.
7
Minister for Immigration-v-Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273.
101
Constitution(recognition(and(the(rights(of(Indigenous(Australians(
Despite the 1988 Bangalore Principles, the High Court, as Clark and Garkawe note, has
traditionally shown ‘great reluctance to use the common law to extend existing laws and
principles to include international human rights norms … [particularly in interpreting] the
Constitution’.8
Most notable amongst the treaties ratified by Australia, for the purposes of this paper, is the UN
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) incorporated
into domestic law by enactment of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (RDA). Additionally,
Australia has endorsed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the Declaration),
which, although not part of Australian domestic law; nonetheless, given its status - identified by
the UN High Commissioner as the ‘UN’s key tool for advancing the rights of Indigenous
Peoples’9, particularly in respect of self-determination and non-discrimination10 - it has been of
underlying influence in the debate toward recognising Indigenous Australians in the
Constitution, which Gooda notes, the declaration ‘… contains no new rights or standards [rather
it interprets and elaborates] on rights already set out in binding human rights instruments,
including treaties to which Australia is a party.’11
Commencing with a review of the relevant history leading up to the Committee reports, this
paper will review whether indigenous human rights, as reflected in the Declaration, will be
sufficiently recognised under the changes proposed to the Constitution, and whether such
recognition will adequately protect Indigenous Australians’ rights against racial discrimination by
Government.
Reconciliation(,(an(arduous(road(
Fraser (2000), noted that,
[the 1967] referendum was itself an overwhelming expression of Australian support
for the dignity and participation of Australia’s indigenous population [however, since
8
Cristy Clark and Sam Garkawe, LAW00522 - Human Rights (Southern Cross University, Study Guide 6th ed,
2015) 57-60.
9
James Anaya, Report of the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights on the rights of indigenous
peoples, Report to Human Rights Council 15th session… , quoted in Gooda, M, Human Rights and Australia’s
Indigenous Peoples, 307-8, in Gerber and Castan, above n 1.
10
Stratton, above n 4, 5.
11
Gooda, above n 1, 309.
102
Michael(Donachie(
Prime Minister ‘… Gorton’s solemn undertaking of 1969 to abolish discriminatory
legislation against [Indigenous Australians’], 12 ] governments … in respect of
Indigenous affairs have sought to make progress, not all with equal success.13
Evidence of this change in attitude toward Indigenous Australians was the bipartisan support
shown for the Whitlam Government’s program of human rights protections that included
incorporation into domestic law of CERD by enactment of the RDA.14 Williams (2013) notes
that, ‘[t]his ratification and the… adoption of the [CERD provisions into domestic] legislation…
has had a major impact [and] been of particular importance to [Indigenous Australians].’ 15
Enactment of the RDA reflected a parliamentary intention that racial discrimination is
unacceptable, which, as former Justice Kirby (2010) stated, ‘[delivered a clear message] that racial
bigotry against members of a particular race would not be tolerated in Australia.’16
Momentum toward recognition of Indigenous Australians continued with action by various
prominent Australians who called on the Commonwealth Government ‘to set right the wrongs
of the past’17, and led to the 1979 Makarrata Agreement seeking ‘recognition of prior possession of
[Australia]; acceptance of aboriginal people as distinct peoples; and, [controversially],
compensation on the basis … [of dispossession of their lands].’18
Movement amongst the Aboriginal leadership toward self-determination continued to gain pace,
as highlighted by the 1988 Barunga Statement, handed to Prime Minister Hawke19, which, amongst
other issues concerning self-determination, land-rights and cultural heritage, called on the
Commonwealth, to ‘… support Aborigines in the development of an international declaration of
principles for indigenous rights, leading to an international covenant.’20 In response, Hawke
12
Frank Brennan, Aboriginal Affairs, in Troy Bramston (ed), The Whitlam Legacy, (Federation Press, 1st ed, 2013) 258.
13
Malcolm Fraser, ‘The past we need to understand’ (Vincent Lingiari Memorial Lecture, Northern Territory
University, Darwin, August-2000), in Malcolm Fraser, Common Ground (Penguin Books Australia Ltd, 1st ed,
2002) 209.
14
George Williams, Law Reform and the Constitution, in Bramston, above n 12, 285.
15
Ibid.
16
Michael Kirby, ‘Whitlam the Internationalist’ (Speech delivered at the Whitlam Lecture, University of Western
Sydney, 25-February-2010), quoted in Williams, above n 14.
