 Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for coming. I'm Stan Grant, I'm going to be the facilitator over the next couple of days of this really important meeting that we're going to have here. I also want to pay my respects to the Ngunnawal and Nambri people for allowing us to meet here on their land, in fact, my own family and Artie Matilda is here today as well, so thank you for allowing us in Artie Matilda and thank you for that welcome this morning. I want to welcome our special guests today, you're all special guests, but I do need to point out a few, our parliamentarians, Linda Birney, Ken Wyatt, who I, is Ken here? I'm sure he'll be coming. Ken Wyatt, Senator Patrick Dodson, good to see you here. Gareth Evans, Chancellor of the ANU, Brian Smith, Vice-Chancellor of ANU and Mick Dodson, who is here as well. We're going to be hearing from a number of international and domestic guests throughout the day. We're going to have morning tea at 10.30, we'll break and then come back in to continue our discussions. During the lunch break, starting at 12.40, there'll be a public hearing on the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition. All delegates are invited to attend that. I also want to point out, if some of you haven't downloaded it yet, the forum app, ANU forums, can be downloaded at the App Store, the app will feature updates, notifications about buses and also participants to communicate with each other inside the app as well. Now, we're going to be taking questions at the end of each of the sessions, questions from the floor and questions online as well, if delegates can submit questions via Slido, s-l-i-dot-d-o, if they do not feel comfortable asking those questions in person. I also want to thank those watching online as well because the event here is being streamed live. And just a final reminder, I'm sure that all of you were aware of this anyway and have abided by it, but no pens allowed, just pencils inside the chamber and no food or drink as well. Just want to also talk about the spirit of the discussion here. Obviously people have come to this discussion in good faith and that we hope we can have a really productive conversation. We can deal with these important issues that are facing our communities. It's a, I made this point yesterday in the briefing at the ANU, but it's a critical time to be having these discussions. The issues that face Indigenous peoples around the world sit at the heart of the questions that we're asking about the future of our political order. I don't think at any time, certainly since the end of the Cold War, but post World War II, have we seen a challenge such as this to the idea of the liberal democracies that we've all enjoyed in our societies? The rise of China has clearly presented an alternative authoritarian models that is presenting a real challenge to the future of the West. And we've seen also the rise of nationalism and the challenges to the idea of the nation-state and where do people sit within that idea of the nation-state, particularly those from Indigenous communities who traditionally and historically have felt estranged or left out of the idea of the nation. We're going to be looking over the next couple of days at the various innovations, the various programs and policies that different countries have adopted here to deal with political representation. We're going to be hearing from speakers talking about their own particular experiences in their countries and what may be adaptable here, what lessons could be learned, but also what is distinct about the Australian challenge. Our first session looks at the question of how the First Nations fit into the governance model around the world. I'd like to introduce our first speaker now on this, Victoria Tolly-Corpers, who is the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples from the UN Philagons. Victoria? Yeah, just at the lectern. Yeah, if you could speak from the lectern, and then we'll go back to your seating and then we'll take questions. So if each speaker just come to the lectern one-half another, yes, Nick. Thank you very much, Stan. I would like to start by acknowledging the traditional owners of this land in Munawal people and pay my respects to their elders, to their ancestors and the generations to come for they hold the memories, the traditions and future of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples across the nation. I also thank the Australian National University for organizing this event and for inviting me to participate and share my views on the issue at hand. It is very timely to hold this forum primarily because of the present mood here in Australia, but also because many Indigenous peoples in various parts of the world are actively engaged in operationalizing their right to self-determination. I was asked to answer the question, how do the First Nation people fit into the governance model around the world? Of course, this changes a long time because in the past, after colonization and when the nation-states were established, the Indigenous peoples still suffer the same kind of marginalization and discrimination, but in these times, as mentioned by our moderator, the trend of authoritarianism and narrow nationalism has been increasing and this will of course affect the way Indigenous peoples are going to be regarded. My response to the question will be to share with you my observations in many of the countries I visited in my capacity as the UN special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples. As I am also preparing a thematic study on Indigenous governance, which I will be presenting to the General Assembly next year, some of my initial findings will feed into this presentation and before I end, I will try to talk about what are the lessons that can be learned, which the Indigenous peoples in Australia can use. While I am aware that the focus of this seminar is on the experiences and treaty building, I will not dwell so much on these as the experts on these from the US, Canada, and New Zealand are speaking as well. Many Indigenous peoples in various parts of the world are self-governing before they were colonized. Their governance systems evolved from their desire to forge and maintain peace within their territories and with their neighbors and to ensure their own well-being and their cultures. In studying many of the histories of Indigenous peoples before colonization, one can see the sophisticated ways in which they manage their own landscapes and seascapes, the knowledge they had to be able to do this, the cultural heritage and wealth they evolved and the governance systems they established. Colonization brutally destroyed many of these, which remains a historical debt of colonizers. But most new nation states, which emerged from the ashes of colonization, still replicated the governance structures of the colonizers, which facilitated the internal colonization of Indigenous peoples. This is why when the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was being negotiated, those of us who were in the halls of the UN insisted that Article III on the right of self-determination remains unqualified despite the resistance of most states. We argued that the right to self-determination has already been enshrined in Article I, Section II of the Charter of the United Nations, Article I, the common Article I of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. As Indigenous Peoples are peoples, this right then should equally apply to us. It was a battle waged from 1985 until 2007, when the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was finally adopted. Article III simply says, Indigenous Peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Many Indigenous representatives recalled how their ancestors fought against colonizers and insisted that Indigenous governance systems be recognized. At that point, legal pluralism was already being promoted as an idea that states should accept. Those who forged treaties and developed constructive arrangements spoke about the history of how these treaties were forged and the crucial importance of getting states to honor and respect these treaties. This is Article 37.1 of the Declaration. The Declaration further elaborated on the right to self-determination in many of its subsequent articles. Article IV affirms that Indigenous Peoples have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs. Article V recognized that Indigenous Peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions while retaining their right to participate fully if they so choose in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the state. Furthermore, the Declaration established that Indigenous Peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which affect their rights through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures as well as to maintain and develop their own Indigenous decision-making institutions. This is Article 18 of the Declaration. Getting the right to self-determination of Indigenous Peoples recognized internationally was difficult, but we succeeded even if it took many years. But having this right recognized in national constitutions and laws and operationalizing these at the national and local levels is another battle which is even more complex and difficult. However, because of the tenacity and determination of Indigenous Peoples, we can now cite success stories in terms of getting this right recognized in national constitutions and laws and being implemented. As we can see in the cases I will cite, there are different paths to achieving this right. Some Indigenous Peoples mobilized in their numbers to get the constitutional reforms needed to recognize Indigenous Peoples' rights in general and the right to self-determination in particular. Others entered into treaty agreements and other constructive arrangements which defined the relationships of Indigenous Peoples with state authorities. I will focus on what Indigenous Peoples and some of the developing countries have achieved because, as I said earlier, there are colleagues here from the countries where the treaty processes have been more developed and are still existing up to now. If we look around the world, we can see the diversity of processes and ways in which various governance models in different countries have included respect for Indigenous Peoples' rights. The earliest approach, which happened during colonization and even beyond, was the forging of treaty agreements between states and Indigenous Peoples. We can say that there are good treaties and bad treaties and the quality of these depend a lot on the balance of power between the negotiating parties. It is important for us to understand how these processes happened, what lessons were learned from this, and to know what is the present state of