Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:01:21.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Love in the High Court: Implications for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Shireen Morris Open the ORCID record for Shireen Morris [Opens in a new window]
Shireen Morris*
Affiliation:
Macquarie University Law School
*
The author may be contacted at shireen.morris@mq.edu.au.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article considers implications of the recent Love decision in the High Court for the debate about Indigenous constitutional recognition and a First Nations constitutional voice. Conceptually, it considers how the differing judgments reconcile the sui generis position of Indigenous peoples under Australian law with the theoretical ideal of equality—concepts which are in tension both in the judicial reasoning and in constitutional recognition debates. It also discusses the judgments’ limited findings on Indigenous sovereignty, demonstrating the extent to which this is predominantly a political question that cannot be adequately resolved by courts. Surviving First Nations sovereignty can best be recognised and peacefully reconciled with Australian state sovereignty through constitutional reform authorised by Parliament and the people. The article then discusses political ramifications. It argues that allegations of judicial activism enlivened by this case, rather than demonstrating the risks of a First Nations voice, in fact illustrate the foresight of the proposal: a First Nations voice was specifically designed to be non-justiciable and therefore intended to address such concerns. Similarly, objections that this case introduced a new, race-based distinction into the Constitution are misplaced. Such race-based distinctions already exist in the Constitution’s text and operation. The article then briefly offers high-level policy suggestions addressing two practical issues arising from Love. With respect to the three-part test of Indigenous identity, it suggests a First Nations voice should avoid the unjustly onerous burdens of proof that are perpetuated in some of the reasoning in Love. It also proposes policy incentives to encourage Indigenous non-citizens resident in Australia to seek Australian citizenship, helping to prevent threats of deportation like those faced by Love and Thoms.

Type
Articles
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 410 - 437
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s)

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Love v Commonwealth (2020) 375 ALR 597 (‘Love’).

2. Referendum Council, Final Report of the Referendum Council (Report, 30 June 2017) Recommendation 1 (‘Referendum Council Report’).

3. Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 (‘Mabo’).

4. Dylan Lino, Constitutional Recognition: The First Peoples and the Australian Settler State (Federation Press, 2018) 71–84 (‘Constitutional Recognition’); Benedict Kingsbury, ‘Competing Conceptual Approaches to Indigenous Group Issues in New Zealand Law’ (2002) 52(1) University of Toronto Law Journal 101, 106; ET Durie, ‘Justice, Biculturalism and the Politics of Law’ in Margaret Wilson and Anna Yeatman (eds), Justice and Identity: Antipodean Practices (Allen and Unwin, 1995) 33–4; Alexander Reilly, ‘A Constitutional Framework for Indigenous Governance’ (2006) 28(3) Sydney Law Review 403, 404. See generally James Tully, Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity (Cambridge University Press, 1995); Duncan Ivison, Postcolonial Liberalism (Cambridge University Press, 2002).

5. Noel Pearson, ‘A Rightful Place: Race, Recognition and a More Complete Commonwealth’ (2014) 55 Quarterly Essay 65; Kingsbury (n 4) 111, 124.

6. Shireen Morris and Noel Pearson, ‘Indigenous Constitutional Recognition: Paths to Failure and Possible Paths to Success’ (2017) 91(5) Australian Law Journal 350; Jeremy Clark and Jill Gallagher, ‘Why Indigenous Australia Will Reject a Minimalist Referendum Question’, Sydney Morning Herald (online, 20 March 2017) <https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/why-indigenous-australia-will-reject-a-minimalist-referendum-question-20170319-gv1iso.html>; Natasha Robinson, ‘Indigenous Recognition “Must Be Real”: Aboriginal Leaders’, The Australian (online, 6 July 2015) <https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/indigenous-recognition-must-be-real-aboriginal-leaders/news-story/38109c55d83277a5dae4f0e91fa11203>.

7. Galarrwuy Yunupingu, ‘Truth, Tradition and Tomorrow’, The Monthly (online, 1 December 2008) <https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2008/december/1268179150/galarrwuy-yunupingu/tradition-truth-tomorrow>.

8. For a history of Indigenous advocacy, see Shireen Morris, ‘The Argument for a Constitutional Procedure for Parliament to Consult with Indigenous Peoples When Making Laws for Indigenous Affairs’ (2015) 26(3) Public Law Review 166, 170–3 (‘The Argument’).

9. Referendum Council Report (n 2) 33–5.

10. It also called for a Makarrata Commission, set up in legislation, to oversee First Nations agreement-making with government and truth-telling about history.

11. Claudianna Blanco, ‘“We Won’t Sell Out Our Mob”: Delegates Walk Out of Constitutional Recognition Forum in Protest’, NITV News (online, 25 May 2017) <https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-news/article/2017/05/25/breaking-delegates-walk-out-constitutional-recognition-forum-protest>.

