Talk:Australian Indigenous sovereignty

Annotated Aboriginal Sovereignty Movement References to Write into Article

This talk section "to do" list is being created to progressively grow an initial, chronologically arranged, annotated list of Australian Aboriginal Sovereignty and other references likely to be useful to making a significant upgrade of the 7 September 2018 "Australian Aboriginal Sovereignty" article:Bruceanthro (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Moved from talk page section to "to do" page, per User talk:Bruceanthro § Annotated Aboriginal Sovereignty Movement References to Write into Article. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The "Treaty" line as a conclusion is forced

...also paves the way for a treaty between the First Peoples and the Government of Australia.

Re. There is no reason to suggest Aboriginal Sovereignty naturally leads to a treaty.

The concluding line should be: ...the lack of a treaty is what leaves Aboriginal people Sovereign. 2001:8003:C8AB:CF00:247F:6E4F:9D7B:E63E (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Arguments against sovereignty

The article currently reads as one-sided, as it does not contain a section outlining the arguments against the concept of Aboriginal sovereignty. Sovereignty is a de-facto state of affairs, it doesn't need to be ceded in order to be extinguished, a group either has it or does not. Most Nazis never ceded sovereignty of governing Germany after WW2, but it didn't matter as the current government has de-facto control. In the case of Australia it is self-evident that it does not exist. 203.46.132.214 (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Wes sideman (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Voice sovereignty

Referendum question

The question to be put to the Australian people at the 2023 referendum will be: “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?”

Constitutional amendment The proposed law that Australians are being asked to approve at the referendum would insert a new section into the Constitution: "Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples 129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.” (from NIAA)

Where, in any of that, is the word "sovereignty"? While some may believe that this recognises Indigenous sovereignty, it is not the case, and we cannot say this in wikivoice without a source a whole lot better than some fan group. --Pete (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Pete. I'm not really sure what exactly you're objecting to here. The Uluru Statement, which calls for constitutional change, mentions sovereignty, and the Voice and referendum are then mentioned mainly because of Lidia Thorpe's invocation of the concept with relation to it. Feel free to change the wording if you feel it needs clarification. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I've twice removed statements claiming that the proposed referendum recognises Indigenous sovereignty in the constitution. It does no such thing. As noted, that word is not to be found in either the referendum legislation or the question to be put to the people. I feel disinclined to spend the next six months removing (possibly) well-meaning attempts to insert this falsehood in our article, hence this discussion. --Pete (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It was not clear from your comments what you were referring to. Tagging Safes007, who made the change, for future ref. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Skyring If we use the definition of indigenous sovereignty provided by the article of 'inherent rights deriving from spiritual and historical connections to land', the voice, which provides a right for indigenous people to make representations to government on matters affecting them, appears to fall under this definition. While this right legally will come about simply via the authority of the constitution, my understanding of the uluru statement is that this is also viewed as allowing indigenous sovereignty (which is seen not just in strict legal terms by Indigenous communities) to 'shine through' better. However, I don't mind either way if this disscussion comes outside of the initial paragraph. Safes007 (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Sovereignty means - in the exact sense the High Court would use to interpret the Constitution - the legal sense of "ultimate source of authority", which in Australia means the people voting through democratic processes and especially their sole ability to modify the Constitution as per s128. Ownership and food-gathering rights, as recognised in Mabo do not amount to sovereignty, no matter how much "sovereign citizens" might claim this. Given that the wording in the amendment and the question does not include any reference to sovereignty, however defined, it is hard to see how we can tell our readers that it does. --Pete (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

That may be true in a legal sense, but this article refers to the broader meaning of Indigenous Sovereignty. Indigenous sovereignty as per the definition above, is used as a broader political argument for Indigenous rights. This can take place within the legal system or outside it. For example, many people would say they have a right to freedom of speech, when no so right is recognised inherently (apart from freedom of political communication). However, that doesn't stop people arguing for a change in the law by reference to that right.

