Suchergebnisse

First Nations peoples assert a right to a distinctive relationship with the state based on their pre-colonial status as self-governing sovereign communities. Ascertaining the scope of First Nations peoples' collective right to self-determination is complex, but there is broad international agreement that it encompasses a right to be consulted on state action that will affect their interests, including in the law-making process. The problem is that the right to be consulted in the development of legislation appears to place a constraint on the power of the legislature to propose, debate, amend, and enact laws as they see fit. Does the right to consultation unduly or impermissibly fetter democratic government by imposing a procedural or substantive restriction on the introduction of proposed laws? Can this entitlement be reconciled with the constitutional value of parliamentary supremacy? In recent years, the highest courts in Australia, Canada, and Aotearoa New Zealand have explored these questions. This paper examines those decisions and considers their consequences for the appropriate constitutional relationship between First Nations Peoples and the State.

© 2018 Australian Political Studies Association. Eight years after the Expert Panel on Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Australian Constitution was established, institutional reform to empower Indigenous peoples in this country has not been realised. This article argues that the persistent failure to progress constitutional reform stems, in part, from dominant conceptions of Australian citizenship that deny Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoplehood. It follows that meaningful institutional reform is possible only if Australian citizenship is reconceptualised in a manner that makes room for the distinctive status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Treaties offer a path forward to develop this new understanding of Australian identity and ground institutional reform.

© 2018, © 2018 Griffith University. Democratic governance is premised on the belief that all citizens are empowered to shape the society in which they live. Over generations, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have maintained that Australian democratic practice does not live up to this ideal, contending that the state's legal and political framework does not empower them with the capacity to have their voices heard and their interests considered in the processes of government. However, non-Indigenous Australians remain suspicious of Indigenous-specific political and legal mechanisms designed to rectify this structural fault. In this paper, I argue that this suspicion–and Australia's governance framework more broadly–arises from a particular conception of democratic theory that marginalises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoplehood. If, as the Uluru Statement from the Heart calls for, Australia's political institutions are to be rebuilt so as to empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples 'to take a rightful place in [their] own country', that conception of democratic theory must first be revealed and re-centred. Multinational federalism offers one path towards a more equitable future.

© The Author(s) 2018. Since August 2017, the rule in s 44(i) of the Australian Constitution that dual citizens are incapable of being chosen for or sitting in federal Parliament has led to the disqualification or resignation of 15 parliamentarians. This disruption may yet continue, with outstanding questions remaining about several sitting members. In this article, we outline three key problems with s 44(i), as well as a durable solution.