The Voice Referendum in Australia: State responses to Aboriginal self-determination
von Bertus de Villiers, 05.02.2025Background
On 14 October 2023 the Australian electorate by a majority of 60%-40% rejected a proposal to amend the Constitution of Australia to provide for the establishment of an Aboriginal advisory Voice to parliament and the executive.[1] This was the fourth attempt by Australia to establish a permanent advisory mechanism at the federal level for Aboriginal people[2] to give advice about issues that affect them.[3] Three previous efforts since the mid-1970s had failed.[4] This was, however, the first time that an attempt was made to amend the Constitution to create an Aboriginal advisory body.
The calling of the referendum was a high-risk decision since international experiences show that referenda are by nature risky and unpredictable affairs. In Australia, particularly, the success rate of referenda is very low since a majority vote in a majority of states and a majority of the total population must support an amendment (only 8 of 45 attempts to amend the Constitution have been successful). If bipartisan support between the two main political parties cannot be secured (which was not achieved with the Voice), the likelihood of success evaporates. I expressed for some years prior to the referendum criticism at the decision to submit the Voice-proposal to the electorate especially because an Aboriginal advisory voice could have been created by way of ordinary legislation.[5] Establishing a statutory Voice was more likely to secure parliamentary support than voter approval in a referendum since so many considerations could affect a referendum-vote. To me a referendum on such a sensitive topic was simply too big a risk since I was concerned that if the answer was negative, the reverberations would impact Aboriginal people for many years, the reconciliation process could be undermined, the sense of rejection felt by Aboriginal people would be deep, and it would affect the international image of Australia.
Those concern have, unfortunately, now materialised with many Aboriginal people, particularly elderly leaders, feeling rejected and despondent in the aftermath of the referendum. Their feeling is reflected in the words of a senior Aboriginal leader, Mick Gooda, who played a guiding role in support of the proposed amendment. Gooda said shortly after the referendum: ‘The wind has just been taken out of you.’[6]
The energy spent in the Voice-campaign may have been for many, particularly Aboriginal elders, the last effort they could make towards a better future for Aboriginal people. On Aboriginal and non-aboriginal side there is exhaustion, disillusion, hurt, and a desperate sense of quo vadis? Where to next? What could have been done different or better? Was enough effort made to compromise to secure bipartisan support? None of the parties had a plan B should the referendum fail.
What next: perhaps bottom-up experimenting?
Is consultation with and self-determination of Aboriginal people at an end? Most certainly not.[7] I would suggest that the strengths of the federal system should be utilised more effectively to encourage a bottom-up process from within the respective federal states and territories to facilitate greater Aboriginal involvement in policies at all levels that affect them. From local, to state, to federal levels. A bottom-up process would be consistent with the language, customary land, and cultural interests of Aboriginal peoples, and most importantly, it may align in many places with native title (land rights) of Aboriginal people. At time of writing more than 50% of the Australian landmass has had the existence of native title confirmed.[8] Aboriginal people comprise around 150 language communities (see enclosed map at the end of this blog post) and even if the traditional languages are not always spoken, the cultural association with the language and the land, remains. Native title combined with experimenting by the respective states and territories in a grassroot-driven process may be able to achieve greater success than a uniform model administered in a top-down fashion. Previous Prime Minster, Paul Keating, who actively advocated for the Voice, admitted after the referendum that it was a ‘mistake from the start’ and that native title should rather be used as a basis to promote Aboriginal self-determination.[9]
The essence of this contribution is to propose that it may be time to think afresh about Aboriginal self-determination, truth and reconciliation, treaty, consultation, and closing the socio-economic gap. A variety of consultation models should be allowed to develop organically from within states from ground-level with typical federal style dynamics. Such a process is perhaps less grandiose than the one size fits all proposed by the failed Voice, but it may turn out to be more practical, achievable, legitimate, credible, and reflective of the realities of Aboriginal social, linguistic, and cultural organisation. A model that starts at the bottom and then, as necessary, works its way through the states to the federal level in the form of a possible treaty, advisory body, Aboriginal Alliance, or whatever it may be called.[10] The benefits of an organic process are obvious: no federal legislation is required to facilitate such a bottom-up process; each of the states and territories can adopt their own approach and institutional design; experimenting can take place in accordance with the needs of each state; trial and error could benefit all; states can learn from one another; spontaneity and success can be rewarded by way of special grants; localism may better suit local conditions; and in time, the bottom-up process may give rise to legislative action at the federal level for an advisory body, another form of agreement, or treaty. A federal voice will then be the culmination of a process, rather than the commencement of a process.