implementation of these treaties and what are the steps being taken to use the lessons learned for better implementation. Bringing about constitutional reforms is another approach. In countries where treaties are absent, Indigenous movements struggled for the recognition of their rights in their constitution or through national laws. This is what I see in several countries, especially in Latin America. In Latin America and other countries like Norway, among others, the ratification of ILO Convention Number 169, the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention of 1989 was instrumental in the recognition of their rights in national law. However, to date, only 22 countries ratified this Convention and two-thirds of these are in Latin America. Indigenous Peoples in that region, which ratified ILO 169, persist in invoking their rights under this Convention and pressuring the states to implement these. The underlying factor which brought about these reforms of the laws is the strength of the Indigenous Peoples movement at the national level. Usually, they are able to build their capacities to mobilize in a sustained manner and to agree on common declarations which are then presented to relevant authorities for action. It also matters that Indigenous Peoples are able to create networks in alliances with other populations and peoples inside and outside of the country. Let me now move to some examples of constitutional reforms and how Indigenous Peoples have used these. In Peru, the 1993 Constitution recognizes the legal personality of peasant and native communities and guarantees their autonomy and respect of their organization, community work, the use and free disposal of their land with regard to economic and administrative matters. Furthermore, various laws recognize the land ownership rights of the same peasant and native communities, though limited by the rights of the state to renewable and non-renewable resources as well as mineral resources and hydrocarbons on the land. In one of my working visits to Peru, I met representatives of the One Piece Nation. The One Piece Indigenous Peoples is just one example of how Indigenous Peoples and Peru have on their own initiated processes of establishing autonomous Indigenous governments related to their territories. In 2015, after years of internal consultations, consultation processes, they adopted the statute of the autonomous territorial government of the One Piece Nation with the aim to protect and promote their cultural traditions and protect the environment on their lands in the Peruvian Amazon. The statute recognizes the territorial boundaries of Peru and confirms that the men and women of the One Piece Nation are also Peruvian citizens with the same rights and duties. The One Piece Nation involves state administration authorities and seek collaboration on various issues. In fact, when I was meeting with them, they showed me a map, which was so sophisticated that shows where their territories are. It's such a wide expanse of territory. And they also showed me copies of their statute, which were written in their own language and in Spanish. So I asked them, are you recognized by the government? They said, well, we are not asking to be recognized, we're just asking them to accept that we have established ourselves as a nation and that they should relate with us on that basis. And I asked whether they are facing some adverse actions from the government. And they said, no, because we told them that we are also Peruvian citizens. We are not sissiding, we are just asserting that this is our nation. So that's one example of what I saw in the region. Another example was in Mexico. I did an official visit in Mexico last year. And when we talk about Mexico, we most commonly know that the common knowledge we have of Mexico is that it is a country riddled with drug-related criminality and violence. And this is true. However, indigenous peoples themselves are developing and strengthening their own systems of autonomy and self-government. In my report of this country visit, I cited the examples of communities where the election of municipal authorities are done in accordance with their indigenous usages and customs. Some of these efforts have been recognized by federal and state authorities, which is a good practice, such as the Electoral Tribunal's decision on the case of Sharon in Michoacan. Article II of the Mexican Constitution recognizes the right to self-determination in autonomy of indigenous peoples, stipulating though, that the particular characteristics of self-determination are to be established on state level. These article states, the Constitution recognizes and guarantees the right of indigenous peoples and communities to self-determination and in consequence, autonomy. Two, one, decide their internal forms of living and social, economic, political, and cultural organization. Two, apply their own standards and regulation in solution of their internal conflicts. And three, elect in accord with their traditional standards, procedures, and practices, authorities, or representatives for the exercise of their own forms of government. The example of Sharon is quite amazing. San Francisco, Sharon is an indigenous territory of the Poripitcha people, which is in the state of Michoacan in Mexico. Its land area is 221,000 square kilometers and has a population of 16,000. It was one of the most violent places in Mexico between 2008 and 2011. They experienced the worst forms of insecurity and violence because the municipal authorities were in cahoots with the organized criminal syndicates who have deforested almost 70% of their forest. These criminals extorted, threatened, kidnapped, and murdered the villagers. The lagers are linked closely with the drug cartels and Michoacan being a drug transit and a producing state. The Poripitcha people have the distinction of being the only indigenous peoples who have successfully resisted the Aztec empire even before Spanish colonization. On April 15, 2011, the Poripitcha women first mobilized to stop 200 trucks loaded with timber from leaving their territory. They were joined by the men which when things were getting very nasty. Hit men arrived together with the municipal police to attack the protestors who were just armed with sticks, stones, and fire. They succeeded in driving away the lagers. Then they went to the municipality to drive away the local officials who are working together with the syndicates. They barricaded the community so that the ones causing the trouble will not be able to come in. Then on April 23 of that same year, they went to Morelia, the capital of Michoacan to inform the authorities that from then on, they will be the ones governing themselves. On June 1, 2011, the community general assembly decided not to take part in the elections for the state governors and legislators and the municipal presidents. Instead, they decided to exercise their right to appoint their own authorities through their own systems. The state authorities tried to stop all this in September. They filed, the Poripitcha people filed a case before the Electoral Institute of Michoacan to declare, the Electoral Institute of Michoacan declared that this move is illegal as the Poripitcha have no authority to organize their elections. They brought their case before the Federal Electoral Tribunal and in November 2, the tribunal ruled in favor of the people of Charan. It affirmed that under the national law, they have the right to request that they elect their own authorities using their customary laws and systems and it ordered the Electoral Institute of Michoacan to organize this election after free and informed consultation with the entire community. A process was undertaken to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of the community to decide whether or not it wanted to appoint its new authorities through its customary laws and systems. The result of the consultation was positive. In January 2012, a democratic election was held and the first indigenous municipal government called Greater Council of Communal Government composed of 12 seniors chosen among the communeros and communeras, three for each of the four districts. There is no hierarchy among them that is to say all occupy the same position within the communal government. They appointed for a three-year period, 2012 to 2015 and they also organized the Ronda Communitaria who are the ones ensuring peace and security in communities. Shortly after the appointment of the first council, the community went to the Federal Supreme Court of Justice to file a case against the governor and the Congress of the state of Michoacan for revising the political constitution in relation to indigenous rights without consulting them. The Federal Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that Sharon has a dual character as both a municipality and as an indigenous community. It also established that in its capacity as an indigenous municipality, Sharon must be consulted on all legislative and administrative matters that interests or affect them as a community and as an indigenous municipality. The successes of Sharon in the tribunals led to the second election of local authorities and to the second council of communal government on September, 2015. The electoral law was changed to recognize and include elections using customary laws and systems. I was also able to visit other communities in the states of Chihuahua, Guerrero and Chiapas and in Chiapas, they established autonomous municipalities which such as the, and they established indigenous initiatives such as the movement for the defense of life and territory. Another example is Panama. The constitution of Panama contains key provisions for safeguarding the rights of the country's indigenous peoples including the right to autonomy in Article 90. Moreover, it stipulates that the state shall recognize and respect the ethnic identity of indigenous communities and that the lands required by indigenous communities to ensure their economic and social well-being will be set aside and that their collective ownership of these lands will be maintained. This led to the establishment of the five Comarcas or indigenous territories in Cunayala, in Berawunan, Madungandi, Ngobi Bogli and Dwargandi between 1938 to 2000. The details of the territorial self-governance arrangements are set out in the laws providing for the establishment of the Comarcas as well as in the Comarcas own charters which were adapted by executive decree and govern internal affairs as well as relations between the government and traditional authorities. Indigenous peoples elect their own leaders in the Comarcas which are covered by Cuna traditions and customs and makes its own decision within the framework stipulated by the constitution and legislation. And finally, the example of the Philippines in my own country where we were because of the movement that we have established in the late 1970s, we managed to get the constitution of the Philippines to recognize our rights. We started negotiating early enough and after the ouster of the Marcos dictatorship, a new constitution was established in 1987 and this recognized our rights. 