Abstract
The process of realising constitutional recognition for Australia’s Indigenous population can be characterised as a cycle: the government commissions a group of experts to give recommendations, that group presents their recommendations, the government either rejects or fails to act on said recommendations and so, the government commissions a new group of experts and the cycle starts again. Each time the government will commission a similar group of experts, with a similar aim, bestowing upon the group a unique title in an attempt to mask the hamster-wheel that is the constitutional recognition debate.
Highlights
Whilst branded by many as a tokenistic form of constitutional recognition, symbolic recognition remains important so long as it is accompanied by more substantive forms of recognition (Davis 2019)
Understanding symbolic recognition’s limited substantive impact, the Referendum Council only call for symbolic recognition in a legislative, rather than constitutionally enshrined form (Referendum Council 2017)
The constitutional enshrinement of this particular consultative body is crucial given the historical tendency of non-Indigenous governance abolishing rights of Aboriginal people in Australia (Twomey 2018)
Summary
Whilst branded by many as a tokenistic form of constitutional recognition, symbolic recognition remains important so long as it is accompanied by more substantive forms of recognition (Davis 2019). Symbolic recognition establishes a national sentiment and unified understanding that Indigenous sovereignty was never ceded. Understanding symbolic recognition’s limited substantive impact, the Referendum Council only call for symbolic recognition in a legislative, rather than constitutionally enshrined form (Referendum Council 2017).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
