Constitutional recognition: which way forward?

Damon Chester

doi:10.5130/nesais.v4i1.1514

Abstract

Though the topic is often evaded by mainstream news, the proposition of Indigenous constitutional recognition has been increasingly discussed within recent years and particularly so since the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act of 2013 was proposed under Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Several possible mechanisms for recognition have been proposed by government and Indigenous peoples, however the prevailing models to be fulfilled, if any, are yet to be known. In researching such mechanisms, I personally find myself to be confounded by the multiplicity of suggestions, complexity of needs from individual bodies, and the ramifications of enacting particular methodologies over others.

Highlights

The more recent Uluru Statement from the Heart instead offers more tangible and valuable objectives for progressing forward
By establishing a First Nations Voice in the Constitution and initiating a Makarrata Commission (Parliament of Australia 2017), wrongdoing can be recognised on a national scale with Indigenous bodies increasingly receiving a say in political matters
A 2015 survey conducted by IndigenousX found that 54% of Indigenous respondents supported the construction of such a parliamentary body with 62% believing that constitutional recognition would not be substantial in enacting change (Parliament of Australia 2017)

Summary

Introduction

The more recent Uluru Statement from the Heart instead offers more tangible and valuable objectives for progressing forward. By establishing a First Nations Voice in the Constitution and initiating a Makarrata Commission (Parliament of Australia 2017), wrongdoing can be recognised on a national scale with Indigenous bodies increasingly receiving a say in political matters. A 2015 survey conducted by IndigenousX found that 54% of Indigenous respondents supported the construction of such a parliamentary body with 62% believing that constitutional recognition would not be substantial in enacting change (Parliament of Australia 2017).

Results

Conclusion