10 years after that, the government established adapted the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 and this Indigenous Peoples Rights Act has articles 13 which says that the state recognizes the inherent rights of indigenous peoples to self-governance and self-determination in respects the integrity of their values, practices and institution. Consequently, the state shall guarantee the right of indigenous peoples to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. So these are just a few examples of what indigenous peoples have achieved in terms of asserting their right to self-determination and challenging the government to accept that their own legal systems, their own governance systems are still exist despite all the efforts done to destroy this and that they should in fact use and acknowledge and support the continuing use of these governance systems. So I guess just to conclude, I would like to say that I guess for the Australian indigenous peoples who are now in this stage of developing, trying to develop a treaty and also getting constitutional reform, I think that the examples that the other indigenous peoples, even in the countries which are so-called developing countries can give us insights in terms of how indigenous peoples themselves can really achieve the aims and the goals of getting the rights recognized by the government and allowing them to operationalize these in their own territories. As I said earlier, one of the main underlying factor in how this has happened is really the strength of the indigenous peoples movement, their capacity to unite among themselves on specific declarations and I can see this also with your Uluru Declaration and a statement and their capacity to be able to mobilize networks and allies to help and support them in this process of achieving this goal. The existing international frameworks that are of course adapted by most governments is also an additional tool that can be used and the opinions and the views also of treaty bodies as well as regional courts can also help. Of course here in the Pacific and Asia we don't have such a thing as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights nor the African Commission on Peoples and Human Rights but I think that the UN is a body where we can also bring all these issues and get the views of the various treaty bodies to say what they think about the efforts that are being undertaken here in Australia. So there is a wealth of experiences that are there, a lot of the experiences have not been easy. I mean clearly it's the mobilizing factor that is really going to help but the public opinion as well and of course the use of media and now with the social media, those are tools that we can use effectively to raise awareness about our demands as well as to convince the governments and the people that it is in their self interest to recognize and to fit the governance models of indigenous peoples in the overall national governance. It's also an opportunity to speak about the fact that there is not one single story about governance. There are indigenous peoples who have their own governance systems. Some of this they will try to accommodate the modern system but give them the freedom to be able to decide that for themselves and tell their own stories so that the aspiration for self determination and self governance is going to materialize. So I'd like to end here and I'd like to thank you all for listening. Thank you Victoria. Our second speaker is Fernand de Varanich, the special reporter on minority issues at the United Nations. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Chancellor Schmidt, Chancellor Evans, elders, parliamentarians, distinguished colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, mesdames et messieurs, bonjour. Good morning. I acknowledge the Ngunnawal people, the traditional custodians of the land in which we're meeting. I also wish to express my gratitude to our generous host, ANU and the many others involved in this momentous event and allowing me the pleasure, honor and privilege of maybe contributing a few thoughts on and joining in today's reflections on a much needed critical conversation on your future government structures. My name is Fernand de Varanich. My first language is French. My cultural background is North American. And 20 years ago, I became a citizen of Australia. I am Australian and among other things. But those words, I am Australian, reminds me of a song made famous in the 1990s by the seekers with lyrics which began, as it should, with the story of the dream time and the first peoples of this land. One part of the song captures something of perhaps the essence of this forum and don't worry, I'm not going to sing. We are one, but we are many. And from all the lands on the earth we come, we'll share a dream and sing with one voice. I am, you are, we are Australian. But how do you reconcile all the differences? The different languages, cultures and religions, they make that make up the reality of who we are as individuals, of our human diversity. And as my colleague Victoria Tauley Corpus, so rightly pointed out a few minutes ago, the particular position of indigenous peoples, such as the first nations here in Australia, who are not only individuals, but also just as importantly, members of pre-existing political, social, and legal entities, which were self-governing, and which did not entirely lose their sovereignty. It's a matter of balance and this equilibrium of how to reconcile the structures of a state, so that it reflects also the linguistic, cultural, and even religious preferences of all its populations, all of its peoples, and not only the majority. How do you reconcile this reality and complexity of our very human differences is something which I often deal with in my mandate as special rapporteur on minority issues. Now, indigenous peoples are not synonymous with minorities. They're not identical groups. Indigenous peoples being political, social, and legal communities, while minorities, at least in relation to the United Nations, we look at them more as a numerical category of a language, religious, or cultural group, and whether or not they are more than half of the population of the country. But there can be, and quite often, there are overlapping issues and challenges in a number of ways, in a number of areas, and this is where perhaps there may be some utility in looking at some of the situations and states that I have been involved or looked at. Each individual is different and unique, as is each country. The basic premise that we have at the United Nations system, as indicated in the very first preambular paragraph of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and unalienable rights of all members of the human family. And these are considered in the UN system as the very foundations of freedom, justice, and peace in the world. And we seek to achieve this through promoting respect for human rights and by progressive measures in order to try to secure the universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of member states themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. My colleague, the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, has highlighted how this is to be affected partially on the basis of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and examples for indigenous peoples in other parts of the world. You'll also be hearing later today from members of peoples from Europe, Canada, the United States, and New Zealand. And though many probably share, and many probably share the acknowledgement not only that they are indigenous peoples are custodians, the custodians of the territory, or the first inhabitants of the territory, but they are also entitled to a form of self-determination that encapsulates part of their sovereignty, which has never completely been ceded or extinguished. In my own work, with minorities and other communities, who themselves often have longstanding political, legal, and cultural claims to some form of autonomy, I often, or I come across demands for recognition, if not sovereignty, at least of some way for them to express, to exercise effective political participation and control over their lives, and the most important aspects of their identity in matters of culture, language, or religion. Once again, every situation is different. But you have minorities such as the Swedish minority in the olden islands of Finland, who despite quite a small population, they're only about 29,000, they have an autonomous government with legislative and other powers over almost all matters on their territory, to the point that they could be described as a almost a semi-independent political entity. In a country such as Ethiopia, which by the way, it's much more diverse than the situation here in Australia, its constitution recognizes sovereignty as residing in different nations, nationalities, and peoples, and goes on to reflect this with a federal structure that tries to reflect through the territorial units of the Federation, at least the largest ethnic groups, which have powers of taxation in some areas and powers in areas such as language, education, public services, and so forth. You have Bolivia, with a constitution that recognizes that state as a pluricultural and plurinational entity. That's what the state is officially. It is designated officially as the plurinational state of Bolivia. And the constitution actually enshrines this and recognizes this also in practical terms, such as recognition of customary laws, recognition that teaching in indigenous languages is guaranteed where possible, there are a few restrictions, but it is actually guaranteed that it takes the shape even of tertiary education. You have three public universities in Bolivia that are bilingual. They teach partially in Spanish, but partially in one of the three main indigenous languages of that country. It's a huge step when you consider the history of Bolivia that essentially denied the equality of its indigenous populations. Legislation also guarantees basically a quota system in terms of employment in the civil service so that indigenous people have access to employment opportunities, but also that they participate in the structures of the state in a way that tries to reflect their reality on the ground, their demographic reality in that country. You have also, and I think this is quite symbolically important, but it's symbolically