4. Ways forward for implementing UNDRIP in Australia
   1. This Chapter discusses options for implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP or the Declaration) in Australia, including by responding to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, processes to consider human rights through the Parliament and the development of a National Action Plan.
   2. As a general theme, the Committee heard the importance of ensuring Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are involved in determining the approach to implementing UNDRIP.

Uluru Statement from the Heart

4.3The Uluru Statement from the Heart (the Uluru Statement) calls for Voice, Treaty, and Truth.[1] Specifically, it seeks a constitutionally enshrined Voice and a Makarrata Commission to oversee a process of agreement making and truth-telling.

4.4In the Referendum Council Final Report, the reforms outlined in the Uluru Statement were assessed as being consistent with the standards established under UNDRIP and advancing self-determination.[2]

4.5As discussed in Chapter 2, the Australian Government in 2022 committed to the implementation of the Uluru Statement in full, with the enshrinement of a Voice to Parliament and the Executive Government as a priority. The Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 passed the Parliament, requiring the referendum for the Voice to be held within 2to6Months.

4.6The Explanatory Memorandum for the Constitutional Alteration referenced UNDRIP, explaining that the proposed Voice engages Articles 2 (self‑determination) and 3(equality and non-discrimination).[3] Further, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR) noted that the Constitutional Alteration would promote the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, including self-determination, free, prior and informed consent, theright to equality and non-discrimination’.[4]

4.7On 19 June 2023, the Senate passed a motion that the full implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart was a priority.[5]

4.8As mentioned in this report, the referendum required under the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 was held on 14 October 2023. Thereferendum was unsuccessful, meaning the Uluru Statement’s request for a constitutionally enshrined Voice was unfulfilled. Despite this result, this Report reflects some of the evidence that expressed support for this proposal in relation to UNDRIP.

4.9During the inquiry, the Committee heard a great deal of evidence regarding the relationship between the Uluru Statement and UNDRIP, and that the implementation of Voice, Treaty, and Truth supports the application of UNDRIP in Australia.

4.10Submitters to both this inquiry and to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, made references to the following UNDRIP Articles when describing the relationship with the Uluru Statement, such as:

• Article 3—the right to self-determination and free determination of political status.
• Article 4—the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to internal and local affairs.
• Article 5—the right to maintain and strengthen distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining the right to participate fully, if so chosen, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the state.
• Article 15—the right to dignity and diversity of cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations, to be appropriately reflected in educational and public information.
• Article 18—the right to participate in decision-making on matters that affect them through chosen representatives.
• Article 19—the right to be consulted and cooperated with in good faith by the state, to obtain free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures affecting Indigenous peoples.
• Article 32—the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of lands or territories and other resources.
• Article 37—the right to recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties and agreements made with the state.
• Article 40—the right to accessible, just, fair and prompt resolution procedures for disputes with the nation state and other parties.[6]
  11. The Federation of Victorian Traditional Owners Corporation (FVTOC) stated that implementing the Uluru Statement presents an opportunity for the Australian Government to ‘deliver its commitment to the rights and principles of…UNDRIP’.[7] In making this statement, FVTOC noted the Uluru Statement’s consistency with UNDRIP articles 3, 4, 18–19 and 37.[8]
  12. The Torres Shire Council drew the Committee’s attention to the connection between the Uluru Statement, the Masig Statement (Malungu Yangu Wakay—The Voice from the Deep) and UNDRIP.[9] The Masig Statement’s purpose is to:

… pursue and achieve self-determination and regional autonomy and, in doing so, preserve our distinctive and diverse spiritual, material and economic relationship with the lands, territories, waters, coastal seas and other resources with which we have a connection under Ailan Kastom and Aboriginal tradition[10]

4.13All three of these documents seek to achieve the right to self-determination and participation in decision-making on matters that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

4.14The Torres Shire Council further made the point that ‘[UNDRIP] establishes a universal framework of minimum standards for survival, dignity and well-being of the Indigenous peoples of the world’. The Torres Shire Council is a signatory to the Masig Statement, a supporter of the Uluru Statement, and calls upon the Government to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in achieving the ambitions of both statements, and enshrine UNDRIP in Commonwealth law.[11]

4.15Indigenous Allied Health Australia believed that the pursuit of Voice, Treaty, and Truth realises the right to recognition, and observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other arrangements between Indigenous peoples and nation states under UNDRIP Article 37(1).[12]

4.16The Kimberley Land Council stated, in its submission, that enshrining the Voice in the Australian Constitution ensures, despite changes in governments and policy settings, ‘the principles of UNDRIP will remain a feature of the nation now and into the future’.[13]

4.17Academics, and legal and human rights experts agreed with the above evidence provided by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants in the inquiry. TheAustralian National University’s First Nations Portfolio submitted that the constitutional enshrinement of a Voice ‘is an important opportunity to advance the implementation of…UNDRIP in Australia [and] could provide a vital forum for the expression of free, prior and informed consent’ (FPIC).[14]

4.18Both the Law Council of Australia and Terri Janke and Company submitted that the establishment and enshrinement of a Voice to Parliament ‘would be a manifestation of the right to self-determination’[15] under UNDRIP Article 3.