12. Referendum Council Report (n 2) 9–16.

13. See Expert Panel on Constitution Recognition of Indigenous Australians, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution: Report of the Expert Panel (Report, January 2012) (‘Expert Panel Report’); Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, Final Report, 2015.

14. Gageler J describes the Constitution as a ‘practical instrument of government’: Love (n 1) 631 [136]. See also Sir Anthony F Mason, ‘The Australian Constitution in Retrospect and Prospect’ in Robert French, Geoffrey Lindell and Cheryl Saunders (eds), Reflections on the Australian Constitution (Federation Press, 2003) 8.

15. For discussion of objections to this proposal, see Shireen Morris, ‘Undemocratic, Uncertain and Politically Unviable? An Analysis of and Response to Objections to a Proposed Racial Non-Discrimination Clause as Part of Constitutional Reforms for Indigenous Recognition’ (2014) 40(2) Monash University Law Review 488.

16. Dylan Lino, ‘Towards Indigenous-Settler Federalism’ (2017) 28(2) Public Law Review 118; Lino, Constitutional Recognition (n 4) 244–9.

17. In 2017, the Tasmanian population was 519,166: Population Australia, ‘Population of Tasmania’ (Web Page) <http://www.population.net.au/population-of-tasmania/>. The 2016 Census reported the Indigenous population as 649,200: Australian Bureau of Statistics, ‘2016 Census Shows Growing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Population’ (Media Release, 27 June 2017) <http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/MediaRealesesByCatalogue/02D50FAA9987D6B7CA25814800087E03?OpenDocument>.

18. For more on the argument for a First Nations voice, see Shireen Morris, A First Nations Voice in the Australian Constitution (Hart Publishing, 2020); Morris and Pearson (n 6); Shireen Morris, ‘The Torment of Our Powerlessness: Indigenous Constitutional Vulnerability and the Uluru Statement’s Call for a First Nations Voice’ (2018) 41(3) University of New South Wales Law Journal 629; Shireen Morris, ‘Parliamentary Scrutiny and Insights for a First Nations Voice to Parliament’ in Laura Grenfell and Julie Debeljak (eds), Law Making and Human Rights (Thomson Reuters, 2020) 703.

19. Prime Minister, Attorney-General and Minister for Indigenous Affairs (Cth), ‘Response to Referendum Council’s Report on Constitutional Recognition’ (Media Release, 26 October 2017) <https://ministers.pmc.gov.au/scullion/2017/response-referendum-councils-report-constitutional-recognition>, archived at <https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2F5596294%22>.

20. Calla Wahlquist, ‘Most Australians Support Indigenous Voice to Parliament Plan that Turnbull Rejected’, The Guardian (online, 30 October 2017) <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/30/most-australians-support-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-plan-that-turnbull-rejected>.

21. Simon Benson, ‘Bill Shorten Raising Voice a Winner with Voters: Newspoll’, The Australian (online, 20 February 2018) <https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/bill-shorten-raising-voice-a-winner-with-voters-newspoll/news-story/3d6ee299780b7ac6901df9ccdfa16cc5>.

22. Katherine Murphy, ‘Essential Poll: Majority of Australians Want Indigenous Recognition and Voice to Parliament’, The Guardian (online, 12 July 2019) <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/12/essential-poll-majority-of-australians-want-indigenous-recognition-and-voice-to-parliament>. Earlier, in May 2019, research showed 64% support: Isabella Higgins and Sarah Collard, ‘Federal Election 2019: Vote Compass Finds Australians Are Ready to Back Indigenous “Voice to Parliament”’, ABC News (online, 3 May 2019) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-03/vote-compass-federal-election-voice-to-parliament/11071384>.

23. Lorena Allam, ‘More Australians Want an Indigenous Voice Protected in Constitution, Survey Suggests’, The Guardian (online, 30 November 2020) <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/30/more-australians-want-an-indigenous-voice-protected-in-constitution-survey-suggests>.

24. Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, Final Report (Report, November 2018).

25. Deborah Snow, ‘Morrison Pledges Recognition But Will Take “As Long as Needed”’, Sydney Morning Herald (online, 26 May 2019) <https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/morrison-pledges-recognition-but-will-take-as-long-as-needed-20190526-p51r80.html>.

26. Greg Brown, ‘Morrison to Veto “Voice” as Part of Constitution’, The Australian (online, 12 July 2019) <https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/morrison-to-veto-voice-as-part-of-constitution/news-story/c9753bbe3595470032ac7fa95636931e>.