It's similar here. Indigenous people claim due to their prior occupation of Australia, they have certain rights (even if these aren't recognised by the legal system of Australia). By referencing this claim to indigenous sovereignty, they provide an argument for a law change and if the law changes, in their eyes, their sovereignty (read: certain rights) is therefore reflected in that law change.

However, a sentence like 'the concept differs from traditional western views of sovereignty which refers to the ultimate authority of a particular body, institution or people' may clarify. How does that sound? Safes007 (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick note, because I have not had and do not have much time for editing of late, but I created the "Meaning" section to explain the differing interpretations (not that I have a handle on the finer points myself yet). This could be expanded upon and referenced in other sections if necessary. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

One of the finer points: "60 million years." you say. Ummmm. --Pete (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what others may think constitutes sovereignty - that's the whole point of it; you don't get it by wishing you had it - because the Constitution is couched in precise language ultimately defined and interpreted by the High Court. In many places its actual meaning differs from what a simple reading of the words might imply. Sovereignty isn't a matter of juggling words about and imagining that they add up to something substantial. Using "sovereignty" in a discussion about constitutional amendments requires some pretty solid sourcing, otherwise it's a synthetic and misleading argument. Does the Prime Minister say that the referendum will recognise sovereignty in any form? It seems not. Does the High Court? --Pete (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, this is a different kind of sovereignty, not the kind already rejected by the High Court. There is no such thing as the 'actual' meaning of the term, as meaning follows use. There is a specific legal use of the term (which is addressed in the background section where the High Court rejects Indigenous sovereignty) and a broader use of the term (see for example pages 16-7 of the referendum report for Indigenous community views of sovereignty https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/report_attachments/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf).

If you wish to make edits to the meaning section to make this difference more clear in the article, that could be a solution. The use of the word 'recognise' is also probably too strong, so a direct quote from the Uluru statement of 'With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood.' may be useful as you are correct that the Voice by itself won't recognise sovereignty. Safes007 (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that Gilbert and Coe had any different notion of sovereignty, whether Indigenous or not. Certainly there is a general view that sovereignty was never ceded and that this sovereignty is exactly the same as anyone else's. The High Court has repeatedly said that this is not the case but there are those who don't accept this and see "Indigenous sovereignty" as something more than land ownership and food-gathering rights etc. This guy with a double-barrelled English surname, for example. Using the word "sovereignty" at all is confusing because there will always be some who, deliberately or not, seek to present its use in the same way as that accepted by nation-states throughout the world in the concept of supreme authority within a national boundery. --Pete (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Skyring I agree with you that some indigenous people view sovereignty in the more western way, but this is addressed in the 2nd paragraph of the meaning section. I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. Again feel free to add that source to the section under meaning to clarify that the word has different meanings if that's your issue. Safes007 (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

My concerns about the objectives of the upcoming referendum are met by removing the reference. Sovereignty, in the context of the Constitution, can only mean the generally accepted sense. We simply cannot say in wikivoice that the amendment recognises Indigenous sovereignty in any form if it is not mentioned at all. I'm happy with the current wording.

However, on looking through some of the sources we use to support our article, I'm finding only one in support of the more limited meaning of "ownership, spiritual connection, food-gathering and other rights". Mabo, the High Court case justly recognising these inherent rights does not itself use the term "sovereignty" to cover them.

In fact, all the references we use bar one assert that Indigenous sovereignty is ultimate Indigenous authority and power, to the point of issuing passports and stamps, proclaiming Indigenous States, signing treaties and so on.

In reading the references, another point arises. If Indigenous sovereignty includes Torres Strait Islanders, as we say it does, then just how did they achieve this? These people arrived well after the first Australians and must necessarily have displaced the pre-existing Aboriginal people in their occupation of the islands and subsequent progress down the Cape York peninsula. I find it hard to believe that it could have been through means other than conquest or settlement. If we were to posit some treaty or other peaceful acquisition then it makes a mockery of the common claim that Aboriginal sovereignty was never ceded. If the Torres Strait Islanders have sovereignty over their land, then where is the distinction between that sovereignty and the later claims of the British Empire? --Pete (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)