4.19The Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University noted that, in its view, although the Uluru Statement does not explicitly link itself to UNDRIP, its text is imbued with the principles and rights recognised in UNDRIP in several ways,[16] including that:

• Both are predicated on ‘the historic injustices suffered by Indigenous peoples, including from colonisation and dispossession from lands and resources.[17]
• The Uluru Statement speaks of the potential for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ sovereignty to ‘shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood’,[18] and UNDRIP recognises Indigenous peoples’ right to self‑determination ‘which can co-exist with the…international [legal] understanding of the sovereignty of the State’ under Articles 3 and 5.[19]
• Constitutional change and structural reform sought by the Uluru Statement, Voice, Treaty and Truth,—is grounded in UNDRIP Articles 18 and 19, which recognise the rights to participate in decision making and to be consulted by states to obtain free, prior and informed consent.[20]
  20. Associate Professor Hannah McGlade an academic, legal practitioner, and member of the UN Permanent Forum for Indigenous Issues, expressed the view that the implementation of the Uluru Statement supports UNDRIP, stating:

…the Uluru process or call for Voice, Treaty, and Truth is very fundamental to the realisation of UNDRIP principles, and constitutional recognition of a national Indigenous representative body that has proper representation throughout Australia is essential to the Declaration.[21]

4.21The inherent connection between the concepts of Voice, Treaty, and Truth and the Declaration was reiterated by the Indigenous peoples who appeared before the Committee. For example, Mrs Muotka, Sámediggi President (Norway), told the Committee that:

We do have present all the pain, tears, anger and frustration even though we have the Sámi Parliament, but we have the possibility to raise our voice and negotiate our politics. I do find that valuable.

4.22Similarly, Sir Taihakurei Durie KNZM emphasised the complementary relationship between a representative voice, treaty and the Declaration in making progress in New Zealand, noting:

We also rely on the Treaty of Waitangi in this country, but it's a rather general document, and the declaration has augmented the treaty with much more specificity.[22]

4.23Finally, the Canadian, Finnish and Norwegian experiences all observed that their respective truth and/or reconciliation processes (past and ongoing) were instrumental in building broader awareness and understanding in order to progress action to support the realisation of rights under UNDRIP.

4.24As outlined in the previous paragraphs, submitters to the inquiry stated implementing the Uluru Statement progresses the application of UNDRIP in Australia. However, the Committee were advised that it would not complete implementation of UNDRIP.[23] In other words, the implementation of UNDRIP is an ongoing and evolving process. Thispoint was clearly articulated by the Castan Centre for Human Rights:

…while the UNDRIP and the Uluru Statement cohere with each other, implementing the Uluru Statement is merely the beginning and not the end of ensuring the application of the UNDRIP in Australia.[24]

Human rights considerations of Parliament

4.25Throughout the course of its inquiry the Committee received a large body of evidence in support of implementing UNDRIP through the scrutiny processes of the Australian Parliament. The primary mechanism for the scrutiny of human rights in Parliament is the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR). The PJCHR was established in 2012 under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth) (theHuman Rights Act) and consists of five members from each House of Parliament.[25]

4.26The PJCHR is required to examine all bills and legislative instruments that come before the Parliament for compatibility with certain human rights and to report to both Houses of Parliament on its findings.[26] The term ‘human rights’ is defined in the Human Rights Actto include the rights and freedoms recognised or declared by seventreaty-level human rights instruments. These are some of the international instruments that the Australian Government has signed up to and is therefore accountable to upholding their standards. The human rights instruments are:

• International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
• Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
• Convention on the Rights of the Child
• Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.[27]
  27. The Human Rights Actrequires that all bills and disallowable instruments presented to the Parliament be accompanied by a Statement of Compatibility assessing whether the bill or instrument is compatible with the human rights recognised under the Act.[28] The Statement of Compatibility is prepared by the relevant Minister or sponsor of the bill or instrument.[29]
  28. Currently, only the legally binding human rights instruments are considered formally in the PJCHR’s mandate for the scrutiny of legislation.[30] The Statement of Compatibility is often the starting point for the PJCHR’s process. The human rights implications are therefore considered broadly for all citizens, and there is no formal mechanism to consider the impact for the unique experience of First Peoples.
  29. It should also be noted that these assessments are undertaken from the perspective of the Parliament and government (i.e. not necessarily by First Nations people), which can lead to the same issues that arise when First Nations people do not have a direct say on such matters. Mr Tony McAvoy SC described this:

I find that the ability of non-First Nations people to understand the way that the machine of government and the laws move against us to be rather limited because they see it through the lens of non-Indigenous people. But when you are on the receiving end you can see it very clearly.[31]

4.30The Committee observed that while UNDRIP is not a formal consideration in these processes, the PJCHR has at different stages used UNDRIP as an interpretive tool. For example, the PJCHR Annual Report 2020 noted:

While this Declaration is not included in the definition of 'human rights' … the Declaration provides clarification as to how human rights standards under international law, including under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights apply to the particular situation of Indigenous peoples.[32]

4.31Similarly, Emeritus Professor Altman drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Declaration had been taken into account on several occasions, including six bills cited in the 2020 Annual Report.[33]

4.32The Declaration has been used by the PJCHR even more recently in consideration ofthe Constitutional Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, whereit considered the Declaration’s Articles, specifically those related to self‑determination, equality and non-discrimination.[34]

4.33Ultimately, the consideration of UNDRIP occurs informally, rather than as one of the express human rights instruments.[35] It has been used as an interpretative tool in an ad hoc, rather than systematic, way, requiring either the government or PJCHR to determine UNDRIP as relevant, rather than it being a requirement.

4.34The Committee heard from human rights organisations and academics such as the Australian Human Rights Commission,[36] ACT Human Rights Commission,[37] and Professor Maguire,[38] that UNDRIP should be included in the Human Rights Act so that it can be considered formally through the scrutiny processes.