important in a way that affects the mind in that country. Most of the armed forces, the police forces, many of the civil servants in Bolivia will wear a patch on their uniforms. It represents a flag in reality, but the flag is the Wifala, which is the multicultural national symbol of Bolivia. That is a flag that represents all indigenous peoples of the Andes. And once again, this is actually an extremely powerful symbol in a state which until relatively recently tried to deny any significance to about half of its population. Most government officials have a patch that recognizes the indigenous people of that country, and I cannot diminish the importance that has symbolically, because symbols is quite important in a number of areas. I think it's also important that we recognize the trends, the evolution that seems to have occurred since about the 1980s. I think there is a global trend, acknowledging indigenous peoples as legal subjects, empowered to express themselves and participate, not only as citizens, but also as collectivities. And it's a recent phenomenon, but one which is accepted internationally as part of the human rights architecture, including through the principle of self-determination and sovereignty that you find in the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people. I could have mentioned many other examples, Nepal, India, Belgium, even Switzerland, where you have respectively, in the last two examples anyway, three or and four different official languages and various autonomy arrangements in place to reflect the reality on the ground in relation to their populations. I think the main point here is that through constitutional and other practical means, legislation and others, these countries have sought to be inclusive rather than merely tolerance. They've gone beyond the mirage of one nation, one language and one culture, and they've attempted through constitutional, legislative and practical means to reflect the reality of their history and of their populations and all of their populations by acknowledging that they are made up of different individuals, but also different communities, including indigenous peoples. What they are also are different examples of social and political choices being made, whether to maintain historically determined structures of governance and power that perpetuate inequality and exclusion or do you put into place structures of governments which is closer to reality, the reality of the diversity and makeup of the population itself. Some of these governance structures with by autonomy, by federalism, by some symbolic or other concrete acknowledge the concrete measures, acknowledge the sovereignty and existence of self governments of indigenous peoples as political, social and legal entities within a state. And what I think we need to focus on and remember is that they were able to accommodate these. None of these examples that I've mentioned are perfect. In some cases, the processes involved have taken a very long time. In others, they're still continuing and I think I should say in all cases, they still continue to evolve. And for some of these examples, well, we have to be honest. They are actively resisted or in fact, maybe even barely tolerated by segments of society. From my point of view, a special opeter, they are all examples of the application of international human rights standards. Obligations on states like Australia to recognize that not everyone in this country are white-angle-saction Christians. And that the reality of our human diversity should be a better balance of not winner or dominant wins all, takes all. Because you have to keep in mind that unfortunately in many states, the winner is in many cases always the dominant majority. It's not my place to propose what is appropriate for the very different context surrounding the many indigenous peoples of Australia. And that needs to be part of a conversation and reflection among indigenous peoples themselves as well as with parliamentarians, academia and members of the general public. You all have to talk about this. But just let me point out that around the world, constitutions have moved increasingly towards a more multicultural and plurie national approach. And they've abandoned many of them, not all of them, but many of them have abandoned earlier unitary state and assimilationist policies. And many of them give greater weight to a plurie cultural vision of development and well-being. And although it has significant symbolic value, many contain constitutional recognition as a first step, and I want to emphasize this, only as a first step towards a fuller exercise of indigenous rights, usually cultural, territorial and autonomy related. It's a vision worth exploring. It is a vision of a meaningful or more meaningful and inclusive move forward that could, no, that should be part of any national conversation on governance structures. There are a couple of things we need to keep in mind. We've talked a lot and there's a lot of discussion on constitution, but the constitution is not a panacea. But it is one step towards concrete measures to be taken on the ground and an extremely important first step which sets the tone afterwards. So I hope this is an aspect that will be considered very closely. There needs to be, and this is from looking at different situations in different parts of the world, there needs to be the development of a constitutional model that is appropriate for the country, for its particularities, for its situation, because the reality of indigenous peoples in different countries, including here in Nasseria, is completely different from the conditions that you may have in another. To manage expectations, any process should recognize that there are no absolute rights. And you're welcome. While acknowledging and seeking to balance indigenous peoples' rights as individuals and their collective rights also as political entities with a degree of self-governance or sovereignty rights. And any discussion should seek a judicious balance between indigenous territorial self-government or autonomy and broader interests for both indigenous peoples and the rest of the nation. And finally, it should take into account, and I'm talking about examples from other parts of the world, some lessons perhaps we can extract from these. It should take into account and reflect as much as possible the cultural richness and diversity among indigenous peoples themselves. There are much more practical reflections I could share with you, but time is short, I've been told and I've talked a bit. And it is among yourselves in any event that these matters and approaches from around the world need to be explored and discussed in a very frank way. What the structures and approaches I've very, very briefly described are how to be not only tolerant, but inclusive. They are acknowledgements of the reality on the ground and particularly in relation to indigenous peoples as my colleague has described so effectively earlier must question historically determined structures of governance and power that have for too long perpetuated inequality and exclusion in Australia. Australia, all states are not neutral. Historically, we all know that this to be the case until recently they have been able to exclude the nigh and even deny the very presence or existence of indigenous peoples in this land. And despite the real progress you've started to make since the 1960s, much needs to be done. And in-depth reflection and discussion still needs to occur on what indigenous peoples want and what can be and what can the dream of a truly inclusive and equal Australia achieve. Finally, some of the examples I gave illustrate that recognizing indigenous peoples as political, social, and legal intent. Excuse me, it's early in the morning. Entities is not dangerous, destructive, or unrealistic. It works in many parts of the world, not perfectly, not perfectly, I do, nor to the satisfaction of everyone, but it does show that there is nothing to be scared of in my work with the United Nations. I have, on the contrary, found that seeking to promote and protect through human rights, the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family has worked. It has been the foundation of justice, peace, and stability. Equality and non-discrimination does not mean uniformity or only one language or one culture or one nation in order to have a state. A country should and can reflect its plurality, including that of first nations within it. So I wish you a fruitful conversation and hopefully as the song at the beginning suggested, you dream of an inclusive Australia with structures of governance that acknowledge the right of self-determination. Indigenous peoples are entitled to so you can truly reflect your diversity, a diversity that it enriches this country and that this song, the song with one voice, will sing these differences as something that it enriches Australia. And that you find the mara, I think is the word, the pathways to respect equality. So that you truly and proudly can all sing, we are one, but we are many. And from all the lands on earth we come, we'll share a dream and sing with one voice. I am, you are, we are Australia. Thank you. Monsieur Vérin, merci beaucoup, très officier. I would like now to introduce our third speaker, Hilary Charlesworth, Melbourne Laureate Professor Co-Director of Studies, Cuban Rights Law University of Melbourne, thank you. Anything, Stan? I'd like to start as everybody else has with acknowledging traditional owners of the land on which we're meeting, the Ngunnawal people and pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging. I'd like to pay my respects to all the Indigenous people present. I'm very conscious. I'm a white Australian talking about these issues. I was struck coming in this morning. It seems quite significant that we're meeting here in Old Parliament House, which has, as was referred to this morning, the House itself, this very chamber, has played an important role in the modern history of First Nations with the passage of legislation that was referred to. But of course, as you come in, you also see opposite the Tent Embassy established in 1972, which is a symbol of, I think, the unanswered claims to Aboriginal sovereignty. And it's a very moving thing to encounter that on this frosty morning. Well, we've had courtesy of our distinguished visitors an inspiring overview of the international legal standards with respect to Indigenous peoples and minorities. And these standards of course give content to the meaning of First Nations human rights and the right to self-determination at the global level. But I've been given the task of considering how these standards have been translated in Australia. And I think to give you my answer straight away, the story I think that emerges