Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution: Report of the Expert Panel (January 2012), xi. (‘Panel Report’) The role of the expert panel is briefly examined below. For a detailed examination of the panel's role, see Panel Report, 1–12. The meaning of what might constitute ‘Indigenous recognition’ is examined at <www.youmeunity.org.au>.
2.
FrenchRobert, ‘The Race Power: A Constitutional Chimera’ in LeeHP and WintertonGeorge (eds), Australian constitutional perspectives (CUP, 2003) 180.
3.
Commonwealth Electoral Office, ‘Referendums to be Held on Saturday, 27th May, 1967, on the proposed laws for the alteration of the Constitution entitled Constitution alteration (Parliament) 1967 and Constitution alteration (Aboriginals) 1967: The arguments FOR and AGAINST’http://images.slsa.sa.gov.au/samemory/ttp/B12030570/B12030570.html, as quoted in Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337, 413 (KirbyJ), (‘Hindmarsh Island Bridge Case’).
4.
Australian Constitution s 51(xxvi), s 127, as appeared in 1901.
5.
Australian Constitution s 25, s 51(xxvi).
6.
For background and membership of the expert panel, see ReportPanel, 1–2.
7.
ReportPanel, 217.
8.
US v The Netherlands (1928) II RIAA 829. (‘Island of Palmas Case’).
9.
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1.
10.
There are clearly issues of international law and the acquisition of sovereignty issues that intervene to possibly break the chain of ownership. However, as a matter of common law it appears the continued possession of the lands should establish Indigenous peoples as the ‘first in time’ to possess, use and occupy their lands.
11.
The nemo dat qui non habet principle.
12.
DavisMegan, ‘Indigenous Rights and the Constitution: Making the Case for Constitutional Reform’ (2008) 7(6) Indigenous Law Bulletin6, 6.
13.
See discussion below on s 127.
14.
Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth).
15.
The right to vote was given to Indigenous peoples in various states at various times. In 1962 the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 was amended to provide all Indigenous people with the right to vote in federal elections, irrespective of their state voting rights. Voting in state elections is regulated by the states: Australian Constitution s 25.
QuickJohn and GarranRobert, The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth (Angus & Robertson, 1901) 623.
19.
ReportPanel, 25, citing Parliamentary Debates.
20.
ReportPanel, 26, citing Parliamentary Debates.
21.
Quick and Garran, above n 18, 623.
22.
Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562 (Kirby J.); RollsAlice, ‘Avoiding tragedy: Would the decision of the High Court in Al-Kateb have been any different if Australia had a Bill of Rights like Victoria?’ (2007) 18(2) Public Law Review119.
23.
WebberJeremy, ‘Multiculturalism and the Australian Constitution’ (2001) 24(3) UNSW Law Journal882, 882.
24.
French, above n 2, 180.
25.
Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337.
26.
French, above n 2, 180.
27.
Ibid.
28.
Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168 (‘Koowarta Case’).
29.
French, above n 2, 180. Emphasis added to show the political effect of the proposed change.
30.
Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168; Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1 (‘Tasmanian Dam Case’); Mabo v Queensland (No 1) (1988) 166 CLR 186; Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1; Western Australia v Commonwealth (1995) 183 CLR 373; Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337.
31.
Cole v Whitfield 165 CLR 360, 394.
32.
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15AB(2)(h). Parliamentary Debates are recorded in Hansard.
33.
WilliamsJohn and BradsenJohn, ‘The Perils of Inclusion: The Constitution and the Race Power’ (1997) 19Adelaide Law Review95, 97.
34.
Theophanous v The Herald and the Weekly Times Limited 182 CLR 104, 174.
35.
Swearing in of Chief Justice Dixon (1952) 85 CLR xi, xiv.
36.
McGinty v Western Australia (1996) 186 CLR 140, 183 (‘McGinty Case’).
37.
Theophanous v The Herald and the Weekly Times Limited 182 CLR 104, 174.
38.
Ibid, 172.
39.
Australian Constitution s 128.
40.
French, above n 2, 180, 182.
41.
SawyerGeoffrey, ‘The Australian Constitution and the Australian Aborigine’ (1966) 2Federal Law Review17, 17
42.
Williams and Bradsen, above n 33, 112.
43.
Yick Wo v Hopkins (1886) 188 US 356.
44.
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).
45.
Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1, 110 (GibbsCJ); Western Australia v The Commonwealth (1995) 183 CLR 373, 461.
46.
French, above n 2, 185.
47.
Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168, 242 (MurphyJ); Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1, 243 (BrennanJ); GaudronJ said there was ‘much to commend this view’: Lim v Min for DIMEA (1992) 176 CLR 1, 56.
48.
Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1, 110 (GibbsCJ.)
49.
French, above n 2.
50.
Kruger v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1, 70.
51.
Williams and Bradsen, above n 33, 110.
52.
Ibid110.
53.
Ibid112.
54.
Australian Constitution s 24(i).
55.
Williams and Bradsen, above n 33, 110.
56.
Ibid.
57.
World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) relevant sections; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth); Native Title Act 1993 (Cth); and Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (Cth).
Discussion of results, see ReportPanel, 9, 76 and Chapter 3.
63.
Discussion of results, see ReportPanel, 8 and Chapter 3.
64.
ReportPanel, xix.
65.
It is often stated that only 8 out of 44 proposals for amendment have achieved the requisite double majority.
66.
ReportPanel, 137–156.
67.
The deletion of s 25, also a provision with respect to ‘race’ is not controversial and does not appear to have any flow-on effects.
68.
ReportPanel, xviii.
69.
ReportPanel, 151.
70.
ReportPanel, xviii.
71.
Wacando v Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Queensland (1981) 148 CLR 1, 23 (MasonJ); WinckelAnne, ‘The Contextual Role of a Preamble in Statutory Interpretation’ (1999) 23Melbourne University Law Review184, 193.
This was clearly the Founders' intent and the states' powers were not altered in 1967 by the grant of concurrent power to the Commonwealth in this respect.
74.
Australian Constitution s 51(xxxvii). The problems of investing federal courts of jurisdiction arising under state laws are acknowledged: Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511. The desired outcome could however arguably be achieved in a similar manner, as was the mirror legislation scheme for the Corporations Law.
75.
FrenchRobert, ‘The Referral of State Powers’ (2003) 31(1) University of Western Australian Law Review19, 22.
76.
That is, while s 25 permits the states to enact racially discriminatory legislation, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and s 109 of the Australian Constitution will likely make such laws invalid.