4.35At its hearing on 31 March 2023, Mr Darren Dick, Policy Executive, Human Rights and Strategy, Australian Human Rights Commission, told the Committee about the Commission’s long-standing view on the matter of UNDRIP’s consideration by the PJCHR, stating:

One [legislative amendment] which we advocated on behalf of for a long time is adding the UNDRIP to the parliamentary scrutiny process for the Joint Committee on Human Rights. … We do think it would be a lack for it not to be included in that parliamentary scrutiny process which also requires consideration by departments when they are developing statements of compatibility with human rights. We have been making that recommendation since the inception of that committee, so for 10 years plus.[39]

4.36A large number of submissions to the inquiry also put to the Committee that the definition of ‘human rights’ under the Human Rights Act should be amended to include, as a consideration for the PJCHR, UNDRIP.[40] Emeritus Professor Jon Altman, Australian National University (ANU) School of Regulation and Global Governance further stated:

A flow on benefit of such an amendment will be the requirement that any legislation introduced into the Federal Parliament will require a statement of compatibility with human rights that is inclusive of UNDRIP. Hopefully such inclusiveness will also ensure that both Indigenous-specific policy and policy that disproportionately impacts on First Nations people is crafted to ensure it is UNDRIP compatible even before it is drafted into legislation.[41]

4.37Similarly, during the UN Human Rights Council’s third Universal Period Periodic Review of Australia in 2021, the Netherlands recommended that Australia include UNDRIP in the Human Rights Act.[42] TheAustralian Government response to the recommendation in 2021 states that it ‘[n]otes but will not consider further [the recommendation] at this time’.[43]

National Action Plan

4.38Throughout this inquiry, the development of some form of an action plan appeared asa frequent recommendation to guide domestic implementation of UNDRIP. Mostnotably, the World Conference for Indigenous Peoples recommended the co‑development of an Action Plan to guide the implementation of UNDRIP.[44] Throughout this inquiry, the development of some form of an Action Plan appeared as a frequent recommendation.

4.39During the UN Human Rights Council’s third Universal Periodic Review of Australia in 2021, both Bangladesh and Namibia made explicit recommendations for Australia to develop a National Action Plan to implement UNDRIP.[45] In its response to those recommendations the Australian Government of the day stated that it ‘notes but will not consider [the recommendations] further at this time’.[46]

4.40As outlined in Chapter 2, Action Plans have been explored as a means of implementing the Declaration in both Canada and New Zealand, with the former legislating a requirement to negotiate an Action Plan within a certain timeframe, and the latter appearing to adopt a policy-based approach to negotiating an Action Plan.

4.41Developing an Action Plan by legislative, rather than non-legislative policy-based means offers relative advantages. Legislation may be binding on the government, can provide firm deadlines for attaining certain steps in the development of an Action Plan, may lend the force of law to obligations under the action plan and provide for parliamentary scrutiny of its implementation.

4.42Policy based approaches may offer greater flexibility to parties involved in the co‑development to decide on terms of consent, remedies, and timeframes for developing an Action Plan, but would not strictly have the parliamentary accountability that comes from legislating the requirement to develop a plan. Forexample, in terms of flexibility on timelines, the Committee heard that the NewZealand Action Plan process was ‘expressly paused’, and an interim education and engagement process put in place to socialise the UNDRIP with the public.[47] However, it was noted that it was a one-sided decision to pause this process, and it is not clear when this process will commence again.

4.43The exact contents of an Action Plan are open to agreement between a nation state and Indigenous peoples. However, it is generally accepted that an Action Plan should be negotiated with Indigenous peoples and set out tangible commitments by government to improve adherence to UNDRIP following an assessment of the current gaps. This was the approach adopted in both Canada and New Zealand.

4.44For example, to give effect to the legislative requirement to co-develop an action plan, the Canadian Government:

…launched a ‘two-phased, broad, inclusive and distinctions based engagement process with Indigenous peoples to advance the implementation of the act. The first phase involved identifying priorities and potential measures for a draft action plan, while the second phase will consist of validating proposed measures and identifying any gaps and additional measures.[48]

4.45Whereas New Zealand established a governance structure, somewhat like a steering committee, which included the national Iwi chairs and four ministers to work in partnership on an action plan and oversee more than 70 seminars and workshops.[49]

4.46In terms of the content of an Action Plan, the Hon Murray Rankin KC MLA, British Colombian Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, described the Province’s Action Plan to the Committee at its hearing on 31 March 2023, stating:

That Action Plan consists of 89 tangible, measurable, achievable, specific matters—not, if you will, generalities; but, rather, specific actions—that engage every single one of our ministries. That's, I think, central, and the scheme of it is really quite simple. There must be an annual report on how we're doing, and that annual report for the five-year plan it involved will hold us to account. Everything is co-developed with the Indigenous leadership in British Columbia, so it's not just the government saying, 'What do you think?'. Every action was co-developed, and we work together going forward.

4.47Co-design or co-development of an Action Plan between government and Indigenous peoples was consistently raised as an essential aspect of any development process for an Action Plan. This reflects the rights set out in the Declaration for self‑determination and autonomy or self‑governance as well as the need for FPIC.[50]

4.48It was raised that successful implementation of UNDRIP requires an approach that is negotiated with, and led by, First Nations people. For example, MsKacey Teerman, Indigenous Campaigns Associate, Amnesty International, stated:

For the government to do this in any kind of meaningful way, it's a thing that First Nations people have been saying since colonisation. First Nations people need to lead this work. They were instrumental in making UNDRIP. When you don't let First Nations people lead work about our own communities, it fails. You can see that across every single area—health, education, everything. For the government to do this properly, it needs to be led by First Nations people. They need to be assured that it will be implemented in a meaningful way that isn't at the whim of government.[51]

4.49Similarly, Mr Darren Dick, Policy Executive, Human Rights and Strategy, Australian Human Rights Commission, also said:

If we're going to say that the rights of Indigenous people are important, then we should have a national articulation of that which governments are taken to account for. That should of course be negotiated with Indigenous people for what the content of that is.[52]

4.50A National Action Plan could also act as a key reliable point of reference for how the Government works with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Onthis, Mr Darren Dick, Senior Policy Executive, Australian Human Rights Commission, told the Committee that:

…[I]f you have a national action plan from a declaration, you have a clear set of commitment processes from government as to how they will engage of Indigenous rights and commitments as to what they will do—commitments to co‑design all these sorts of things. It will make a very significant difference.[53]

4.51Action Plans have also received considerable endorsement from fora, institutions, and mechanisms. On whether an action plan would be an appropriate mechanism to meet Australia’s obligations under UNDRIP, Dr Hannah McGlade, Member of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, told the Committee that:

Yes, absolutely. I think we should be, obviously, looking at the British Columbia approach through legislation as well, with the level of accountability that that then exacts in terms of implementing UNDRIP. The World Conference on Indigenous Peoples was, over a decade ago, urging states to implement national action plans. I know it was a live issue when I was a fellow at the OHCHR in 2016. We really haven’t taken any action, which is rather extraordinary.[54]

4.52Similarly, in her submission to the inquiry, Dr Terri Janke, Solicitor Director, TerriJanke and Company (TJC), stated that:

As prioritised by both the Canadian and New Zealand government, Australia should seek to develop a national action plan to facilitate the implementation of the UNDRIP as a matter of national significance.[55]

4.53The Committee heard how implementing UNDRIP may assist in fulfilling the objectives in the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. At its hearing on 31March2023, Dr Helen Watchirs OAM, President and Human Rights Commissioner, ACT Human Rights Commission, discussed how a national action plan may form part of a centralised approach from Federal Government in Closing the Gap, stating:

Our federalised system has much to commend it, but it has not resulted in closing the gap. It has resulted in buck-passing and loopholes. There has been a service delivery limbo for several decades for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We hope a centralised approach, on the advice of Aboriginal people, to legislate and implement UNDRIP through a National Human Rights Act and action plan, as well as cabinet and a treaty for all Australians, could pave the way to close these gaps.[56]

4.54Ms Anne Sheehan, First Assistant Secretary, International Law and Human Rights Division, Attorney General’s Department, raised the need to consider the interaction between a National Action Plan and other plans and policies:

One of the issues to consider would be how it interacts with other action plans. We have mentioned the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, which covers a variety of the principles that are reflected in UNDRIP, and there are the priority reforms that are occurring under that process. I think it would be important to look at what is the overlap with those frameworks that are already in place.[57]

Public awareness and education

4.55Throughout the inquiry, a recurrent theme from international experiences and the expert opinion was the importance of ensuring the general public understood human rights, UNDRIP and the unique domestic experience of colonisation.

4.56Ms Sam Klintworth, National Director of Amnesty International Australia, advised the Committee that education campaigns have led to more successful implementation:

In jurisdictions where the UNDRIP has been more effectively implemented, there have been very coordinated campaigns that include community education, human rights education more broadly as well as addressing the human rights violations that are currently occurring in contravention of the declaration.[58]

4.57Professor Claire Charters, who spoke to the Committee along with members of TeKaunihera Māori o Aotearoa (New Zealand Māroi Council) noted they too need more community education around UNDRIP:[59]

…the socialisation conscientisation idea [is that] there needs to be more knowledge in our communities about the declaration and what it is.[60]

4.58The Hon Murray Rankin KC MLA, Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, British Columbia, stated that:

I can tell you that education is at the core of so much of what we need to do. I’m sure you would agree that the Australian situation is the same. I am proud to say that one of the things in our action plan that I referred to earlier is that we’ll change our curriculum in our high schools to make sure that no child will ever graduate from high school without knowing the real history of our province and our country, including the residential school experience.[61]

4.59TJC told the Committee that the lack of education around the rights affirmed by UNDRIP ‘provides an impediment to [the] application of UNDRIP’.[62] TJC referenced the development of and use of their True Tracks framework and principles by themselves, Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples as a best practice guide for consultation and benefit-sharing, and as an education tool.[63]

4.60TJC made the following recommendations to improve awareness, understanding and adherence across government and private sectors and Indigenous-led organisations:

• implement UNDRIP adherence guidelines for government and private sectors, such as the UN’s Business Reference Guide to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples[64] and the Australian Business Guide to Implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,[65] and
• develop an UNDRIP guide to assist Indigenous-led organisations and communities in understanding UNDRIP and utilising the Declaration to progress negotiations and projects, with particular reference to FPIC, such as the Community Guide to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.[66]
  61. TJC further stated that, in addition to developing guidelines and increasing awareness across the government and private sectors, the wider-Australian community would also benefit from improved awareness and understanding of UNDRIP, noting that:

With improved awareness and education on the aspirations, responsibilities and practices of the UNDRIP, the Australian public could champion for greater adherence across various jurisdictions and sectors.[67]

4.62The North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency (NAAJA) has put the view that to effectively implement and improve adherence to UNDRIP through legal and policy reforms, apublic awareness education campaign should also be initiated.[68] NAAJA recommended that a campaign should focus on UNDRIP principles and Government planned policy objectives for adherence.[69]

4.63The Law Council of Australia additionally highlighted the importance and ‘potentially transformative role of education in promoting the application of UNDRIP rights and principles in Australia’.[70] The Law Council of Australia further noted that establishing a base knowledge and understanding of UNDRIP principles and Indigenous rights should be a central objective of government and private institutions and industries.[71]

4.64Further, witnesses suggested to the committee that a greater understanding of UNDRIP can assist a Nation State to come together as a whole. For example, MrKeith Smith, Director General, United Nations Declaration Act Implementation Secretariat, Department of Justice, Canada, told the Committee:

…we’ve talked about education as well more broadly, really sort of explaining how the implementation of rights can actually lead to very positive change and not just for Indigenous peoples but for the country as a whole.[72]

4.65Likewise, Ms Sashia Leung, Director of Communications and International Relations, British Columbia Treaty Commission, when discussing the challenges of implementing UNDRIP talked about all levels of government raising awareness:

We’re all still raising a lot of that awareness, whether it’s the federal government, the provincial government, the commission. I think understanding the declaration and knowing that it really can be a unifying tool.[73]

4.66In a domestic context, witnesses also advised the need to improve awareness of Australia’s history as foundational to implementation of UNDRIP. For example:

I think that the mindset that we're in, the relationship we have, the disadvantage that First Nations people still experience, the injustice that they can still experience, certainly all stems from a prevailing inaccurate view of Australia's history.[74]

Additional and complementary approaches

4.67Along with constitutional, legislative and policy options for implementing UNDRIP in Australia outlined above, several other approaches were proposed by inquiry stakeholders. These proposals included a compliance audit of current legislation and government policies and programs; Closing the Gap; and protecting cultural heritage and traditional knowledge.