is that the position of First Nations in Australia has largely been developed ignoring international developments. And it's been shaped by very limited notions of justice. I did have some images to accompany the talk, which was not possible to show, but they are on the app. If you're able, unlike me, to download the app, you can see some images that illustrate some of these historical moments. So where we always start, usually as lawyers, is with the Australian Constitution, the founding document of modern Australia adopted in 1901. It of course has historic and legal significance as the basis of the agreement of the Australian colonies to federate. And like most constitutions, it has a super legal status because unlike ordinary legislation that can be amended or appealed by parliament, any change requires quite an elaborate procedure. But given the 60,000 year history of First Nations people in Australia, when you pick up this document, which has been amended a few times, it's a shock to realize that our constitution, even when it was adopted, barely referred to them, the preamble, if you look at the preamble constitution, it takes for granted the complete assertion of Crown authority in an unproblematic way. Now in 1901, there were just two references to indigenous peoples in the constitution, which were both exclusionary. Section 51, subsection 26 and section 127. I've got those set out in the PowerPoint. Section 51, 26 gives the Commonwealth Parliament the power to make laws with, this was the text in 1901, the people of any race other than the Aboriginal race in any state for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws. This legislative power was designed to allow laws that restricted the rights of non-European peoples. The draft of the constitution imagined particularly that Asian miners or colored peoples, as they were referred to, might want to be, there might be some value in having a legislative power to confine them to particular areas or to expel them. So the effect of section 51, 26 at the time was to leave jurisdiction over Aboriginal people to the Australian states because it was assumed they were a dying race and that the states, to quote a commentator at the time, would smooth the dying pillow. Section 127 of the constitution provided that, it's very technical and this is a summary, in reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth or of a state, Aboriginal natives shall not be counted. The rationale for this strange section was to prevent Queensland and Western Australia from acquiring more parliamentary seats or federal funds by virtue of their large Aboriginal populations. In this sense, I think Aboriginal people would have picked it in the constitution as a type of illegitimate population ballast with no political significance. A successful constitutional referendum in 1967, which you've already heard about last night, adopted by 90% of the Australian voters, removed section 127 and deleted the references to Aborigines in section 51. It is often, I think it was extremely important moving to get the referendum accepted, but it's often misunderstood as having conferred citizenship on First Nations people in Australia or granting them the vote. Both of those things have been achieved earlier through legislation. But when we look at the, as amended constitution today, we can see a complete constitutional silence about our First Nations, contrasting very strikingly with some of the examples we've heard about this morning. Well, the constitutional texts drafted over 100 years ago can, of course, be explained by the colonial ignorance or, indeed, erasure of Aboriginal culture and sovereignty at the time of federation and the power of the doctrine of Terranulius, which allowed the colonial powers to assert that they had validly acquired sovereignty over the land because there were no existing claims to it. But, of course, this 19th century document doesn't reflect in any way what we know today about the complexity and richness of indigenous culture and the absurdity of the application of notions of Terranulius to Australia. And it also, there's a real dissonance as a law teacher, when you're trying to teach these things to students, you can see that our constitution lags behind major court decisions, such as the 1992 Marbeau case, which acknowledged the absurdity of the claims of Terranulius, although the decision did accept that Australia was validly acquired through British settlement. As the Chancellor reminded us last night, there have been occasional moments of national insight, an extraordinary speech by Prime Minister Paul Keating in 1992 at Redfern, which I think remains the high point of political recognition of dispossession in Australia. And the apology to the stolen generations of indigenous peoples by Prime Minister Kevin Wright in 2008. But these moments of political recognition have been very rare. There have also been a number of experiments with representation of First Nations voices in Australian political life. For example, ATSIC, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, established in 1990. And the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples was set up in 2008. But the trouble with these institutions is that they are, of course, always vulnerable to political vagaries, readily ignored, wound back or abolished with changes of government, as ATSIC was by the Howard government in 2005. Well, then what about the international legal standards, these very sophisticated, complex standards that we've heard about this morning? How has Australia responded to them? Overall, I think what we find is that Australia has been an enthusiast for the adoption of human rights standards at the international level and to apply them to other countries. But it has typically been reluctant to implement human rights law in Australia. In this sense, I think we can speak about a jainist face of Australia. When it looks towards the international, there are some exceptions. With the international sphere, it tends to smile and look welcoming and to look like a good global citizen. When it looks inside, it looks skeptical, anxious and worried about introducing international standards. Australia also has the distinction of having no domestic Bill of Rights, either constitutional or legislative. We are the only democracy in this position. The idea, and I'm quoting now former Attorney General, is that Australia is a gold-plated democracy and that our parliamentary process is an adequate protector of human rights. It's striking how deeply this belief is held in Australian politics. Politicians from both sides, for example, I'm thinking of former Prime Minister John Howard and former Labour Foreign Minister Bob Carr, have been at one in insisting that the Westminster system of government safeguards the human rights of all. This argument, it seems to me, is readily undermined by the way, if we observe the way that Australian parliaments over the years have readily agreed to the whittling away of human rights of minorities. We only have to look at the current situation with respect to the way we treat refugees or indeed the human rights of prisoners. And this shuffling off or postponing rights is particularly evident in the case of First Nations. One example is the Northern Territory Intervention, begun in 2007, which involved the suspension of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act to allow intrusive measures across remote, Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory following a report on child welfare and family violence. While the problems were real, the lack of consultation and the use of military personnel in the intervention ignored indigenous concerns. It's impossible to imagine in Australia the same type of intervention in white communities. The intervention then followed, I think what we can see over more than a century is the Australian pattern of adopting policies for First Nations peoples, marginalizing their voices. As you've heard from Victoria, the major document internationally is the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007 after over 20 years of negotiation. And as you've heard from her, a critical aspect of the declaration is its insistence on indigenous self-determination and direct participation in decisions that affect First Nations communities. Australia over the 20 years was quite active in negotiations but its positions internationally waxed and waned according to the government in power. It often tried to constrain the declaration's terms. For example, by watering down the declaration's concept of self-determination. And as you've also heard, at the time of the UN vote in 2007, Australia joined Canada, New Zealand and the United States in four countries out of 193 members of the UN to actually vote against the adoption of the declaration. Two years later, after a change of government, Australia accepted the declaration, although I note that it did so with a statement of its objections which remain on the record. In any event, the acceptance of the declaration by Australia doesn't give it any status in Australian law. First of all, the declaration is, even in international legal terms, declaration and not strictly binding, although I note that the right to self-determination is contained in treaty obligations in Common Article 1 to both the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. But most importantly for Australians in our legal system, international legal rules must be specifically incorporated by legislation to have effect. What about the policy level? There has been little effort expended in implementing the declaration in Australia, I think, at the policy level. Over the years, and you've heard about some of them, we've had many committees, councils and expert panels appointed by successive governments to consider the place of first nations in our polity, and there have actually been many fine reports and proposals. There have been suggestions of changes to the preamble of the Constitution, the negotiation of a treaty, inserting a racial non-discrimination clause or a general equality clause in the Constitution. But what seems to happen is that after a short flurry of interest and debate, all the ideas seem to get stuck in a bog of government and community lassitude. Few political leaders have taken up the cause of first nations people consistently and persistently. It requires a vision and energy that seems absent from our political life. Given the momentum for change has been flagging, I think the bold Uluru statement of last year is especially significant. It was adopted on the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum. And what is particularly significant is that it emerged from an indigenous designed and led process under the umbrella of the referendum