17
Geoff Clark, Forward to Treaty – let’s get it right! (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Studies, Aboriginal Studies Press, 1st ed, 2003) viii.
18
Ibid.
19
Ibid.
20
Australian Government, Barunga Statement,
<http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/
australian-story/bark-petition-barunga-1988>.
103
Constitution(recognition(and(the(rights(of(Indigenous(Australians(
promised to ‘reach a proper and lasting reconciliation [with Indigenous Australians] through a
pact or treaty’.21 The Coalition Opposition under John Howard made clear that such promise
was unacceptable and would not be supported.22
The Barunga Statement, which particularly influenced the text of Prime Minister Keating’s 1992
“Redfern Speech”; and, the High Court’s judgement in the “Mabo case”23, which ‘displaced the
doctrine of terra nullius and replaced it with a new doctrine [of] native title’, both culminated in the
establishment of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (CAR), as part of the government’s
response in recognising Aboriginal peoples as the original custodians of Australia.24 Howard
(2010) notes that:
[t]he remit of [CAR] was to embark on a program of consultation in the broader
Australian community, with a view to agreeing on the basis for lasting reconciliation
between Indigenous and other Australians by the centenary of Federation…25
If Indigenous Australians hoped that reconciliation was eminent their hopes were dashed with
the 1996 election of the Coalition Government, which, whilst acknowledging the discrimination
and prejudices of the past and disadvantage that persisted, did not share the call by Indigenous
Australians for self-determination. Instead the Howard government took the view (seemingly
assimilative in nature), that ‘the best way of helping Indigenous Australians is to include them
within the mainstream Australian community and endeavour, as far as possible, to ensure that
they share the bounty of our prosperous nation.’26
In 1997, the Australian Human Rights Commission’s Bringing Them Home (Stolen Generations)
report was tabled in Parliament. It described as ‘an act of genocide’ the forced removal of some
Indigenous children from their families, and recommended, amongst other things, that ‘all
parliaments in Australia … offer formal apologies and officially acknowledge the responsibility
of their predecessors for the laws, policies and practices of forcible removal.’27
21
John Howard, Lazarus Rising (Harper Collins Publishers Australia Pty Limited, 1st ed, 2010) 272.
22
Ibid 271.
23
Mabo-v-Queensland, above n 5.
24
Clark, above n 17.
25
Howard, above n 21.
26
Ibid 271.
27
Ibid 278.
104
Michael(Donachie(
Howard steadfastly refused to apologise for ‘the mistakes of … predecessors’ labelling such
apology as ‘artificial’ and in 1999 instead expressed a motion of ‘deep and sincere regret’ on
behalf of the Parliament.28 It was not until 2008 when Labor Prime Minister Rudd delivered the
formal apology, so sought by “the stolen generation” and many others, for the mistreatment and
injustices suffered by Indigenous Australians in the past. In his apology speech Rudd clearly
indicated a desire for bipartisan support for ‘a human rights-based approach to “closing the gap”
in life expectancy, educational achievement, and economic opportunity between Indigenous and
non-indigenous Australians’29, and for the reconciliation process to be taken further in terms of
constitutional recognition of the first Australians, notably stating ‘unless the great symbolism of
reconciliation is accompanied by an even greater substance, it is little more than a clanging
gong.’30
Recognition(–(the(Expert(Panel(
Constitutional reform was identified by CAR, in 2000, as ‘unfinished business from the
reconciliation agenda’ and the Parliament was called upon to ‘prepare legislation for a
referendum’.31 Despite proposals, in that regard, by Howard and Rudd in the lead up to the
2007 election, it wasn’t until 2010 that Prime Minister Gillard appointed an Expert Panel on
Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians of broad social and political representation
‘to consult widely on the best possible options for a constitutional amendment to be put to a
referendum’.32
In 2012 the Expert Panel provided a comprehensive report to Parliament recommending repeal
the existing racial powers – ss.25.&.51(xxvi) - of the Constitution and insertion of new
provisions – s.51A (recognition of Indigenous Australians), s.116A (prohibition on racial
discrimination), s.127A (recognition of languages) - together with recommendations on the
referendum process.33
28
Ibid 278 and 280.
29
Gooda, above n 1, 319.
30
Kevin Rudd, ‘Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples’ (Parliament of Australia, House Representatives,
Hansard, 13/February/2008) 167
<http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2
F2008-02-13%2F0003%22>.
31
Gooda, above n 1, 316.
32
Committee (Interim Report), above n 3, 34.
33
Ibid 43-4.