Compliance audit of legislation against UNDRIP Articles

4.68During the inquiry submitters and witnesses raised the issue that current legislative frameworks do not meet UNDRIP standards,[75] and that existing legislation and policies have not been reviewed for compliance with the Declaration.[76]

4.69Mr McAvoy SC noted the lack of an audit of existing legislation and government policies in the years since the Australia endorsed UNDRIP:

One thing that one would have thought would have occurred in that period is that the national legislation in particular would have been audited against that declaration, at least to know where the inconsistencies lie. The fact that that hasn't been done, to me, discloses a great lack of commitment to the principles set out in the declaration.[77]

4.70Mr McAvoy SC noted that, while an audit would require a considerable amount of work, an existing government agency or the Australian Human Rights Commission could undertake this work if properly resourced.[78] MrMcAvoy SC suggested there could be a host of benefits to conducting such an audit, including the introduction of a bill similar to Canada’s federal UNDRIP Act requiring harmonisations of laws with the Declaration.[79]

4.71The ANU’s First Nations Portfolio (FNP) recommended that the Australian Law Reform Commission be appointed to review and report on the consistency of current legislation with UNDRIP. FNP noted that this work should also include ‘articulating the scope and substantive meaning of key rights and developing an assessment standard to address ongoing issues of identifying inconsistencies with the UNDRIP inAustralia’.[80] In support of this recommendation, Professor Peter Yu, FNP Vice‑President, advised the Committee that as pre-existing legal frameworks interact and intersect with fundamental rights and interests a review would ‘…be able to adequately address the inadequacies of existing statues and practices’.[81]

4.72Similarly, World Vision and Voices of Influence Australia put that current legislation and policies should be reviewed for adherence against UNDRIP principles.[82] FVTOC suggested that the Government utilise the examples set by Canada and the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic), to review existing laws and policies related to Indigenous peoples.[83]

4.73Change the Record submitted that such a review should focus on laws and policies identified by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, Indigenous-led organisations and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.[84]

4.74NAAJA went further, recommending that all existing and proposed legislation and policies be reviewed against an impact statement prepared by an independent Indigenous advisory group to ensure there is no adverse impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.[85]

Cultural heritage and traditional knowledge protection

4.75There are several UNDRIP Articles that affirm Indigenous peoples’ rights to culture. For example, Articles 11 and 12 affirm the right to practise and revitalise cultural traditions and customs, along with the provision of effective mechanisms for the return and redress of cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without free, prior and informed consent, access to cultural sites and the repatriation of ceremonial objects and human remains.[86] Article 31 affirms the right to ‘maintain, control, protect and develop…cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions’ including the right to control, protect and develop intellectual property.[87]

4.76The Kimberley Aboriginal Law and Cultural Centre (KALACC) contends that the Government is not currently meeting its obligations under Articles 11 and 12 by failing to adequately enable and facilitate access to, and the repatriation of, ceremonial objects and human remains in the possession of Commonwealth institutions.[88] KALACC recommends the Commonwealth, State, and Territory Governments implement recommendations from the 2021 report Dhawura Ngilan: A vision for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage in Australia the Best Practice Standards in Indigenous cultural heritage management and legislation (Dhawura Ngilan).[89] Dhawura Ngilan was developed by Australian national, State and Territory heritage bodies and presented to the Heritage Chairs of Australia and New Zealand, to provide a framework for ‘improving approaches to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage management in Australia’.[90]

4.77KALACC suggested the Government implement the following three Dhawura Ngilan recommendations to ‘make considerable progress towards meeting its obligations under Articles 11 and 12’:[91]

• amend its policy on Indigenous repatriation of cultural materials to align with current governmental practices, working with the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) and communities to coordinate repatriation approaches[92]
• ‘work with Australian collecting institutions to return ancestors to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in a coordinated way’[93]
• recognise and prioritise the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to access and repatriate secret sacred materials held in Australia, both by institutions and private collectors[94]
  78. The New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council also stated to the Committee that the Commonwealth Government ‘is currently failing to ensure the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to the protection of their culture and the repatriation of their human remains’ under UNDRIP Articles 11 and 12. The ALC recommended that:
• all artefacts, cultural and ceremonial items, and ancestral remains be returned unconditionally
• all institutions, including universities recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities’ right to be involved in all stages of the repatriation process
• the development of a whole-of-government approach to the provision of access and culturally appropriate presentation of cultural materials.[95]
  79. TJC also advocated for acknowledgement of these rights affirmed by UNDRIP. Toprogress compliance with UNDRIP, TJC made several recommendations:
• improve cultural heritage protection by implementing the recommendations of Dhawura Ngilan
• improve the recognition of Indigenous cultural intellectual property (ICIP) and best practice guides such as AIATSIS’s Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research[96] and Screen Australia’s Pathways and Protocols: A filmmaker’s guide to working with Indigenous people, culture and concepts[97]
• establish a National Indigenous Cultural Authority to administer government and private sector engagement with and use of ICIP.[98]
  80. In its submission to the inquiry, the South Australia Government highlighted the efforts it has undertaken to align its repatriation efforts with UNDRIP, stating:

Guided by the UNDRIP, the South Australian Museum is actively correcting the wrongs of the past. With support from both the SA and Federal Governments, the South Australian Museum is leading Australia in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander repatriation policy and practice on behalf of all South Australians. TheSouth Australian Museum has adopted the UNDRIP as the foundation of its repatriation of Aboriginal ancestral remains, secret sacred objects and secular cultural heritage policies. Developed in consultation with Aboriginal leaders and communities, the policies reference UNDRIP article 12 and have recently facilitated repatriation of over 600 Aboriginal ancestral remains, 15 secret sacred objects and two secular artefacts to Aboriginal communities across Australia.[99]

4.81The South Australia Government has also recently introduced a bill to amend the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (SA) (the Act) intended to strengthen heritage protection laws in the State through ‘enhanced penalty provisions under the Act, including by introducing powers for the courts to make remedial, compensation and profit forfeiture orders against offenders who have breached the Act’s offences of damaging Aboriginal heritage’.[100]

Development of a Commonwealth Human Rights Act

4.82Throughout its inquiry the Committee received evidence on the need for greater human rights codification in Australia. The primary method suggested to the Committee for achieving this was through the creation of a federal Human Rights Act, similar to legislation adopted in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) in 2004,[101] Victoria in 2006,[102] and Queensland in 2019.[103] State and Territory Human Rights Acts are discussed in Chapter 2.