27. Michael Pelley, ‘Public Won’t “Buy” Uluru Statement, Claims AG’, Australian Financial Review (online, 21 June 2019) <https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/public-won-t-buy-uluru-statement-claims-ag-20190620-p51zf6>.

28. Amy Remeikis, ‘Barnaby Joyce “Apologises” for Calling Indigenous Voice a Third Chamber of Parliament’, The Guardian (online, 18 July 2019) <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/18/barnaby-joyce-apologises-for-calling-indigenous-voice-a-third-chamber-of-parliament>.

29. Andrew Bragg, Buraadja: The Liberal Case for National Reconciliation (Kapunda Press, 2021).

30. For brevity, I use the word ‘Indigenous’ where possible.

31. Love (n 1) 598 [2] (Kiefel CJ).

32. Ibid 612 [65] (Bell J), 632 [147], 633 [152], 634 [156] (Keane J).

33. Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 501(6)(a), 501(7)(c) (‘Migration Act’). These provisions are explained by Keane J at Love (n 1) 633 [153]; see also 652 [240] (Nettle J).

34. Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 13–14; Love (n 1) 633 [154] (Keane J), 649 [228], 650 [235] (Nettle J).

35. Love (n 1) 603 [21] (Kiefel CJ), 609 [52], 613 [70] (Bell J), 626 [115] (Gageler J).

36. Ibid 614 [71] (Bell J), 640 [183] (Keane J), 652 [242] (Nettle J).

37. Ibid 598 [3], 603 [23] (Kiefel CJ), 626 [112] (Gageler J).

38. Ibid 616 [81] (Bell J). All majority judgments used differing reasoning to reach this conclusion.

39. Ibid 669 [289]–[290]; see also 614 [73] (Bell J), 660 [263], 666 [276] (Nettle J).

40. Ibid 684–5 [363] (Gordon J).

41. Ibid 666 [276].

42. Ibid 710 [451].

43. Ibid 668 [284] (Gordon J).

44. Ibid 708 [447].

45. Ibid 653 [244], 660 [263] (Nettle J). This is in line with the understanding of ‘alien’ as a ‘constitutional term’: 671 [300] (Gordon J).

46. Ibid 672 [305], 678 [334] (Gordon J).

47. Ibid 617 [86].

48. Ibid 599 [5] (Kiefel CJ), citing Koroitamana v The Commonwealth (2006) 227 CLR 31 at 46 [48].

49. Ibid 617–19 [86]–[89] (Gageler J).

50. Ibid 629 [130] (Gageler J), 637 [172], 639 [177] (Keane J).

51. Ibid 599 [4]. See also at 630 [133] (Gageler J).

52. Ibid 639 [178].

53. Ibid 630–1 [134].

54. Ibid 663 [269].

55. Ibid 663–4 [271].

56. Ibid 664 [272].

57. Ibid 671 [298].

58. Ibid 681 [347].

59. Ibid 670 [296]. Justice Edelman describes Indigenous peoples as ‘belongers’ to Australia: 690–1 [394], 691 [396].

60. Ibid 671 [300], 684 [360].

61. Ibid 607 [41]–[42] (Kiefel CJ), 629 [128] (Gageler J).

62. Ibid 608 [45] (Kiefel CJ).

63. Ibid 630 [133].

64. Elizabeth Byrne and Josh Robertson, ‘High Court Rules Aboriginal People Cannot Be Deported for Criminal Convictions, Cannot Be “Alien” to Australia’, ABC News (online, 11 February 2020) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-11/high-court-rules-aboriginal-people-cant-be-deported/11953012>.

65. See above n 4.

66. John Chesterman and Brian Galligan, Citizens Without Rights: Aborigines and Australian Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 1997).

67. Noel Pearson, ‘A Rightful Place’ in Shireen Morris (ed), A Rightful Place: A Roadmap to Recognition (Black Inc, 2017) 10, 50–61.

68. Noel Pearson, ‘Layered Identities and Peace’ (Speech, Earth Dialogue Brisbane Festival, 23 July 2006) <https://capeyorkpartnership.org.au/speeches/noel-pearson-layered-identities-and-peace/>.

69. Love (n 1) 615 [74] (Bell J), 678 [333] (Gordon J).

70. Malcolm Turnbull, Prime Minister, George Brandis, Attorney-General, Nigel Scullion, Minister for Indigenous Affairs, ‘Response to Referendum Council’s Report on Constitutional Recognition’ (Joint Media Release, 26 October 2017).

71. Shireen Morris, ‘False Equality’ in Shireen Morris (ed), A Rightful Place: A Roadmap to Recognition (Black Inc., 2017) 103.