105
Constitution(recognition(and(the(rights(of(Indigenous(Australians(
Recognition(–(the(Select(Committee(
By enactment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act 2013 (Cth), the
Federal Parliament agreed to appoint the Committee (comprising four MP’s and four Senators)
that, with the assistance of an advisory group (including Indigenous representation on the
Committee and group), was tasked ‘to inquire into and report on the steps that can be taken to
progress towards a successful referendum on Indigenous Constitutional recognition, with the
final report to be provided to Parliament by 30 June 2015’.34
The Committee considered the Expert Panel’s recommendations, received public submissions
and undertook public consultation, from which seven recommendations to Parliament were
made – three (procedural) pertaining to referendum processes; and, four concerning changes to
the Constitution.35 Of particular relevance to this paper are recommendations 2, 4 and 5, which
respectively recommend: the repeal of s 25; repeal or amendment of s 51(xxvi); and, three
structural options intended to preserve both the ‘existing Commonwealth laws relying on s
51(xxvi) and the Commonwealth’s power to make laws with respect to [Indigenous Australians]
in the Constitution.’36 The Committee also reaffirmed its view that, quite apart from the critical
aspect of ‘multi-partisan support’, for the referendum proposal to be successful it must meet
three primary objectives:
•
to recognise Indigenous Australians as the first peoples of Australia;
•
to preserve the Commonwealth’s [persons] power to make laws with respect
to Indigenous Australians; and,
•
in making laws under such power, prevent the Commonwealth from
discriminating against Indigenous Australians.37
Of particular note is dot-point three, which, from public submissions and hearings, the
Committee, citing the Hindmarsh Island Bridge case,38 clearly noted ‘that the possibility of racial
discrimination is of critical importance to Indigenous Australians in contemplating constitutional
change’ (consistently referred to by Indigenous Australians as “substantive recognition”), which
34
Committee (Progress Report), above n 3, v.
35
Ibid ix-x.
36
Ibid.
37
Ibid 1.
38
Kartinyeri-v-Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337.
106
Michael(Donachie(
Expert Panel Co-Chair Mark Leibler stated ‘if we do not give effect to something that is
important to [Indigenous Australians], we are wasting our time to begin with.’39
The abovementioned “three primary objectives” are captured within Australia’s obligations
under the Declaration to consult and cooperate with Indigenous peoples in meeting its
obligations, which, in summary, are reflected in:
•
Article 15 - to provide for Indigenous peoples right to the dignity and diversity of their
cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations; to take effective measures to combat prejudice
and eliminate discrimination; to promote tolerance, understanding and good relations among
indigenous peoples and all other segments of Australian society; and
•
Article 38 – to take appropriate measures, including legislative measures, to achieve the ends
of the Declaration.
Recognition(,(Proposed(Recommendations(
Australians’ reticence to changing the Constitution is well established – of the 44 referendums
since Federation only 8 proposals have been successful.40 It is clear from the language of the
Committee report that for the referendum proposal to succeed it will need: multi-party political
support; acceptance by Indigenous and non-indigenous Australians; to be clearly articulated; and,
be readily understood by the electorate. The challenge at first instance lies in the framing of the
proposal, in this regard, recommendations 2, 4 and 5 are most important.
Recommendation-2: repealing s.25, which contemplates race-based voting exclusions in the
states. Clearly the repeal of s.25 is appropriate as it ‘involves the removal of a vestige of racial
[discrimination that has no place in multicultural] Australia.’41
Recommendation-4: repeal or amendment of s.51(xxvi) to remove reference to race. Currently s.51(xxvi)
provides Parliament with ‘power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the
Commonwealth with respect to the people of any race.. .’
The Committee received
‘overwhelming evidence’ that in multicultural Australia it is ‘no longer acceptable for the
Commonwealth to make laws with respect to race’; however, under recommendation-5 ‘option-
39
40
41
Committee (Progress Report), above n 3, 5-6.
Australian Electoral Commission, Referendums Overview, available at:
<http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/referendums/Reference>.
Committee (Progress Report), above n 3, 3.