4.83The PJCHR is currently inquiring into Australia’s human rights framework. There was also an inquiry undertaken in 2008 by the National Human Rights Consultation Committee, chaired by Father Frank Brennan, which recommended Australia adopt a federal Human Rights Act.[104]

4.84The State and Territory Human Rights Acts in Australia adopt specific international human rights instruments as legal standards, create a commission to oversee those rights, and establish a framework for parliamentary scrutiny to ensure compatibility of new laws with the adopted human rights standards. While the Commonwealth does have a human rights commission (the AHRC) and parliamentary scrutiny framework (primarily exercised by the PJCHR),[105] it lacks a standalone statute which explicitly adopts international human rights standards as legally binding individual rights and freedoms.[106]

4.85The AHRC supports the adoption of a federal Human Rights Act and submitted that UNDRIP could be made a consideration under such as statute.[107] In its submission to the inquiry the AHRC recommended that:

A Human Rights Act should be passed which implements rights within the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, alongside key Declaration rights and principles, into Australian domestic law. The contents of the Human Rights Act as it relates to the Declaration should be developed in consultation with First Nations peoples.[108]

4.86On the effect of adopting a federal Human Rights Act the Law Council of Australia stated that, in its view:

[A] federal Human Rights Act would establish a strong ethos of respect for the fundamental rights of all Australians across the public and private sectors, including areas in which systemic racial discrimination has been found, such as within police, prisons, courts, aged care, disability services, child services, schools and hospitals. It would also foster a better parliamentary understanding of human rights, and, by extension, certain federal laws such as the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).[109]

4.87At its hearing on 31 March 2023, Dr Helen Watchirs OAM, President and Human Rights Commissioner, ACT Human Rights Commission, drew attention to the fact that Australia does not have a Commonwealth Human Rights Act compared to Canada and New Zealand. Stating that:

… Canada has a constitutional human rights act, and New Zealand has a statutory one, and we're the three nations with big issues in relation to our treatment of First Peoples. I think that's been very valuable in those countries, and it's a missing link in Australia. We don't have that positive obligation to act and make decisions consistently with human rights, which we do now at the local level in three states. I really like the Free and equal position paper talking about having a participation right to bring to life UNDRIP through having a new Human Rights Act. [110]

Committee comment

4.88The Committee heard from most witnesses and submissions about the strong alignment between the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

4.89The Committee notes the importance of self-determination and participation in decision-making, through free prior and informed consent, as well as First Peoples’ perspectives being central to the deliberation and development of policies, programs, legislation and decisions made about matters that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Committee notes that this is consistent with UNDRIP, particularly Articles 3, 18, 19 and 23. The Committee also recognises that facilitating formal mechanisms or institutions for this to occur is consistent with UNDRIP, particularly Articles 3, 4, 5, 18 and 19.

4.90A constitutionally enshrined Voice was one proposed mechanism to give effect to a representative body of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples for such a purpose. The Committee acknowledges and accepts the outcome of the referendum held on Saturday 14 October 2023, which resulted in a ‘No’ response to the question: ‘A proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?’.

4.91Based on the evidence heard throughout this inquiry, the Committee considers that the request in the Uluru Statement from the Heart for a Makarrata Commission to oversee a process of truth-telling and agreement-making remains consistent with the Articles outlined in UNDRIP, and with the evidence received during this inquiry.

4.92Based on the evidence received, and reflecting on the outcome of the referendum, the Committee considers that progressing a national process of truth-telling and human rights awareness is of utmost importance in order for Australia to pursue the realisation of rights outlined in UNDRIP and enhance public understanding of Australia’s history.

4.93The Committee notes the importance of Australia engaging fully with the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and other UN accountability mechanisms and treaty bodies, in order to continue to evolve and respond to best practice approaches.

4.94In this regard, the Committee observes that it may be beneficial to invite the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to undertake a country visit to work with the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments, as well as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to provide expert advice on options for implementing UNDRIP.

4.95The Committee is of the view that a National Action Plan should be developed to guide Australia’s implementation of UNDRIP and that the decision whether to adopt a legislative or non-legislative approach should be made in consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

4.96The Committee considers that the plan must be co-developed with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

4.97The Committee considers that further work is likely required to determine the best approach for coordination of such a plan across all levels of government, to ensure that local First Nations communities can benefit from any commitments.

4.98The Committee is of the view that the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth) should be amended to include UNDRIP in the definition of ‘human rights’ for consideration by the PJCHR under that Act. The Committee considers that this change offers a simple and fast reform option which is in line with the PJCHR’s recent practice.

4.99The Committee heard other complementary options (such as paragraphs 4.67–4.87) for implementing UNDRIP. TheCommittee considers these options should be considered in consultation with First Nations people, to assess whether they may be an appropriate way to further progress implementation of the Declaration.

4.100The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government ensure its approach to developing legislation and policy on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (including, but not limited to, Closing the Gap initiatives)be consistent with the Articles outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

4.101The Committee recommends development of a National Action Plan, in consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, that outlines the approach to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Australia.

4.102The Committee recommends that any National Action Plan should consider the legislative, policy, and other approaches to implement, and assess compliance with, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples across all jurisdictions and should seek to include coordination agreements with all levels of government to maximise success.