72. Love (n 1) 600–1 [9] (Kiefel CJ), 634–5 [161] (Keane J).

73. Ibid 604–5 [27]–[29], 605 [32] (Kiefel CJ), 614 [73] (Bell J), 629 [127] (Gageler J). This insight is not new—it affirms what has long been accepted in Mabo and other cases.

74. Ibid 710–11 [453].

75. Ibid.

76. Ibid 664 [272], [273], 666 [276].

77. R v Sparrow [1990] 1 SCR 1075, 1108. These fiduciary duties tend to arise out of the treaty relationships now recognised in the Canadian Constitution. Such arguments have not been recognised in Australia, where there is no treaty and where Indigenous rights are not constitutionally recognised, though Toohey J in Mabo suggested fiduciary duties may arise because of the vulnerable nature of native title rights and the power of the Crown to extinguish such rights: see Mabo (n 3) 203–4.

78. Love (n 1) 665 [274] (Nettle J).

79. Ibid 667 [279].

80. Ibid 646–7 [217].

81. Ibid 604–5 [28]–[29] (Kiefel CJ), 629 [127]–[128] (Gageler J), 642 [194] (Keane J).

82. Mabo (n 3) 37–8 (Brennan J, Mason CJ and McHugh J agreeing), 80 (Deane and Gaudron JJ), 182 (Toohey J).

83. Love (n 1) 600–1 [9]. See also 624–5 [108], 625 [110] (Gageler J).

84. Mabo (n 3) 37.

85. Shireen Morris, ‘Re-Evaluating Mabo: The Case for Native Title Reform to Remove Discrimination and Promote Economic Opportunity’ (2012) 5(3) Land, Rights, Laws: Issues of Native Title 1, 8.

86. See Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (Grove Press, 1963) 309–12. Fanon poetically observes this incongruence between colonial principle and practice. See also Bain Attwood, Telling the Truth about Aboriginal History (Allen and Unwin, 2005) 128–30.

87. Rosalind Kidd, The Way We Civilize: Aboriginal Affairs—the Untold Story (University of Queensland Press, 2005); see also Pearson (n 5) 16–23. Pearson also writes of the attempted genocide of Indigenous Tasmanians.

88. Australian Human Rights Commission, Bringing Them Home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Children from Their Families (Report, April 1997).

89. See, eg, Elections Act 1885 (Qld), s 6, which provided that ‘no aboriginal native of Australia, India, China or of the South Sea Islands shall be entitled to be entered on the roll except in respect of a freehold qualification’; Constitution Act Amendment Act 1899 (WA), s 26, which provided that ‘no aboriginal native of Australia, Asia, or Africa, or person of the half-blood, shall be entitled to be registered, except in respect of a freehold qualification’; Electoral Code 1896 (SA), s 16, which provided that ‘in the Northern Territory immigrants under the Indian Immigration Act 1882 and all persons except natural-born British subjects and Europeans or Americans naturalized as British subjects, are disqualified from voting’.

90. Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Parliament of Australia, Unfinished business: Indigenous stolen wages (Report, December 2006); Bligh and Ors v State of Queensland [1996] HREOCA 28.

91. The Protection Acts empowered appointed protectors and boards to control many day-to-day aspects of Indigenous people’s lives. See, eg, Aborigines Protection Act 1886 (WA), Aborigines Protection Act 1869 (Vic), Aboriginals Preservation and Protection Act 1939 (Qld).

92. Full discussion in Mabo.

93. Love (n 1) 662 [267] (Nettle J).

94. Ibid 625 [110] (Gageler J).

95. Ibid 639 [178]–[180] (Keane J).

96. (1998) 195 CLR 337, 366 [40].

97. Love (n 1) 639 [177] (Keane J). See also at 256 (Nettle J).

98. See Helen Irving, To Constitute a Nation: A Cultural History of Australia’s Constitution (Cambridge University Press, 1997) ch 6; Jeremy Webber, ‘Multiculturalism and the Australian Constitution’ (2001) 24 UNSWLJ 882, 883–6.

99. Love (n 1) 640 [182] (Keane J).

100. Murray Gleeson, ‘Recognition in Keeping with the Constitution: A Worthwhile Project’ (Speech, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney, 18 July 2019) 15 (‘Recognition’). See also ibid 370.

101. Sections 25, 51(xxvi).

102. Love (n 1) 639 [178] (Keane J).

103. Ibid 639–40 [178]–[184] (Keane J).

104. Ibid 625 [110] (Gageler J), 639 [179]–[180] (Keane J), 679 [355] (Gordon J).

105. Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

106. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth).