Strengths of states experimenting
In the same way that the modern state as we know it was formed by communities at a local level looking after themselves and working together for the common good, Aboriginal consultation initiatives ought to start with local Aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities in towns and cities addressing basic quality of life needs and then gradually develop into higher forms of cooperation, self-determination, and consultation. Indigenous self-determination often starts with local empowerment.[11] The principle of subsidiarity ought to be adopted as a practical guide – meaning that whatever can be done at a lower level, should be done closest to indigenous communities, unless when they cannot perform the function, or unless greater functionality demands it, then a matter is dealt with at a higher level.[12] The idea that a few elected or appointed persons in Canberra can speak for all Aboriginal peoples was always open to criticism and likely failure. A characteristic shared by international indigenous consultative processes is that their objectives, functions, consultation, and advice are usually linked to their traditional lands.[13] The design of institutions and consultation processes should therefore reflect a territorial element - be it real or spiritual.[14] The design of indigenous consultative institutions must also, as far as possible, follow community practices, cultures, and traditions.[15] Aboriginal people’s identity is inextricable linked to the ‘country’ of their ancestors.[16] Even if a person no longer resides on country, the spiritual link with their country often remains indelible.
Self-determination is at the core of Aboriginal empowerment. This is consistent with international instruments such as ILO 169[17] and UNDRIP[18] that encourage self-determination of indigenous people at all levels. Self-determination is however not a term of art.[19] Its meaning is given practical content by the circumstances of indigenous communities. The content of self-determination may therefore differ from one location to another. The benefit of local community involvement into the management of their own affairs is not merely theoretical. Self-determination brings buy-in; respect; acknowledgement; it leads to experimenting; it develops leadership; and it gives a sense of being in control.[20] Self-determination then becomes a lived reality rather than a political slogan. Local indigenous communities understand their own needs better than a few selected leaders at a national level, particularly in the case of Aboriginal people where there is often a divergence between urban and rural Aboriginal interests, and differences between Aboriginal communities. Local partnerships, alliances, and relationships between Aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities can generally be more effective, meaningful, and transformative, than the temporary, often volatile, and political nature of relationships at a national level.
The federal states and territories in Australia are ideally placed to play a leading and creative role to adopt unique approaches to Aboriginal self-determination and consultation. All the states and territories have Aboriginal populations, but their interests may differ from being highly urbanised, very traditional, substantial links to customary lands, disruption of land-linkages, urban versus rural interests, various degrees of socio-economic disadvantage, and many other uniqueness to each state. States can therefore create a space for local solutions to be found for local issues. For example, the circumstances of Aboriginal people in Tasmania differ in many respects substantially from those of Aboriginal people in Western Australia. There may be some demands shared between all Aboriginal peoples and those could be met by joint consultation mechanisms at a federal level where the Aboriginal federated interests come together. Local self-determination is not intended to imply exclusion of national self-determination.