4.103The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government establish an independent process of truth-telling and agreement making, as requested by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, as a mechanism to support healing and assist implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (particularly Articles 3, 8, 11, 28, 32, and37).

4.104The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government work with State and Territory Governments and non-government education institutions to develop and adopt content for all levels of education, including for new citizens, in order to enhance awareness of:

• Australia’s human rights framework, including the relationship between the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and human rights covenants,
• Australian history in respect to the relevance of the legal fiction of ‘terranullius’ in facilitating the colonisation and settlement of Australia, and its impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and
• General civics awareness, including the functions and operations of Australian political and legal institutions.

4.105The Committee recommends that the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth) be amended to include the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the definition of ‘human rights’, so that it be formally considered by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights when scrutinising legislation.

Senator Patrick Dodson

Chair

22 November 2023

Footnotes

[1]Synot, E 2019, ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 70: Indigenous rights and the Uluru Statement from the Heart’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, vol. 73, no. 4, pages 320–325, p. 324, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10357718.2019.1631252, viewed 24 May 2023.

[2]Referendum Council, 2017, Final Report of the Referendum Council, https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/report_attachments/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf, viewed 31 October 2023, p. 29.

[3]Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, Explanatory Memorandum, pages7–8.

[4]Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR), 2023, Report 5 of 2023, p. 2.

[5]Senate 2023, Senate Journals no. 53, 19 June 2023, pages 1514–1515.

[6]United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc A/RES/61/295, 13September 2007.

[7]Federation of Victorian Traditional Owners Corporation (FVTOC), Joint Committee Submission 36, p. 32.

[8]FVTOC, Joint Committee Submission 36, p. 32.

[9]The Masig Statement, according to the Torres Shire Council, seeks self-determination, political participation and the free pursuit of economic, social and cultural development for people of the Torres Strait and Northern Peninsula.

[10]Torres Shire Council, Joint Committee Submission 4:1, p. 1.

[11]Torres Shire Council, Joint Committee Submission 4, pages 6, 10.

[12]Indigenous Allied Health Australia, Joint Committee Submission 12, p. 4.

[13]Kimberley Land Council, Joint Committee Supplementary Submission 22, p. 4.

[14]First Nations Portfolio, Australian National University, Joint Committee Submission 31, pages 4, 18.

[15]Law Council of Australia, Senate Committee Submission 60, p. 5; Terri Janke and Company, Joint Committee Submission 10, p. 5.

[16]Castan Centre for Human Rights, Joint Committee Submission 14, p. 7.

[17]Castan Centre for Human Rights, Joint Committee Submission 14, p. 7.

[18]Uluru Statement from the Heart, 2017, referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/2017-05/Uluru_Statement_From_The_Heart_0.PDF, viewed 5 October 2023.

[19]Castan Centre for Human Rights, Joint Committee Submission 14, p. 7; United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc A/RES/61/295, 13September 2007, Article 3, Article 5.

[20]Castan Centre for Human Rights, Joint Committee Submission 14, p. 8; Articles 18 and 19, UNDRIP.

[21]Dr Hannah McGlade, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 32.

[22]Sir Taihakurei Durie, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 23.

[23]FAIRA, Joint Committee Submission 13; Castan Centre for Human Rights, Joint Committee Submission 14, p. 8; NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Senate Committee Submission 30, p. 5.

[24]Castan Centre for Human Rights, Joint Committee Submission 14, p. 8.

[25]Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth) s. 2, s. 5.

[26]Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth) s. 7.

[27]Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth) s. 3 (definition of ‘human rights’).

[28]Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth) ss. 8–9.

[29]Attorney General’s Department, ‘Statements of Compatibility’, https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/statements-compatibility#:~:text=What%20must%20a%20Statement%20of,treaties%20which%20Australia%20has%20ratified, viewed 31 October 2023.

[30]Ms Anne Sheehan, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 June 2023, p .6.

[31]Mr Tony McAvoy, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 June 2023, p. 24.

[32]PJCHR, 2020, Annual Report 2020, p. 32.

[33]Emeritus Professor Jon Altman, Senate Committee Submission 44, pages 4–5.

[34]Mr David Lewis, General Counsel (Constitutional Law), Attorney General’s Department, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 June 2023, p. 6.

[35]Dr Watchirs, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 8.

[36]Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 16.

[37]Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 8.

[38]Committee Hansard, Canberra, 10 March 2023, p. 32.

[39]Mr Darren Dick, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 16.

[40]For example, see: Save the Children, Senate Committee Submission 3, p. 4; ACT Human Rights Commission, Senate Committee Submission 5, p.[8]; Law Council of Australia, Senate Committee Submission 60, p. 5.

[41]Emeritus Professor Jon Altman, Senate Committee Submission 44, p. 9.

[42]Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, UN Doc A/HRC/47/8, 24 March 2021, p.23.

[43]Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, UN Doc A/HRC/47/8/Add.1, 2 June 2021, p.3.

[44]Outcome document of the high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc A/69/L.1*, 15 September 2014, p. 2.

[45]Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, UN Doc A/HRC/47/8, 24 March 2021, p. 23.

[46]Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, UN Doc A/HRC/47/8/Add.1, 2 June 2021, p.3.

[47]Professor Charters, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 24.

[48]Mr Smith, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 10 February 2023, p. 8.

[49]Professor Charters, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 24.

[50]United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc A/RES/61/295, 13September 2007, Article 4, Article 10.

[51]Ms Kacey Teerman, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 19 May 2023, p. 23.

[52]Mr Darren Dick, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 21.

[53]Mr Darren Dick, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 17.

[54]Dr Hannah McGlade, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 35.

[55]Terri Janke and Company, Joint Committee Submission 10, p 4.

[56]Dr Helen Watchirs OAM, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 8.

[57]Ms Anne Sheehan, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 June 2023, p. 5.

[58]Ms Klintworth, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 19 May 2023, p. 22.

[59]Professor Claire Charters, Te Kaunihera Māori o Aotearoa, New Zealand Māori Council, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, pages 24, 27.