council, drawing on dialogues among first nations peoples across Australia. And it goes beyond symbolism to argue for substantive change. So then if our focus question is what place should our first nations hold and structures that define the modern Australian state? It's striking the Uluru statement, it just fits on one page, is it makes a very interesting claim of indigenous sovereignty. It refers, and this is a quote from the statement, indigenous sovereignty is a spiritual notion. The ancestral tie between the land or mother nature and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born there from remain attached there too and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil or better of sovereignty. And importantly, it goes on, it has never, sovereignty has never been ceded or extinguished and coexists with the sovereignty of the Crown. This is a very radical political and constitutional statement, a very important constitutional claim. The Uluru statement points to three major proposals for reform drawing on decades of debate and discussion. First of all, we've heard a little about this, the idea of enshrining a first nations voice in the constitution. Secondly, the formation of a Macarata commission to supervise a process of agreement making between governments and first peoples. And finally, the Macarata commission also it suggested would be responsible for organising truth telling, I'm quoting here about our history. Well, looking at the first one, constitutional change is famously difficult in Australia given the requirements in the constitution that a majority of voters in a majority of states must approve the changes. And that's why only eight of the 44 referendum proposals that have gone up over the last 120 years have been successful. It's not a very good strike rate. But we do know from constitutional history that if there is active bipartisan support for a referendum proposal, it does have a good chance of success. Today only the recognition of Australia's first nations in the preamble of the constitution seems to have a measure of political support even though this process seems bogged down currently. Prime Minister Turnbull's response to the Uluru statement was, I quote, it was too ambitious. He rejected the idea for a national indigenous representative assembly. This is taken from his press statement on the basis that it was inconsistent with the principle that all Australian citizens had equal rights. He went on to argue, these are his words, such a body would inevitably become seen as a third chamber of parliament. And he said he supported only a minimalist form of constitutional recognition of the first Australians. Well, I think there's a whole question about identifying what seems to be a call for voice in the Uluru statement with a third chamber of parliament. It seems to me to be quite a fundamental misidentification of the two. But I was very struck by the Prime Minister's notion of equality at the basis of his rejection. Seems to me equality must mean more than simply equal treatment in all circumstances. To be meaningful, it has to take into account historical patterns of discrimination and disadvantage. In the case of Australia's first nations, ideas of equality must acknowledge the fact that sovereignty has never been ceded over this land. I think to simply reject the Uluru statement out of hand misses an opportunity for imagination and leadership in Australia. And we're going to have, of course, a very valuable chance today and tomorrow to hear about forms of indigenous representation and voice in national political systems that can offer us models. The second Uluru proposal, a treaty process through a Macarata commission, builds on ideas that have been around for some time. Macarata is a Yolnu word meaning coming together after a struggle. Now Australia has no experience of treaty negotiations with first nations people, largely because the British colonists here always felt in position of strength. We can compare the early European settlers in North America and New Zealand, whose vulnerability, their feeling of not being safe, of not having military force, precisely led them to make agreements with first peoples. Talk of a treaty in Australia emerged in the 1980s, partly as a reaction to the celebration of 200 years of British possession of Australia in 1988. In response to the Buranga statement by a group of indigenous elders, which called for negotiations on a treaty that would, and I quote, recognize our prior ownership, continued occupation and sovereignty, and affirming our human rights and freedom, Prime Minister Bob Hawke committed himself to conclude a treaty by 1990. And this promise was memorialized in Yachty-Yindy's stirring song, Treaty, where one of the verses is, and you can be glad I'm not singing this either, well I heard it on the radio when I saw it on the television, back in 1988, all those talking politicians, and it goes on to say words are easy, words are cheap, much cheaper than our priceless land, but promises can disappear just like writing in the sand. And I do, for those of you who want to hear Yachty-Yindy singing that song, I recommend that you look that up. And indeed, the promise of a treaty has all but disappeared from Australian political life, like writing the sand, which is why the Uluru statement is so important, I think, by putting that on the table. It also adds an important new element into the Australian debate, the idea of truth-telling about the past. And Megan Davis, who unfortunately can't be here with us today, but in various radio interviews and so on, she's emphasized that the dialogues that led to the Uluru statement emphasised the value of truth-telling at the local level above all. So here today, we've got many inspiring examples from other countries and internationally to help us think through these problems. Victoria, my own state, has just adopted legislation to allow treaty negotiations to begin there, establishing an indigenous elected body to negotiate. So it seems to me that the Uluru statement written in such beautiful and moving language offers a framework for redefining the place our First Nations should hold in the governance of 21st century Australia. If you look at it, it's in extremely general terms, and it's certainly not a blueprint for reform. Rather, I think it should be read in light of its final sentence, which presents it as an invitation from our First Nations to all of us to navigate a better future together. This is why this forum is so important in allowing us to learn from the experience of First Nations people from right across the globe. APPLAUSE Uluru, thank you very much. I thank you to all of our speakers. We'll now move to the section here where we can ask questions. Once again, if you go to slido.sli.do, you could submit your question there, or we can raise our hands and take questions from the floor. Before we do, I'll just quickly summarise, I think, some of the issues that were raised here. We heard from Victoria, first of all, talking about the Indigenous people's right to self-determination and how we marry that with the various political systems in the world. She talked about getting self-determination right, the different paths to achieving this, be it constitutional reforms or treaties. She focused on those developing countries and the diverse range of processes and the importance of building networks and alliances. Fernand, of course, talked about the Australian identity, how we reconciled the various differences, how sovereignty in other parts of the world has been fused with the local political systems so that you can have, as he mentioned in Ethiopia, sovereignty residing in different groups or in Bolivia with that lovely story about the patch, the multicultural flags, recognising various Indigenous peoples and the commitment there to constitutions based on a plurality that acknowledged the pluralism of the national state. And Hillary going through the challenges that Australia faces, both on the one hand, in acknowledging human rights internationally, but the limitations that we've seen thus far politically in incorporating those international legal standards into our own political solutions to the challenges presented by the Aboriginal to Indigenous situation in Australia. She went back, of course, to the constitution where Indigenous people were depicted initially as illegitimate with no political status and then touching on the Uluru statement and finishing with a song about how we can acknowledge those things of the past and move forward. Before we take questions here, I'd just like to pose a question, I think, to begin with to you, Hillary, and you spoke in broad sort of abstract terms about the challenges facing Australia and about the limitations in incorporating some of the international experience into the experience in Australia. What do you think specifically goes to that resistance that we have seen politically in opening up to the various innovations outside of a broader political assimilation that brings Indigenous people more broadly into the Australian polity? To those innovations that acknowledge self-determination, you mentioned the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Australia's resistance to that and successive efforts to try to water down the idea of self-determination. What is it in the Australian political character that presents that resistance? Oh, that's a... Well, there are so many people in the room who could contribute to this. I'm very struck by the fact that our relationship, perhaps I can speak more generally, about the international order, how Australia has always had, I think, a deep ambivalence to what goes on internationally. On the one hand, we like to participate, we like to have a seat at the table, so Australia at the moment has a seat on the Human Rights Council, for example. You might be aware of there was a lot of work put into getting Australia elected to that, so we'd like to be there, but we have this deep sense that human rights are for other countries and that we can use them to berate our neighbors and say, you better improve, pull up your socks. But it simply doesn't apply to us. And if you actually go back to the debates that drafted our constitution, what's very striking is that the Tasmanian attorney general at the time, the English clerk, a quite unusual man who'd traveled in the United States, he had an idea of incorporating our constitution right back then, an equality clause borrowed from the American one. And if you look at the reaction to it, which was by and large, with a couple of exceptions, people saying that would be terrible to we don't need to incorporate rights in our constitution. These are only for countries like the United States that have emerged out of a revolutionary act. We simply don't