Federalism and decentralisation
The values of federalism, decentralisation, and local capacity building as basic elements of self-determination, are widely accepted in international law theory and practice.[21] Added thereto, it is also accepted that self-determination on a territorial and non-territorial basis by way of autonomy and power-sharing arrangements may contribute to conflict resolution because it grants to indigenous communities greater involvement over matters that affect their communities at all levels.[22] The United Nations, as part of its many democratisation initiatives, actively encourages decentralisation and local community capacity building.[23] In this respect international instruments, such ILO 169 and UNDRIP, place a high emphasis on decentralisation and local indigenous community capacity building, albeit not to the exclusion of regional and national arrangements.[24] It is therefore not surprising that the World Bank in its many international democratisation, cooperation, and community funding-initiatives, have been focusing on decentralisation and empowerment of local indigenous and tribal communities to become involved in policy formulation and delivery of services.[25]
The most obvious benefit of the Australian federal states and territories taking a leading role to address Aboriginal self-determination is that the institutional arrangements for consulting with state indigenous communities may vary depending on the needs and capacity of the state-based Aboriginal communities. There may even be different Aboriginal needs and capacities within the same state. Some Aboriginal communities may have advanced capacity to conclude service delivery contracts with local governments, whilst others may not (yet) have the same ability or desire. The typical functions that could form part of local self-management are aspects of education; welfare; social services; environmental protection; housing; primary health care; infrastructural projects; place names and signage; heritage protection; cultural and recreational activities. The typical functions that could form part of local co-management with local and state authorities are consultation about policies in areas that impact on the interest of the local Aboriginal community, for example socio-economic policies; health; education; environmental management; law and order; land management; and conservation.
There is already in Australia a high degree of asymmetry within and between states when it comes to addressing issues facing Aboriginal people. In this respect the Noongar Settlement of the state of Western Australia is arguably most notable.[26] The Noongar Settlement affects around 30 000 Noongar people who live intermingled with other Australians, but with specific functions and competencies decentralised to the community corporations of the Noongar people.[27] The Noongar Settlement has been described as an example of a modern-day treaty.[28]
In short, federal theory and practice support the finding of localised solutions for local challenges; it builds local capacity and leadership; it encourages and rewards experimenting and attempting new things; it allows for mistakes to be made without affecting the entire nation; and it encourages flexibility and adaptability.
International norms of relevance to Aboriginal self-determination
International law has only in recent times turned attention to the collective rights of indigenous people to self-determination. Previously the emphasis was on the assimilation of indigenous people with the rest of the population.[29] The notion of collective rights of indigenous people has however since the 1970s been increasingly acknowledged in international hard and soft law and in regional instruments.[30] The grundnorm that has become associated with collective rights of indigenous people is the right to self-determination based on their pre-settlement sovereignty.[31] The right to self-determination is therefore associated with pre-existing individual and societal rights that have been extinguished, ignored, or disregarded by settler and colonial governments.[32] As a general proposition the right to self-determination includes arrangements for self-government, self-administration, autonomy, land rights, free, prior and informed consent, consultation rights over policies that impact the indigenous community, and advisory bodies, albeit not limited to those.[33]
The two most relevant instruments in international law that share as primary objective the protection of indigenous rights, are ILO 169 and UNDRIP. ILO 169 is the only legally binding international treaty on indigenous peoples, whilst UNDRIP is a not legally binding declaration of the UN General Assembly. ILO 169 has only been ratified by a few nations (23 – of which Australia is not one), whilst UNDRIP has principally political and policy impact, but has much wider endorsement (including by Australia). UNDRIP has been described as a ‘guiding instrument’ to assist signatory parties in better recognising indigenous people's rights albeit not legally enforceable.[34]
The Preamble of UNDRIP and article 19 of UNDRIP encapsulate the objective that is sought to be achieved:
States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.
The way how states design institutions and develop policies to comply with UNDRIP, falls within the discretion of states.[35] UNDRIP contains several objectives about self-determination, for example the right to own representative institutions for indigenous people, the right to maintain culture and traditions; the right to self-administration; and the right to consultation about their lands. The right to self-determination is difficult, if not impossible, to enforce in domestic settings unless legislative or policy interventions occur within states.[36]
State initiatives: federalism in action
Several of the Australian states and territories have commenced state-based consultation and dialogue processes with Aboriginal people. These processes vary in terms of duration, institutional arrangements, agenda for consultation, powers and functions, regularity of meetings, topics for discussion, transparency, representivity, and accountability. Importantly, the driving force of the respective processes differ, for example, in some states such as Victoria and Tasmania an emphasis is placed on truth and reconciliation as well as on treaty negotiations, whilst Queensland has abolished its Path to Treaty process, whereas Western Australia pursues an entirely informal process of consultation on day-to-day socio-economic policies. The inconsistency between states may be seen by some as a weakness, but I would suggest it is a strength since it allows experimenting by trial and error.