107. For example, ABSTUDY and Indigenous-specific healthcare subsidies.

108. Love (n 1) 126, 130 (Gageler J), 370 (Nettle J). Section 51(xxvi) had not been used prior to 1967.

109. Jurgen Habermas, ‘Struggles for Recognition in the Democratic Constitutional State’ in Amy Gutman (ed), Multiculturalism (Princeton University Press, 1994) 107; Kingsbury (n 4) 105.

110. Menno Boldt, Surviving as Indians: The Challenge of Self Government (University of Toronto Press, 1993) xv.

111. See International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976) art 1; International Covenant on Economics, Social, and Cultural Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 993 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 January 1976) art 1; United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, GA Res 61/295, UN Doc A/RES/295 (2 October 2007, adopted 13 September 2007) art 3 (‘UNDRIP’).

112. S James Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed, 2004) 98.

113. The UNDRIP preamble affirms ‘that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such’. The articles also recognise both Indigenous rights to equality and non-discrimination, and rights to self-determination and distinct cultural and other rights: UNDRIP (n 110).

114. See Constitution ss 25 and 51(xxvi).

115. Nicholas Aroney, ‘Reasonable Disagreement, Democracy and the Judicial Safeguards of Federalism’ (2008) 27(1) University of Queensland Law Journal 129, 139–40.

116. Gleeson, ‘Recognition’ (n 99) 15.

117. Paul Chen, ‘Federalism and Rights: A Neglected Relationship’ (1999) 40(3) South Texas Law Review 845, 852–3; Reilly (n 4) 412–13.

118. Will Kymlicka, Liberalism, Community and Culture (Clarendon Press, 1989) 215; Barbara Thomas-Woolley and Edmond J Keller, ‘Majority Rule and Minority Rights: American Federalism and African Experience’ (1994) 32(3) Journal of Modern African Studies 411, 414.

119. Mabo (n 3) 31–2; New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337, 388; Coe v Commonwealth (1993) 68 ALJR 110, 115.

120. Love (n 1) 604 [25], 606 [37] (Kiefel CJ), 623 [102] (Gageler J), 642 [197], 643 [199]–[202] (Keane J), 660 [264] (Nettle J), 683 [356]–[357] (Gordon J).

121. For general discussion, see Sean Brennan, Brenda Gunn and George Williams, ‘“Sovereignty” and Its Relevance to Treaty-Making Between Indigenous Peoples and Australian Governments’ (2004) 26(3) Sydney Law Review 307; Aileen Moreton-Robinson, Sovereign Subjects: Indigenous Sovereignty Matters (Allen & Unwin, 2007).

122. Patrick Macklem, ‘Distributing Sovereignty: Indian Nations and Equality of Peoples’ (1993) 45(5) Stanford Law Review 1311, 1346–7.

123. Daniel Philpott, ‘Sovereignty’ in Edward N Zalta (ed), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (22 June 2020) <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/>.

124. As Gibbs J stated in 1975, ‘[t]he acquisition of territory by a sovereign state for the first time is an act of state which cannot be challenged, controlled or interfered with by the courts of that state’: New South Wales v Commonwealth (n 118) 388.

125. Love (n 1) 623 [102].

126. See ibid 623 [448]–[449] (Edelman J).

127. Mick Dodson, ‘The Continuing Relevance of the Constitution for Indigenous Peoples’ (Speech, National Archives of Australia, 13 July 2008) <http://hdl.handle.net/1885/10693>.

128. Brennan J held that: ‘Although the question whether a territory has been acquired by the Crown is not justiciable before municipal courts, those courts have jurisdiction to determine the consequences of an acquisition under municipal law’: Mabo (n 3) 32.

129. See, eg, Brennan, Gunn and Williams (n 120) 307; Felix Hoehn, Reconciling Sovereignties: Aboriginal Nations and Canada (Native Law Centre, University of Saskatewan, 2012).

130. Love (n 1) 628 [125] (Gageler J).

131. Ibid 604 [25], 606 [37] (Kiefel CJ).

132. Ibid 632 [140] (Gageler J), 668 [282] (Nettle J).

133. Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion) [1975] ICJ Rep 12.

134. Ibid 85–6 (Vice-President Ammoun). See also Mabo (n 3) 41.

135. Love (n 1) 714 [466] (Edelman J).

136. Pearson (n 5) 40–3; Larissa Behrendt, Achieving Social Justice: Indigenous Rights and Australia’s Future (Federation Press, 2003) 99, 115.

137. James ‘Youngblood’ Henderson describes Aboriginal sovereignty as engaging notions of knowledge, understanding and relationships, rather than absolute dominance and force: James (Sa’ke’j) Youngblood Henderson, ‘Constitutional Vision and Judicial Commitment: Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada’ (2010) 14(2) Australian Indigenous Law Review 24, 30; see also Behrendt (n 135) 102–3.