[60]Professor Claire Charters, Te Kaunihera Māori o Aotearoa, New Zealand Māori Council, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 27.

[61]Hon. Murray Rankin KC MLA, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 7.

[62]Mr Adam Broughton, Solicitor, Terri Janke and Company, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 June 2023, p.18.

[63]Mr Adam Broughton and Ms Neane Carter, Solicitors, Terri Janke and Company, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8June 2023, p. 19.

[64]United Nations 2013, Business Reference Guide to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, https://unglobalcompact.org/library/541, viewed 16 June 2023.

[65]Global Compact Network Australia, KPMG & University of Technology Sydney 2020, The Australian business guide to implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, https://unglobalcompact.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Australian-Business-Guide-to-Implementing-the-UN-Declaration-on-the-Rights-of-Indigenous-People_FINAL.pdf, viewed 16 June 2023.

[66]TJC, Joint Committee Submission 10, pages 5–6; Australian Human Rights Commission & National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples 2010, Community Guide to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-social-justice/publications/community-guide-un, viewed 16 June 2023.

[67]TJC, Joint Committee Submission 10, p. 6.

[68]North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency (NAAJA), Senate Committee Submission 47, p. 15.

[69]NAAJA, Senate Committee Submission 47, p. 15.

[70]Law Council of Australia, Senate Committee Submission 60, p. 28.

[71]Law Council of Australia, Senate Committee Submission 60, p. 28.

[72]Mr Smith, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 10 February 2023, p.14.

[73]Ms Leung, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 10 February 2023 p. 20.

[74]Mr Andersen, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 19 May 2023, p. 11.

[75]Centre for Law and Social Justice, Senate Committee Submission 36, p. 21.

[76]For example, see: UNSW Law Society, Senate Committee Submission 4, p. [4].

[77]Mr Tony McAvoy SC, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 June 2023, p. 22.

[78]Mr Tony McAvoy SC, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 June 2023, p. 24.

[79]Mr Tony McAvoy SC, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 June 2023, pages 22–23.

[80]Australian National University First Nations Portfolio (FNP), Joint Committee Submission 31, p. 6.

[81]Professor Peter Yu, Vice-President, FNP, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 10 March 2023, p.29.

[82]World Vision, Senate Committee Submission 81, p. 4; Voices of Influence Australia, Senate Committee Submission 9, p. 3.

[83]FVTOC, Senate Committee Submission 65, p. 3; United Nations, State of the World's Indigenous Peoples: Implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2019, p. 14; s. 41 Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic).

[84]Change the Record, Senate Committee Submission 16, pages 6–7.

[85]NAAJA, Senate Committee Submission 47, p. 15.

[86]United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc A/RES/61/295, 13September 2007, Articles 11–12.

[87]United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc A/RES/61/295, 13September 2007, Article 31.

[88]Kimberley Aboriginal Law and Cultural Centre (KALACC), Joint Committee Supplementary Submission 3.1, pages 3–4.

[89]KALACC, Joint Committee Supplementary Submission 3.1, pages 3–4.

[90]Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 2022, ‘Heritage Chairs and Officials of Australia and New Zealand’, https://www.dcceew.gov.au/parks-heritage/heritage/organisations/hcoanz, viewed 9 June 2023.

[91]KALACC, Joint Committee Supplementary Submission 3.1, pages 3–4.

[92]KALACC, Joint Committee Supplementary Submission 3.1, pages 3–4; Heritage Chairs of Australia and New Zealand 2021, Dhawura Ngilan: A vision for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage in Australia the Best Practice Standards in Indigenous cultural heritage management and legislation, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, p. 23, https://www.dcceew.gov.au/parks-heritage/heritage/publications/dhawura-ngilan-vision-atsi-heritage, viewed 9 June 2023.

[93]KALACC, Joint Committee Supplementary Submission 3.1, pages 3–4; Heritage Chairs of Australia and New Zealand 2021, Dhawura Ngilan: A vision for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage in Australia the Best Practice Standards in Indigenous cultural heritage management and legislation, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, p. 23, https://www.dcceew.gov.au/parks-heritage/heritage/publications/dhawura-ngilan-vision-atsi-heritage, viewed 9 June 2023.

[94]KALACC, Joint Committee Supplementary Submission 3.1, pages 3–4; Heritage Chairs of Australia and New Zealand 2021, Dhawura Ngilan: A vision for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage in Australia the Best Practice Standards in Indigenous cultural heritage management and legislation, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, p. 24, https://www.dcceew.gov.au/parks-heritage/heritage/publications/dhawura-ngilan-vision-atsi-heritage, viewed 9 June 2023.

[95]NSW ALC, Senate Committee Submission 49, p. 7.

[96]AIATSIS 2020, Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research, aiatsis-code-ethics-jan22.pdf, viewed 16 June 2023.

[97]Terri Janke 2009, Pathways and Protocols: A filmmaker’s guide to working with Indigenous people, culture and concepts, Screen Australia, https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/getmedia/16e5ade3-bbca-4db2-a433-94bcd4c45434/Pathways-and-Protocols.pdf, viewed 6 October 2023.

[98]TJC, Joint Committee Submission 10, pages 3, 6–7.

[99]South Australian Government, Joint Committee Supplementary Submission 49, p. 5.

[100]South Australian Government, Joint Committee Supplementary Submission 49, p. 7.

[101]Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT); (also see Human Rights Commission Act 2005 (ACT)).

[102]Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic).

[103]Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

[104]Australian Parliament, Parliament and the protection of human rights, Parliament and the protection of human rights – Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au), viewed 9 October 2023.

[105]Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth); Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth)

[106]Australia has reflected international human rights in its adoption of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), and Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth).

[107]AHRC, Senate Committee Submission 53, p. 26.

[108]AHRC, Senate Committee Submission 53, p. 28.

[109]Law Council of Australia, Senate Committee Submission 60, p 17.

[110]Dr Helen Watchirs OAM, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 11.