The following are examples of state-initiatives to respond to the self-determination quest of Aboriginal people:
The state of Western Australia established the Aboriginal Advisory Council of Western Australia (AACWA) in 1972 with the objective to report to government on matters that related to the ‘interests and well-being’ of Aboriginal people.[37] The AACWA ‘provides a unique opportunity to build genuine, respectful and reciprocal relationships between Aboriginal people and the WA Government to achieve better life outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men, women and children.’[38] The AACWA’s appointment, functions, meetings, and advice are informal and principally based on the discretion of the relevant minister. The minister consults with Aboriginal communities about who should be appointed. It meets around 6 times per year. The AACWA says in its Charter that its function is ‘to define and guide their work as equal partners in the pursuit of Aboriginal equality, wellbeing and recognition.’[39] Most importantly, it is stated that the point of departure of the AACWA is the ‘right of Aboriginal people to have a voice, participate in, and co-lead government decision-making in matters which affect them through representatives chosen by their communities.’
The state of South Australia enacted by way of legislation in 2024 a First Nations Voice to Parliament with the objective to ‘give First Nations people a voice that will be heard by the Parliament of South Australia, the Government of South Australia and other persons and bodies.’[40] The first election for the state-voice took place on 16 March 2024. The Aboriginal voter turnout was a disappointing 10%, perhaps influenced by the outcome of the national referendum a few months earlier. The state-voice is an advisory, consultation, and advocating body.[41] South Australia is divided into 6 sub-regions for purposes of local community consultation and elections.[42] Each sub-region has its own legal personality. This enables the sub-regional communities to undertake legal actions for their community. Each sub-region elects two representatives, one male and one female, to preside over the sub-regional voice.[43] The two persons from each sub-region constitute the state-Voice which comprises 12 persons. The functions of the local voices are to represent and advocate for the interests of Aboriginal people by engaging any stakeholder, department, or government agency.[44]
The state of Queensland enacted the Path to Treaty Act 2023 to establish the First Nations Treaty Institute. [45] The members of the Institute, who were appointed, were drawn from the leadership of the state’s Aboriginal people. The diversity of the Aboriginal community of Queensland had to be considered when appointments were made. An emphasis of the Institute was on truth telling about Australia’s past, healing of injustices, as well as treaty negotiations. This implied that Aboriginal people were to be given the opportunity to tell in public their experiences of being aboriginal, to record wrongdoings against them as a community, and to seek a form of truth and reconciliation. Due to public resistance to the Institute and a change in government, the Parliament of Queensland rescinded the legislation in later 2024 and discontinued funding of the Institute. [46] The process therefore came to a halt.
The state of Victoria enacted the Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act in 2018. [47] The emphasis of the process is on truth-telling as well as negotiating a treaty with the government of Victoria through an elected Aboriginal representative body. The truth-telling process comprises many public opportunities for individuals to share their lived-experiences for a public record to be established of the impacts of colonialism on their lives. A substantial budget allocation has been made available for this process.[48] Recommendations can also be made about a variety of socio-economic issues that affect Aboriginal people in the state. Parallel to the truth telling process is also the treaty negotiation process whereby Aboriginal people and the state explore ways to enter into some form of treaty or agreement that recognises the special status of Aboriginal people.[49] Similar initiatives are underway in the ACT (capital territory) and Tasmania. In the ACT representatives are also elected.
These examples illustrate what was said above about the utility of experimenting within states about suitable ways to accommodate the desire for self-determination of Aboriginal people. The respective states have adopted different approaches, and one state, Queensland, has discontinued its process. As far as representation is concerned Western Australia relies on appointments by the relevant minister, whilst South Australian body has an elected base similar to the ACT and Victoria. The Victoria and South Australia bodies have a sub-regional basis to bring decision-making closer to local communities, whilst in Western Australia sub-regional interests are considered when representatives are appointed by the minister. The Victoria process has a distinct focus on truth telling, whilst the processes in Western Australia are directed as government policies without any formal truth and reconciliation process. The treaty discussions are high on the agenda in Victoria, whilst not so prominent in South Australia or Western Australia. Truth telling is also a priority in Tasmania. The absence of federal leadership and participation means, however, whatever records are collated or personal experiences are shared at state level about past injustices, may present only part of historic reality.