138. Blanco (n 11). See also Shireen Morris, ‘Separatism Through Indigenous Recognition an Irrational Fear’, The Australian (Sydney, 28 October 2016) 22.

139. Referendum Council Report (n 2) 38.

140. As Macklem explains, the value of using the language of ‘sovereignty’ in such arguments is that: ‘[I]t represents a legal or constitutional space in which a community can express its collective identity…sovereignty attaches to collectivities, not individuals…. The distribution of sovereignty ought to be judged by reference to equality of peoples, not equality of individuals’: Macklem (n 121) 1353.

141. Referendum Council Report (n 2) 36.

142. Love (n 1) 630 [134] (Gageler J).

143. Ibid 715 [467] (Edelman J).

144. Ibid 639 [178] (Keane J).

145. Janet Albrechtsen, ‘High Court in the Crossfire of Runaway Judicial Activism’, The Australian (online, 14 February 2020) 16 <https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/high-court-in-the-crossfire-of-runaway-judicial-activism/news-story/631a06647c8216cbf7ec264e461181a9>; Chris Merritt, ‘Judging the High Court’s justices’, The Australian (online, 19 February 2020) 11 <https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/judging-the-high-courts-justices/news-story/6c819b096c60180d761d0ca9ab38b2eb>; James Allan, ‘High Court Ruling: Activist Justices’ Alien View of Court’s Power’, The Australian (online, 14 February 2020) <https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/activist-justices-alien-view-of-courts-power/news-story/bfff4c2f860a65426dddaf5f91cf9ff6>.

146. Greg Sheridan, ‘Constitutional Change Will Divide Not Unite the Nation’, The Australian (online, 20 September 2014) <https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/opinion/constitutional-change-will-divide-not-unite-the-nation/news-story/ed3fdd9de4d4b4fe0527993544f2f185>; James Allan, ‘Constitutional Fiddling Brings Inherent Danger’, The Australian (online, 9 December 2011) <https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/constitutional-fiddling-brings-inherent-danger/news-story/1852ab65ba1b70d2f14f036d530b6ee0>; Greg Craven, ‘Keep the Constitutional Change Simple’, Australian Financial Review (online, 6 February 2012) 55 <https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/keep-the-constitutional-change-simple-20120206-i3ocf>.

147. Albrechtsen (n 144) 16.

148. Merritt (n 144).

149. Allan, ‘High Court Ruling’ (n 144).

150. Ibid.

151. Greg Craven, ‘The High Court of Australia: A Study in the Abuse of Power’ (1999) 22(1) University of New South Wales Law Journal 216, 218. See also Dyson Heydon, ‘Judicial Activism and the Death of the Rule of Law’ (2004) 10(4) Otago Law Review 493; Haig Patapan, Judging Democracy: The New Politics of the High Court of Australia (Cambridge University Press, 2000); Tanya Josev, The Campaign Against the Courts: A History of the Judicial Activism Debate (Federation Press, 2017).

152. For this trend as it manifests in the USA, see Ernest A Young, ‘Judicial Activism and Conservative Politics’ (2002) 73(4) University of Colorado Law Review 1139.

153. George Williams, ‘When the Umpire Takes a Stand’, The Sydney Morning Herald (online, 12 November 2011) <https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/when-the-umpire-takes-a-stand-20111111-1nbag.html>. However, these examples may not be considered symmetrical: striking down a law is usually considered more interventionist than upholding a law. See also Justice Michael Kirby, ‘Judicial Activism: Power Without Responsibility? No, Appropriate Activism Conforming to Duty’ (2006) 30(2) Melbourne University Law Review 576.

154. Shireen Morris, ‘A Voice for First Nations Should Be Beyond the Reach of the Judiciary’, The Australian (Sydney, 21 February 2020).

155. Referendum Council Report (n 2) 38.

156. See, eg, the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic) recognises Indigenous peoples in s 1A, and s 1A(3) provides that: ‘The Parliament does not intend by this section—(a) to create in any person any legal right or give rise to any civil cause of action; or (b) to affect in any way the interpretation of this Act or of any other law in force in Victoria.’ The Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) recognises Indigenous peoples in s 2, and s 2(3) provides that: ‘Nothing in this section creates any legal right or liability, or gives rise to or affects any civil cause of action or right to review an administrative action, or affects the interpretation of any Act or law in force in New South Wales.’ The Constitution of Queensland 2001 (Qld) recognises Indigenous peoples in its preamble, providing a ‘no legal effect clause’ in relation to the preamble in s 3A. The Constitution Act 1934 (SA) recognises Indigenous peoples in s 2, and s 2(3) provides a ‘no legal effect’ clause. Western Australia and Tasmania are the only States to have recognised Indigenous peoples in the preambles to their constitutions without a ‘no legal effect’ clause. See Constitution Act 1889 (WA) and Constitution Act 1934 (Tas).