107
Constitution(recognition(and(the(rights(of(Indigenous(Australians(
3’, a redraft of s.51(xxvi) is proposed that would allow the Parliament to make laws with respect
to ‘[Indigenous Australians].’42 Whilst ‘option-3’ might appear attractive from a Government
point of view, it will not be without its detractors for reason that advocacy by Indigenous
Australians has strongly and consistently focused on “substantive recognition” and securing their
human rights, as Daley (2003) stated ‘[Indigenous Australians] have long believed that the
protection of their rights deserves a higher level of recognition and protection.’43 The retention
of s.51(xxvi), albeit in an amended form, appears incongruous with the third primary objective of
the referendum proposal which seeks to ‘… prevent the Commonwealth from discriminating
against Indigenous Australians’, as, apart from effectively retaining a seemingly race-based
provision within the Constitution, the amendment contemplates Indigenous recognition under a
separate ‘Act of Recognition’, presumably outside the electoral protections afforded by s.128 of
the Constitution, thus leaving it vulnerable to Government interference, which, clearly, is a
prospect Indigenous Australians ardently oppose.
Recommendation-5: three structural options for constitutional recognition of Indigenous
Australians to preserve both existing Commonwealth laws relying on s.51(xxvi) and the
Commonwealth’s power to make laws in respect of Indigenous Australians. It is clear that a law
making provision within the Constitution in respect of Indigenous Australians is necessary
(Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) for instance); however, as the Committee highlights, it is essential
that such provision does not discriminate against Indigenous persons, as has previously been the
case under s.51(xxvi). Protection against such discrimination is provided under s.9 of the RDA
subject to the “special measures” exemption under s.8, so controversially imposed under the
Northern Territory Intervention44 (NTI), which served to further reinforce the “substantive
recognition” argument by Indigenous Australians that “higher level of recognition and
protection” is required to prevent Government abuse of its law making powers. Whereas
Option-3 is somewhat doubtful in this regard, Options-1-and-2, both propose a new s.51A that
articulates and seeks to achieve the “three primary objectives”. However, where each option is
consistent in terms of Recognition of Indigenous Australians, the remaining aspects differ.
Option-1, under s.51A further provides for the Parliament to make laws with respect to
Indigenous Australians and also proposes a new s.116A (applicable to all races) to prohibit
42
Ibid 10.
43
Daley, above n 1, 315.
44
Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth).
108
Michael(Donachie(
discrimination by the Commonwealth, States and Territories, on grounds of race, colour or
ethnic or national origin; but framed in terms that appear not to override the special measures
exemptions under the RDA. Noticeably softer in approach, Option-2, dispenses with s.116A
and in respect to discrimination relies solely on s.51A adding a proviso to the Parliament’s law
making power (Commonwealth only) at subsection.(1) ending with the words ‘…, but not so as
to discriminate adversely against them’, with subsection.(2) framed so as not to override the
special measures exemptions under the RDA. It would appear that either Option-1-or-2 will
provide Indigenous Australians with the “substantive recognition” they desire; whereas, Option3 provides less comfort in that protections against discrimination would rely solely on the RDA
and “trust” in the Government of the day.
Recognition(–(Final(Recommendations(
On 25 June 2015, the Committee presented its final report to Prime Minister Abbott and the
Parliament. 45 Essentially following its progress report recommendations, the Committee has
recommended that s.25 of the Constitution be repealed, and that s.51(xxvi) be replaced, with the
retention of a person’s power so that the Commonwealth government may legislate [positively]
for Indigenous Australians, as per the 1967 referendum result.46
In respect of the replacement of s 51(xxvi), the Committee has put forward three options, set
out in order of preference as proposed new s.51A.&.116A (option 1), s.80A (option 2), and
s.60A (option 3), which it considers would meet the dual objectives of achieving constitutional
recognition and protecting Indigenous Australians from racial discrimination47 - interestingly,
previous reference to a separate ‘Act of Recognition’ is not proposed.
Whilst all three options are legally and technically sound and retain a person’s power, the
committee considers option 1 as its preference to be put forward to a referendum for reasons
that it:
•
contains a special measures provision;
45
Committee (Final Report), above n 3, 3.
46
Ibid xi, xiii-xv, [3.19-20].
47
Ibid xi, [4.88-94].
109
Constitution(recognition(and(the(rights(of(Indigenous(Australians(
limits the constitutional capacity of the Commonwealth, states and territories to discriminate
•
(the Commonwealth can 'escape the effect of the RDA'48 by setting aside of the RDA, as was
the case with the NTI, Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (Cth), and the Hindmarsh Bridge
dispute; in effect, the Commonwealth, unlike the states and territories, is not subject to s.109
of the Constitution and can enact laws that are inconsistent with existing Commonwealth
laws)49;
•
offers a protection against racial discrimination for all Australians;
•
is a broad option, whereas options 2 and 3 are narrower in their focus;
•
had the overwhelming support of indigenous and non-indigenous Australians during the
inquiry (‘a prohibition on discrimination would be “substantive and meaningful” reform’50);
and
accords with the recommendation of the Expert Panel.