need them. And they actually said things like, you can trust us, trust us to always act in the right way. And I think there's a deep sense that Australia will always do the right thing and that we are a good international citizen. You should just trust us. If you go down even just a little bit below the surface, you can see so many areas where we've taken on international legal standards only to find workarounds to avoid taking them seriously. So I think there's something that's rather perhaps self-satisfied. In the very foundation of the idea of the country. Does that go to the fact that initially, right from the start, indigenous peoples with the extinguishment of rights and terranolias were seen as being subjects of the crown? That there was no distinct, separate acknowledgement of a political right, that the rights devolved only from the crown and that indigenous people were subjects of the crown? Is that fundamentally building to our system that doesn't allow our political process to see something distinct in the existence of indigenous peoples? I think certainly, as I mentioned, the absence of a treaty, the fact that the British settlers felt very secure militarily, that they were able to actually put down any resistance to their rule, whereas this wasn't the case in other settler states. Look, I think that's there. I also want to say, I think it's quite deep in the Australian psyche, but I also think it can be changed. One also sees, for example, Australia at the UN when we were very active in, say, the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which seems a very positive thing, Docke, that was there, but Australia was incredibly anxious that it might undermine the White Australia policy. So we did everything we could on the one hand by promoting human rights for everybody, but saying, let's have a carve out because we just want to keep the White Australia policy going. So a number of critical international moments, Australia has both participated, but then wanted to claim special status, and we do that today. Could I invite any questions from the floor? Someone could raise their hand, I'll take, and then I have a question that's coming on Slido as well. Yeah, just at the back. And could you, if you're addressing it to anyone in particular, believe me. Hi, my name is Astrid. Just like to ask in regards to the human rights issues that we're facing with the treaty, how do you feel we can achieve the treaty, but also deal with the intergenerational trauma that was caused by the stolen generation that still affects people like myself today? Victoria, could I put that question to you because you've dealt directly with this, with the impact of trauma faced by indigenous peoples, but you've also spoken about how political mechanisms, such as treaty, various modes of self-determination can lead to a pathway beyond that. Well, yeah, I do agree that intergenerational trauma indeed has affected a lot the capacities of indigenous peoples to be able to deal with their problems. But I think that I've seen efforts, for instance, even in the United States or in Canada, where the indigenous peoples themselves undertook the effort of dealing and addressing this issue of intergenerational trauma. And by taking the lead in doing that, they were able to strengthen themselves and some of them were able to overcome this trauma. And I think it's also, the intergenerational trauma can also be addressed through all these collective processes of empowering their own selves. And seeing hope in the things that they are doing. Additionally, I think it's also good to share, to listen to stories of other people, because many other people, like for instance, the people that I've talked about, a lot of these people have really subjected also to the worst kinds of trauma and violence, but because they cannot accept that kind of situation any longer, they took it upon themselves to do something about it. And in the end, the government has to agree because they cannot do anything to stop them from asserting those rights. So I think it's, for me, it's the empowerment process that's taken by the indigenous peoples themselves that will eventually address this issue. Victoria, just to follow up to that, part of the Uluru statement was also a recommendation for some form of truth and justice commission or truth and reconciliation commission or truth telling more broadly. From your experience, how has that operated internationally and how effective has that been in creating a broader reconciliation, developing a national narrative and dealing with these issues of intergenerational trauma? Well, there are different experiences. For instance, I just visited Guatemala officially and there's truth telling and reconciliation that happened. Unfortunately, the government, which is in power, still hasn't implemented many of the agreements reached in the peace accords. That was a result of the truth and reconciliation processes. Whereas in Nicaragua, for instance, they have undergone really a lot. I've heard that before they were able to get the government to adapt the regional autonomous law, the statute. They went through a really a massive process of listening to the people to, I think they had like 8,000 hearings up to the local level and to a certain degree, this helped them come together and understand that they do have a lot of opportunities to be able to strengthen themselves and to be able to have a say on what the national government is doing. So it varies, but I think that the issue, the truth and reconciliation processes are very much needed, especially for the ones who have suffered this kind of trauma and violence. So if only for those people to be able to recover from that kind of trauma, it's worth it to do that, to undergo that process. We have a question coming in online and keeping in mind, of course, that people are watching this because it's being streamed live. I'll direct this one to Euphonon because it goes to the question of minorities more broadly, but the question is from Alexander Cox. How does Australia's process of constitutional reform affect our ability to have recognition and political reform for minorities? I assume minorities more broadly here, including First Nations people. You made the distinction between the status of First Nations peoples and minority groups in our society that the process of constitutional reform, how does it affect our ability to have recognition and political reform for minorities? Is there something that flows more broadly from a process such as that that could speak more widely to a general Australian population? First, I'm not familiar with the details of the process of constitutional reform here in Australia, so I can't comment on that directly. But what I would say is that one has to understand more fully the principle of equality and non-discrimination from an international point of view. Now I heard earlier from Hilary that the concept of equality had been interpreted in the way which suggested that the indigenous First Nations in Australia could not be treated in a way which was different. Let me say that from an international point of view, that's incorrect. Equality does not mean treating everything identically. When things are different, groups are different, individuals are different, that those differences have to be taken into account so that a proper understanding of the principle of equality allows for different responses for different groups or individuals, including minorities, as long as the result is reasonable and justified and is therefore non-discriminatory. So for example, whether it's for minorities in countries such as Canada, where you have more than one official language, and by the way, nationally there's only two official languages, but when you look at the provinces and territories, there are, I think, and I am Canadian, but I forget, 12 or 13, as there actually are a large number of indigenous languages that have official status. Not every language of minorities or other groups are recognized. Does this, is this contrary to the principle of equality? Absolutely not. It is actually a reflection of equality because it is appropriate to give a status to indigenous languages and to French and English that to properly reflect the reality on the ground, that these languages are important historically, demographically, and therefore they should have a particular status. This goes very much to something you raised in your speech, and I was thinking at the time and drawing on that Canadian experience of what James Tully, the political philosopher, was called a strange multiplicity, and certainly that can be applied to Canada, where you have various groups laying claim to overlapping or contending sovereignty in Quebecois, the various First Nations groups, and all existing within a Canadian state. You touched specifically on that idea of plurality and a pluralist idea of the state, both legally, philosophically, politically, socially. How does that then conform, or how do people blend to the idea of a shared civic nationalism that is overarching in a sense? How do we, to use your song, how do we sing with one voice when we're singing with many voices, all laying claim to various political rights? Whether it's as individuals or as a country, we have multiple identities, and one does not necessarily include this group. But not necessarily multiple political identities, even though we may vote differently, but the idea of group rights in a sense has always been seen as antithetical to the democratic idea of individual rights, and certainly that's one of the issues that's played out in the Uluru statement, and one of the issues that the Prime Minister has seized on is this notion that a group can't have a right that other people in the society don't. How do you then, I suppose, rationalise that idea of a civic identity, a civic nationalism that all people buy into when individual groups are laying claim to contending political rights? What you find in many countries are, I think, concrete examples of how you can have different levels of political rights through autonomy or federalism, and if you think about it, what you have are different levels, or different levels of political structures that recognise, perhaps in the case of Canada once again, that on one territory such as Nunavut, we have a population which is indigenous, and therefore they have rights, or they have laws that differ in that territory from other parts of the country. It's a collective right in the sense that we do have a territory which is separate from other territories, but it's still part of the national entity. A lot of the state's here. A lot of the state's here. So in fact, you can recognise group rights, especially on a territorial basis as it is for, with different levels. Territory, state