Concluding remarks
A centralised solution for a complex question is often prone to failure. Australia has now had 4 attempts to centrally establish an advisory body for Aboriginal people. 3 of the attempts failed after implementation, and the most recent proposal was rejected by the electorate before implementation. The proposition of this contribution is that a bottom-up process that reflects the cultural and land realities of Aboriginal people, may be more appropriate for self-determination of Aboriginal people. Consultation and cooperation that starts at local levels and then gravitate to state-based and federally based institutional arrangements may be more sustainable, credible, and legitimate. A bottom-up process may also be more culturally appropriate and encourage better ownership by Aboriginal people. This would add to credibility and legitimacy of the process of consultation and sef-determination.
International instruments such as UNDRIP and ILO 169 recognise the importance of indigenous community-based self-determination and consultation. The federal states of Australia are ideally placed to experiment together with local Aboriginal people about ways to facilitate self-determination and consultation. The states can adopt different institutional arrangements, set their own agenda, and develop policies consistent with the needs of the local Aboriginal population. This is already happening with some states having established nominated bodies, whilst others have elected bodies. States have also granted varying powers and functions to these local bodies, with some focusing on day-to-day policies, whilst other place a greater emphasis on truth telling and negotiating a treaty.
The absence of leadership by the federal government in the current processes is on the one hand an impediment on these processes, but on the other hand it allows states to use their own initiative and to experiment without concerns to offend the federal government. The question remains, however, how complex issues such as truth telling, and treaty can effectively be addressed without the involvement of the federal government. Some of the broader socio-economic issues that affect Aboriginal people also require involvement and funding by the federal government. The principle of subsidiary dictates that some of those issues require discussions between Aboriginal people and the federal government. State-based Aboriginal bodies may therefore establish some type of federal alliance to engage the federal government on closing the gap-measures, truth telling, and treaty. A federally established Aboriginal body may be permanent or ad hoc, and it may accommodate the different basis of composition of the respective state bodies.
Experimenting by states may in due course give interesting insight into what works and what does not work in respect of Aboriginal consultation and self-determination, whilst Aboriginal organisations may also experiment with different forms of cooperation with each other to improve their interactions with the federal government.
[1] Constitution Alteration Act, ‘Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023’ (2023), https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2023B00060/Html/Text.
[2] I refer to the indigenous people of Australia as ‘Aboriginal people’. I acknowledge that other phrases are also used such as First Nations, Indigenous Peoples, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and First Peoples.
[3] B. De Villiers, ‘Speaking, but Does Anyone Listen? The Path of Progress and Frustration with Indigenous Advisory Bodies of the Sámi, Aboriginal People, and the Khoisan’, in Indigenous Rights in the Modern Era: Regaining What Has Been Lost (Leiden: Brill, 2023), 131–200.
[4] B. De Villiers, ‘An Advisory Body for Aboriginal People in Australia – One Step Forward and Two Back?’, Verfassung Und Recht Ubersee 50 (2017): 259–80.
[5] B. De Villiers, ‘An Advisory Body for Aboriginal Peoples in Australia – the Detail May Be Fatal to the Deal’, Brief March (2018): 7–11. B. De Villiers, ‘The Recognition Conundrum – Is an Advisory Body for Aboriginal People Progress to Rectify Past Injustices or Just Another “Toy Telephone”’, Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe 17 (2018): 24–28. B. De Villiers, ‘Seven Questions before the Voice Can Be Heard: Learning from the Past’, Brief August (2022): 8–11.
[6] P. McCutcheon, ‘Indigenous Elder Says Backlash in Queensland after Failed Voice Referendum Greater than Expected’, ABC News, 2 November 2023.
[7] B. De Villiers, ‘Life after the Failed Voice: Options for Aboriginal Self-Determination and Consultation in Australia’, International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 2024, 1–32.
[8] Map Native Title, ‘Map Native Title Determination Areas’, National Native Title Tribunal, 1 October 2023, chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://www.nntt.gov.au/Maps/Determinations_map.pdf.