•
Aimed specifically at protecting Indigenous Australians from racial discrimination, the
Committee has included a further recommendation that the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny)
Act 2011 (Cth) be amended to include scrutiny of the Declaration, which the Committee in its
deliberations has formed the view, would act to enhance the existing parliamentary scrutiny
framework.51
Despite the Committee’s preference for option 1, concerns were raised that ‘the insertion of the
s.116A anti-discrimination provision into the Constitution may be seen as a [one-clause] Bill of
Rights’.52 The Cape York Institute in its submission to the Committee suggested that:
such concerns over an antidiscrimination provision [reflect a conservative belief]
‘that Parliament is best placed to determine the content and nature of citizens’ rights
[and, as such,] they are cautious to amend the Constitution in ways that may give the
judiciary unwarranted interpretative power[; in other words,] Parliament should
decide matters of human rights, not unelected judges.53
Professors Davis and Williams in their submission to the Committee pointed to a number of
one-off protective rights already enshrined in the Constitution, such as those for freedom of
48
Ibid 55, [5.35].
49
Ibid 55-6, [5.41-45].
50
Ibid 50, [5.16).
51
Ibid xi, [6.18].
52
Ibid 62-3, [5.74, 5.78].
53
Ibid 62-3, [5.75].
110
Michael(Donachie(
religion in section 116 and trial by jury in section 80, and expressed the view that, ‘…a single
clause prohibiting racial discrimination is not any form of Bill of Rights, [nor] could the High
Court turn it into one’54, noting that, ‘as the proposed… s.116A does not mention any other
rights, it is narrowly focussed on a protection from discrimination on the basis of race.’55
Conclusion((
From the 1967 referendum and before, Gooda (2013) observed that, ‘[t]here is a long history of
advocacy for the recognition of [Indigenous Australians’ human] rights, and status as the First
peoples of Australia in the Constitution’56, recognition that, if the 1967 referendum can be used
as a gauge, is likely to receive the necessary majority support from the Australian electorate and
the States and Territories.
The final referendum proposals, recommended by the Committee, appear to satisfy the
aspirations of Indigenous Australians and reflect the “three primary objectives” essential for the
referendum on Indigenous recognition to be successful, which, if realised, will grant Indigenous
Australians the secure Constitutional “substantive recognition” that they have long advocated.
However, it remains to be seen where the Parliament will take the recommendations. In that
regard, caution is advised if comments by Prime Minister Abbott, prior to the Committee’s
October 2014 Report, about the proposed s.116A to prohibit racial discrimination, are to be
given any credence, when he said,
‘racial discrimination is unacceptable [but what] none of us really want to see is the
ordinary legislation of government… too readily subjected to second-guessing by nonelected judges, and that’s the difficulty with trying to entrench that kind of clause in the
[C]onstitution.’57
If the solemn undertaking by Prime Minister Gorton, given almost five decades ago, to abolish
discriminatory legislation against Indigenous Australians is to be realised, then let us hope that
conservative political distain for judicial independence does not equate to tokenism by rejection
54
Ibid 63, [5.76].
55
Ibid 63, [5.77].
56
Gooda, above n 1, 315.
57
Michael Gordon, ‘Tony Abbott and Bill Shorten meet in private to nut out indigenous constitution question’
(The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 September 2014)
<http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-and-bill-shorten-meet-in-private-to-nutout-indigenous-constitution-question-20140916-10hs69.html>.
111
Constitution(recognition(and(the(rights(of(Indigenous(Australians(
of substantive Constitutional controls on racial discrimination sought by Indigenous Australians,
as that, in a perverse way, would in itself appear discriminatory and give pay to the Cape York
Institute’s observation that, ‘[h]istory has demonstrated that [Australian] Parliaments are not
good at listening to Indigenous people.’58
References(
A.((Books/Articles/Guides/References/Reports(
ATSIC, Treaty let’s get it right! (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Studies, 2003).
Australian Electoral Commission, ‘Referendums Overview’
<http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/referendums/Reference>.
Australian Government, ‘Barunga Statement’
<http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/bark-petition-barunga-1988>.
Australian Human Rights Commission, ‘United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples’
<https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/
un-declaration-rights-indigenous-peoples-1>.
Bramston, T, (ed), The Whitlam Legacy, (Federation Press, 2013).
Brennan, F, Aboriginal Affairs (Chapter 24), in Bramston, T (ed), The Whitlam Legacy,
(Federation Press, 2013).