157. Expert Panel Report (n 13) 113–15.

158. See, eg, ss 53, 54, 56.

159. See Anne Twomey, ‘An Indigenous Advisory Body: Addressing the Concerns About Justiciability and Parliamentary Sovereignty’ (2015) 8(19) Indigenous Law Bulletin 6.

160. Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Adelaide, 13 April 1897, 473 (Edmund Barton).

161. The non-justiciable character of s 53 was discussed in Osborne v Commonwealth (1911) 12 CLR 321, 336, 339 (Griffith CJ); Western Australia v Commonwealth (1995) 183 CLR 373, 482 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ); Geoffrey Lindell, ‘The Justiciability of Political Questions: Recent Developments’ in HP Lee and George Winterton (eds), Australian Constitutional Perspectives (Law Book Company, 1992) 180; Gabrielle Appleby and Adam Webster, ‘Parliament’s Role in Constitutional Interpretation’ (2013) 37(2) Melbourne University Law Review 255, 272; JA Thompson, ‘The Judicial Branch: Non-justiciability and the Australian Constitution’ in Michael Coper and George Williams (eds), Power, Parliament and the People (Federation Press, 1997) 56.

162. With respect to s 53, Chief Justice Griffith explained: ‘Secs 53 and 54 deal with “proposed laws”—that is, Bills or projects of law still under consideration and not assented to—and they lay down rules to be observed with respect to proposed laws at that stage. Whatever obligations are imposed by these sections are directed to the Houses of Parliament whose conduct of their internal affairs is not subject to review by a Court of law’: Osborne v Commonwealth (n 160) 336 (Griffith CJ). See also at 339; Western Australia v Commonwealth (n 160) 482 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ).

163. Henry Burmester, ‘Locus Standi in Constitutional Litigation’ in HP Lee and George Winterton (eds), Australian Constitutional Perspectives (Law Book Company, 1992) 148, 178.

164. Victoria v Commonwealth (1975) 134 CLR 81, 138 (McTiernan J). See Kirsty Magarey, ‘Alcopops Makes the House See Double: “The Proposed Law” in Section 57 of the Constitution’ (Research Paper No 32, Law and Bills Digest Section, Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia, 12 May 2009).

165. Morris, ‘The Argument’ (n 8) 179–82; Shireen Morris, ‘“The Torment of Our Powerlessness”: Addressing Indigenous Constitutional Vulnerability Through the Uluru Statement’s Call for a First Nations Voice in Their Affairs’ (2018) 41(3) UNSW Law Journal 629, 653–65.

166. Twomey, ‘An Indigenous Advisory Body: Addressing Concerns about Justiciability and Parliamentary Sovereignty’ (n 158); Morris, ‘The Argument’ (n 8) 183–5.

167. Anne Twomey, ‘Putting Words to the Tune of Indigenous Constitutional Recognition’, The Conversation (online, 20 May 2015) <https://theconversation.com/putting-words-to-the-tune-of-indigenous-constitutional-recognition-42038>.

168. Chief Justice Murray Gleeson, ‘Courts and the Rule of Law’, The Rule of Law Series, Melbourne University, 7 November 2001.

169. This is pointed out in Megan Davis and Rosalind Dixon, ‘Constitutional Recognition Through a (Justiciable) Duty to Consult? Towards Entrenched and Judicially Enforceable Norms of Indigenous Consultation’ (2016) 27(4) Public Law Review 255.

170. Fergal Davis, ‘The Problem of Authority and the Proposal for an Indigenous Advisory Body’ (2015) 8(19) Indigenous Law Bulletin 23.

171. Morris, ‘Undemocratic, Uncertain and Politically Unviable? An Analysis of and Response to Objections to a Proposed Racial Non-Discrimination Clause as Part of Constitutional Reforms for Indigenous Recognition’ (n 15).

172. Stephen Gageler and Mark Leeming, ‘An Australian Republic: Is a Referendum Enough?’ (1996) 7(3) Public Law Review 143, 145–7; Jeffrey Goldsworthy, ‘The Preamble, Judicial Independence and Judicial Integrity’ (2000) 11(2) Constitutional Forum 60, 62; Dan Himmelfarb, ‘The Preamble in Constitutional Interpretation’ (1991) 2(1) Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal 127, 203; George Winterton, ‘A New Constitutional Preamble’ (1997) 8(3) Public Law Review 186, 187–8.