[9] M. Stutchbury, ‘The Voice Was a “Mistake from the Start”’, Financial Review, 21 February 2024, https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/the-voice-was-a-mistake-from-the-start-20240219-p5f66v.
[10] I worked as a legal representative for 13 Aboriginal communities in the Goldfields of Western Australia from 1999-2005 and can attest of the commitment of those communities to their local lands, traditions, customs, environment, and traditions. Institutional design should embrace and reflect those values.
[11] The United Nations has observed the following about decentralization: ‘Political decentralization puts in place local governments at sub-national national level allowing for relatively extensive decision-making, policy-making and even some legislative authority over a specific territory and its population. Such local governments thus enjoy a degree of political, administrative and fiscal autonomy. Decentralization takes various forms including not only federalism but also other organizational structures such as autonomous regions, districts or municipalities and communes.’ (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, ‘Decentralized Governance for Democracy, Peace, Development and Effective Service Delivery’, 2005, v.)
[12] A. Delcamp, ‘Definition and the Limits of the Principle of Subsidiarity’ (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1994).
[13] R. Flemmer, ‘The Implementation Paradox Ambiguities of Prior Consultation and Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) for Indigenous Peoples’ Agency in Resource Extraction in Latin America’, in The Routledge Handbook of Indigenous Development, ed. K. Ruckstuhl et al. (London: Routledge, 2022), 126–42.
[14] K. Engle, The Elusive Promise of Indigenous Development: Rights, Culture, Strategy (Duke University Press, 2010), 162.
[15] M. Ormaza, The Requirement of Consultation with Indigenous Peoples in the ILO (Leiden: Brill, 2017).
[16] AIATSIS, ‘Authorisation and Decision-Making in Native Title’, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, 7 February 2017, https://aiatsis.gov.au/publications/products/authorisation-and-decision-making-native-title/ebook.
[17] ILO 169, ‘Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169)’, 27 June 1989, https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C169.
[18] UNDRIP, ‘United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People’, 2007, https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html.
[19] G. Alfredsson, ‘The Rights to Self-Determination in International Law’, in Minority Self-Government in Europe and the Middle East, ed. O. Akbulut and E. Aktoprak (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 3–31.
[20] D. Rondinelli, ‘Government Decentralization in Comparative Perspective: Theory and Practice in Developing Countries’, International Review of Administrative Sciences 47 (1981): 133–45.
[21] J. Faguet, ‘Decentralizing for a Deeper, More Supple Democracy’, Journal of Democracy 26 (2015): 60–74.
[22] Venice Commission, ‘The Protection of Minorities’ (Strasbourg: Venice Commission, 1994).
[23] United Nations Human Rights Office, ‘Human Rights and Constitution Making’ (New York: United Nations, 2018), https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/ConstitutionMaking_EN.pdf.
[24] D. Cambou, ‘The UNDRIP and the Legal Significance of the Right of Indigenous Peoples to Self-Determination: A Human Rights Approach with a Multidimensional Perspective’, The International Journal of Human Rights 23 (2019): 34–50.
[25] UN-World Bank, ‘Pathways for Peace Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict’ (Washington DC: World Bank, 2018), file:///C:/Users/devillib/Downloads/9781464811623.pdf.
[26] Noongar Recognition Act, ‘Noongar (Koorah, Nitja, Boordahwan) (Past, Present, Future) Recognition Act 2016’ (2016), https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_13755_homepage.html. Noongar Package, ‘South West Native Title Settlement Package’, 2017, https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/department-of-the-premier-and-cabinet/south-west-native-title-settlement#:~:text=South%20West%20Native%20Title%20Settlement%20Package,-Show%20more&text=The%20Settlement%20package%20is%20a,partnership%20with%20the%20WA%20Government. Noongar Map, ‘South West Native Title Settlement’, 2018, https://www.dpc.wa.gov.au/swnts/South-West-Native-Title-Settlement/Pages/default.aspx.
[27] B. De Villiers, ‘Privatised Autonomy for the Noongar People of Australia – a Sui Generis Model for Indigenous Non-Territorial Self-Government’, Verfassungs Und Recht Ubersee 53 (2020): 171–89.