Butler, Susan (ed), Macquarie Dictionary (Macquarie Dictionary Publishers Pty Ltd, 2013).
Butt, Peter (ed), Concise Australian Legal Dictionary (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2011).
Clark, C, and Garkawe, S, LAW00522 Human Rights (Southern Cross University, Study Guide,
2015).
Clark, G, Forward to Treaty – let’s get it right! (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Studies, Aboriginal Studies Press, 2003).
Daley, J, ‘Northern Territory Statehood and Constitutional protections: issues and implications
for Aboriginal governance’ (Speech delivered at the Indigenous Governance Conference,
Jabiru, 4 to 7 November 2003).
Fraser, M, Common Ground (Penguin Books Australia Ltd, 2002).
Fraser, M, ‘The past we need to understand’ (Vincent Lingiari Memorial Lecture delivered at the
Northern Territory University, Darwin, August 2000).
58
Committee (Final Report), above n 3, 62, [5.75].
112
Michael(Donachie(
Gerber, P, and, Castan, M, Contemporary Perspectives on Human Rights Law in Australia, (Thomson
Reuters, 2013).
Gooda, M, Human Rights and Australia’s Indigenous Peoples, (Chapter 13), in Gerber, P, and Castan,
M, Contemporary Perspectives on Human Rights Law in Australia, (Thomson Reuters, 2013).
Gordon, M, ‘Tony Abbott and Bill Shorten meet in private to nut out indigenous constitution
question’ (The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 September 2014)
<http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-and-bill-shorten-meetin-private-to-nut-out-indigenous-constitution-question-20140916-10hs69.html>.
Howard, J, Lazarus Rising (Harper Collins Publishers Australia Pty Limited, 2010).
Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Peoples, Interim Report to 44th Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Inquiry into the
steps that can be taken to progress towards a successful referendum on Indigenous constitutional recognition, July
2014.
<http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Constitutional_Recogni
tion_of_Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islander_Peoples/Completed_inquiries>.
Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Peoples, Progress Report to 44th Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Inquiry into the
steps that can be taken to progress towards a successful referendum on Indigenous constitutional recognition,
October 2014.
<http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/
Joint/Constitutional_Recognition_of_Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islander_Peoples/Compl
eted_inquiries>.
Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Peoples, Final Report to 44th Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Inquiry into the steps
that can be taken to progress towards a successful referendum on Indigenous constitutional recognition, June
2015.
<http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/
Joint/Constitutional_Recognition_of_Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islander_Peoples/Compl
eted_inquiries>.
Kirby, M, ‘Whitlam the Internationalist’ (Speech delivered at the Whitlam Lecture, University of
Western Sydney, 25 February 2010).
Melbourne University Law Review Association Inc. and Melbourne Journal of International Law
Inc., Australian Guide to Legal Citation (Melbourne University Law Review Association Inc.,
2010).
Northern Territory Government, ‘Makarrata Agreement’ (Department of Arts and Museums)
<http://www.artsandmuseums.nt.gov.au/cabinet/1981-records/
cabinet-decision-highlights/makarrata-agreement>.
Rudd, K, ‘Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples’ (Parliament of Australia, House
Representatives, Hansard, 13 February 2008) 167
<http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber
%2Fhansardr%2F2008-02-13%2F0003%22>.
Stratton, J, and Hammer, C (ed), Human Rights, (Legal Information Access Centre, State Library
NSW, Hot Topics series, No. 85, 2013).
113
Constitution(recognition(and(the(rights(of(Indigenous(Australians(
Williams, G, Law Reform and the Constitution (Chapter 27), in Bramston, T (ed), The Whitlam Legacy,
(Federation Press, 2013).
B.((Cases(
Kartinyeri-v-Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337.
Mabo-v-Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1.
Minister for Immigration-v-Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273.
C.((Legislation(
Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Act 1900 (IMP).
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act 2013 (Cth).
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).
Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth).
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).
D.((Treaties(and(Declarations(
United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, opened
for signature 21 December 1965, 660 UNTS 195 (entered into force 4 January 1969).
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, GA Res 61/295, UN GAOR, 61st sess,
107th plen mtg, Supp No 49, UN Doc A/Res/61/295 (13 September 2007).
E.((Other(
Australian Human Rights Commission
<https://www.humanrights.gov.au/>.
Australasian Legal Information Institute
< http://www.austlii.edu.au/>.
Australian Parliament
<http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/>.
The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
<http://undesadspd.org/IndigenousPeoples.aspx>.
114