173. Constitution Alteration (Preamble) Bill 1999 (Cth).

174. Leslie Zines, ‘Preamble to a Republican Constitution’ (1999) 10(1) Public Law Review 67, 68; Jeremy Webber, ‘Constitutional Poetry: The Tension Between Symbolic and Functional Aims in Constitutional Reform’ (1999) 21(2) Sydney Law Review 260, 269–70.

175. Megan Davis and Zrinka Lemezina, ‘Indigenous Australians and the Preamble: Towards a More Inclusive Constitution or Entrenching Marginalisation?’ (2010) 33(2) UNSW Law Journal 239, 261; Julian Leeser, ‘Uphold and Recognise’ in Damien Freeman and Shireen Morris (eds), The Forgotten People: Liberal and Conservative Approaches to Recognising Indigenous Peoples (Melbourne University Press, 2016) 78, 84; Mark McKenna, Amelia Simpson and George Williams, ‘First Words: The Preamble to the Australian Constitution’ (2001) 24(2) UNSW Law Journal 382, 396.

176. Or that the High Court might use the provision to inform findings about the text and structure of the Constitution.

177. Frank Chung, ‘High Court Ruling on Indigenous Deportation “Will Lead to Racial Division and Strife”’, News.com.au (online, 12 February 2020), quoting Morgan Begg <https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/high-court-ruling-on-indigenous-deportation-will-lead-to-racial-division-and-strife/news-story/4e03589cbdbfef9f455a753b44b2d725>.

178. Allan, ‘High Court Ruling’ (n 144).

179. See Australian Constitution ss 25, 51(xxvi).

180. (1997) 190 CLR 1, 65 (Dawson J) (‘Kruger’).

181. Ibid 64.

182. Leeth v Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 455; Kruger (n 179).

183. Gleeson, ‘Recognition’ (n 99) 15.

184. Apart from the 2012 Expert Panel proposal, a push by Liberal MP William ‘Billy’ Wentworth in 1966 also failed: Expert Panel Report (n 13) 30.

185. For example, the IPA has made clear it opposes the ‘similarly vague but objectionably more dangerous proposals such as prohibitions against racial discrimination, in effect creating a one-clause bill of rights.’ Simon Breheney and Morgan Bagg, ‘Race Has No Place in Constitutional Reform’, Institute of Public Affairs (online, 1 April 2016) <https://ipa.org.au/ipa-review-articles/race-has-no-place-in-constitutional-reform>.

186. Anne Twomey, ‘An Obituary for s 25 of the Constitution’ (2012) 23(2) Public Law Review 125.

187. Shireen Morris, ‘An Australian Declaration of Recognition: The Case for Semi-Entrenched Symbolism’ (2020) 44(1) Melbourne University Law Review 267, 277.

188. Wurridjal v Commonwealth (2009) 237 CLR 309, 387, 435.

189. Love (n 1) 660 [8] (Kiefel CJ), 612 [65] (Bell J), 630 [133] (Gageler J).

190. Ibid 629 [128] (Gageler J).

191. Allan, ‘High Court Ruling’ (n 144).

192. Allan, ‘Constitutional Fiddling’ (n 145).

193. Mabo (n 3) 70.

194. Love (n 1) 616 [81] (Bell J), 640 [185], 642 [196] (Keane J), 712 [458] (Edelman J).

195. Noel Pearson, ‘Promise of Mabo not yet realised’, The Australian, 29 May 2010.

196. Love (n 1) 667 [280] (Nettle J).

197. For more on the test of Indigeneity, see Kirsty Gover, Tribal Constitutionalism: States, Tribes, and the Governance of Membership (Oxford University Press, 2010) 56–9.

198. Yorta Yorta v Victoria (2002) 214 CLR 422, 458.

199. Ibid 435.

200. Ibid 434, 444.

201. Mabo (n 3) 59.

202. Love (n 1) 668 [282] (Nettle J).

203. Ibid (n 1) 604 [26] (Kiefel CJ).

204. Ibid 668 [282] (Nettle J).

205. Ibid 712 [458] (Edelman J), citing Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1, 274.

206. David Nason, ‘Reverse Proof of Title, Says Paul Keating’, The Australian (Sydney, 1 June 2011). See also Michael Kirby, ‘Constitutional Law and Indigenous Australians: Challenge for a Parched Continent’ (2012) 15 Southern Cross University Law Review 3, 17–18.

207. See, eg, Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) s 4.

208. Lorena Allam, ‘More Than 20 Aboriginal Australians May Be in Detention After High Court Rules They Can’t Be Deported’, The Guardian (online, 3 March 2020) <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/mar/03/more-than-20-aboriginal-australians-still-in-detention-after-high-court-rules-they-cant-be-deported>.

209. Love (n 1) 612 [65] (Bell J), 632 [147], 633 [152], 634 [156] (Keane J).