[28] H. Hobbs and G. Williams, ‘The Noongar Settlement: Australia’s First Treaty’, Sydney Law Review 40 (2018): 1–24.
[29] Indigenous and Tribunal Convention 107, ‘Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 (No. 107)’, 1957, https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C107#:~:text=The%20populations%20concerned%20shall%20not,health%20of%20the%20said%20populations.
[30] A. Yupsanis, ‘The International Labour Organisation and Its Contribution to the Protection of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, Canadian Yearbook of International Law 49 (2011): 117–76. United Nations, ‘Indigenous Peoples and the United Nations Human Rights System’ (New York: United Nations, 2013). UN Special Rapporteur Indigenous People, ‘Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, 2007, https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/ipeoples/srindigenouspeoples/pages/sripeoplesindex.aspx#:~:text=Francisco%20Cali%20Tzay%20was%20appointed,role%20on%201%20May%202020.
[31] R. Shrinkhal, ‘“Indigenous Sovereignty” and Right to Self-Determination in International Law: A Critical Appraisal’, AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples 17 (2021): 71–82, https://doi.org/10.1177/1177180121994681.
[32] Alfredsson, ‘The Rights to Self-Determination in International Law’.
[33] A. Tomaselli, ‘The Right to Political Participation of Indigenous Peoples: A Holistic Approach’, International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 24 (2017): 394.
[34] United Nations, ‘Indigenous Peoples and the United Nations Human Rights System’, 4.
[35] V. Tauli-Corpuz, ‘Autonomy Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ (New York: United Nations, 2019), paras 36–66, https://www.undocs.org/A/74/149.
[36] C. Charters and R. Stavenhagen, eds., Making the Declaration Work: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Copenhagen: IWGIA, 2009).
[37] AACWA, ‘Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority Act 1972’ (1972), art. 18(1).
[38] WA Department of Premier and Cabinet, ‘Aboriginal Advisory Council of Western Australia’, 20 September 2023, https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/department-of-the-premier-and-cabinet/aboriginal-advisory-council-of-western-australia.
[39] AACWA Charter, ‘Aboriginal Advisory Council WA Charter’ (Government of Western Australia, 2023), para. 2, https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2020-05/AAC%20WA%20-%20Charter.pdf.
[40] South Australia Voice, ‘First Nations Voice Act 2023 (No 9 of 2023)’ (2023).
[41] South Australia Attorney General, ‘Local First Nations Voices’, 2023, https://www.agd.sa.gov.au/first-nations-voice/local-first-nations-voices.
[42] South Australia Voice, First Nations Voice Act 2023 (No 9 of 2023), art. 10(2).
[43] South Australia Voice, art. 12.
[44] South Australia Voice, art. 15.
[45] Queensland Path to Treaty, ‘Path to Treaty Act 2023’ (2023), https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/asmade/act-2023-012.
[46] Australian Human Rights Commission, ‘Ending QLD Truth-Telling and Healing Inquiry Is Harmful and Divisive’, 1 November 2024, https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/ending-qld-truth-telling-and-healing-inquiry-harmful-and-divisive.
[47] Victoria Advancing Treaty, ‘Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act 2018 No. 28 of 2018’ (2018), https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/50f587e2-f753-3e01-b2ca-2f86930eef93_18-28aa001%20authorised.pdf.
[48] Victoria Budget, ‘Towards Treaty and Truth’, 2025, https://www.budget.vic.gov.au/towards-treaty-and-truth.
[49] Victoria Pathway to Treaty, ‘Pathway to Treaty: Find out about Victoria’s Nation-Leading Treaty Process’, 2025, https://www.firstpeoplesrelations.vic.gov.au/treaty-process.
Informationen zu Bertus de Villiers
Prof. Dr. Bertus de Villiers is a Member of the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia. He is also an Adjunct Professor of the Law School of Curtin University. He is admitted as a legal practitioner in South Africa and Australia. He is a Fellow of the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung (Germany). He is Consulting Editor for the Western Australian Law Reports.Zur Übersicht