or province, the national, federal level, and other types of arrangements. There is a situation in Italy. In Italy, you have minority groups that also have autonomy on a certain territory, such as the German-speaking population, minority in the north. So in reality, in practical terms, you can reconcile the demands of minorities or indigenous peoples as groups, certainly on a territorial basis, but there are also other forms of autonomy which allow coexistence of multiple, even political identities. Liz, I think you had a question. Thank you. Thank you, Stan. Of course, I honour the Nogambria and Noganoal peoples with respect to being on their lands. My question is directed to Hilary Charles Worth and thanking Hilary for mentioning the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples. If we're talking about bipartisan support for recognition and looking to the Constitution to establish that, why is there this hostility and refusal to accept the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, the two chairpersons here in the room sitting in this and so on? So it is a historical moment that Aboriginal people, for the first time without the government, established their own representative voice at the national level, particularly to promote and protect rights, and yet we see hostility directed by the government, the same government that says it will protect indigenous peoples' rights in going for the seat of the Human Rights Council. Why are the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples completely ignored in any discussions about recognition? Thank you. Hilary, another easy one for you. The answerable to the government. I can't speak for the government. I think if I can take it to a slightly more abstract level, I think you've identified something that is really important, which is the way that indigenous voices are listened to. And if you follow, I guess obviously we know that this is also presented the way it's presented in the media is often perhaps the media that might crave controversy and crave, so it's difficult to understand this. I can't understand it myself, but I would track it back to this perhaps sense in Australia that there is a real sense that by acknowledging the significance of indigenous voices, we might somehow be undermining what we take to be Australian sovereignty. I think it's very, perhaps politicians and perhaps the general public too, sometimes feeling anxious, what? And I can remember some of the extraordinary outpouring after the Marbeau decision when actually leaders, political leaders were, they clearly had not read the judgment and then spoke about it, about claims over backyards and all, I mean, just extraordinary. I think generally I don't want to just focus on politicians because I think community leaders also might be sometimes not actually look at what's been called for or the situation or understanding it and willing to take the Australian people along with them in sometimes quite complex arguments. So I think it's the general push towards simplification and the sense that's promoted certainly in some parts of the media, just that there's one Australia and just get with the program and we can see so many examples of that. So I think it's just perhaps drawing on our distinguished visitors. It's, we haven't been really, we've always seen the idea of minorities of any sort as threatening to us and the indigenous people pose what makes them different to other minorities. Well, they were jolly well here before we all arrived and that seems to me that's a very, that fundamental issue of the possession of Australia and how we came in possession of Australia is very disconcerting, I think, very destabilizing and very few politicians, since we're in a political chamber, I can play. I think have the strength or the courage to think that through, what would it mean? And yet we do have, as we've heard, some wonderfully creative examples of how this could be taken into account in a modern dispensation. So say as a law teacher, when you're looking at the Australian constitution and you've got these young, the leaders of the future and you're saying, sorry guys, this is what we're laden down with, it seems we're really dragging ourselves back to a time very long ago. I'm mindful it's been a pretty weighty first session and coffee is waiting, but I can take another question. Is there one on this side? Don't want to ignore the other side of the room? Anyone? Oh yes, one at the back here. Thank you. I just want to ask because on the last sentence you were saying, Hillary, to navigate a better future together, we're having an indigenous prime minister make a better future? Well, why not? Well, there's a, there is some potential here and Ken's here, he may have a view on that. I think that would be an extraordinary moment for Australia and of course, if the leader of your country were a First Nations person, I mean the symbolism of that would be extraordinary and what I take, I just want to say about the Ulury Statement, I think it's been so misunderstood because I see it as this, it's an act of generosity. You can see it's an invitation, it's really a great, somebody's referred to as an unmerited act of generosity. It's a great, it's sort of calling, it's not saying here are demands, just take them all in, it's not at all, it's a very, very generous invitation and if our polity were led by an indigenous person, it seems to me that would be extremely significant. That's not to assume every indigenous person has the same set of views, but it seems to me that would break through a very, very clear barrier in visibility, in public life, in access to the public voice in holding that symbolic past. So I hope, as old as I am, that I live long enough to see that happy day. Would you like to take another question before we go for coffee, would you? Yeah, okay, Lydia. Thank you, I acknowledge Army Matilda and the lands upon which I speak today. The notion of self-governance is that it asserts the pre-existing political legitimacy of indigenous agency, a fact not recognized by the Papal Degree in the Doctrine of Discovery and hence land and territory acquisition by which the United Nations was constructed on. So when we are talking about the assertion of indigenous governance, we are talking about structures that predate the concept of the modern democracy and therefore it does not necessarily follow that the nation-state accommodates indigenous governance structures. So my question would be to the esteemed panel, where are those examples throughout the world, which is the assertion of indigenous governance on structures that sustained indigenous societies and how does that come up against the concepts of modern democracy and the nation-state as recognized by the UN? But where does it fit in light of the pluralism that exists at an international level? Thank you. Victoria, can I direct that question to you because you did talk about this and you used the example of Peru, which recognizes and guarantees the autonomy of indigenous peoples. There is an autonomous territorial government, but these people also accommodate the idea of belonging to a nation-state. They are still Peruvian citizens. How has that accommodation worked and what are the practical real outcomes of that? Well, I think that that kind of accommodation has worked because number one, the state has, is not really present in those territories. You know, this is in the Amazon very remote. So practically the state is absent in those territories. And that's the case for many indigenous peoples. When the state is absent, you find a situation where either the criminal syndicates come and they rule or the indigenous peoples themselves take up the challenge of governing themselves and set up the system. So I think why it's accommodated because the state itself accepts that it's not there and compared to having those territories controlled by drug cartels, it is better for the state to see indigenous peoples themselves maintaining the peace, security and well-being of indigenous peoples. And the data that I have seen in my visits is that even in Mexico, the government grudgingly accepts that the areas where indigenous autonomy and governance has existed. They can say that the extent of drug crimes, violence and all that has really decreased significantly. So I was saying that if that's true, that has decreased significantly and we have documents to prove that. Then that should really be the reason why you should respect and recognize and allow them to govern in ways that they can because they are showing better results than the government. And I think that's one factor. The other factor is of course the fact that, you know, I mean, I think the particularity of indigenous peoples all over the world is that they really live in these territories which they have been there since time immemorial. They have developed all kinds of ways of governing themselves. And they have not given up on it. They believe that that's the way that they should continue to live. Their cultural norms should still be practiced. And these factors which is undermined and destroyed, then will be the factors that they have to address. And what I'm seeing now is that more and more governments in communities, in countries where indigenous peoples are empowered in that way, they don't react anymore in the most violent ways that they used to. And I can say that for Mexico, I can say that for Peru or even in Brazil. Can I just clarify something? Just to, Lydia, were you also talking there implicit in the question, is that there is the idea of a supranational sense of political representation or sovereignty that is actually above the idea of the nation state or in fact in conflict with the idea of the nation state. And Phenom, we see this, don't we, in struggles such as the Catalan or Basque or others who have tried to assert an identity beyond being encapsulated in the national state. Is that ultimately identifying one of the real tensions in the discussion here? How does the idea of a liberal democratic order founded on this Westphalian notion of a nation state incorporate all of those contending claims of other groups that may exist previous to the imposition of the nation state and may live on in the idea of sovereignty beyond that idea of the nation state. Can liberal democracy in fact deal with that innate tension? Very simple question. Thank you. I think we have to recognize that even within the United Nations there has been an evolution but also an ambivalence. The United Nations initially, the concept of nations was essentially of member states. That's quite clear about that. But there has been an evolution partially reflected by the incorporation, the development of human rights standards. And we have to remember that human rights standards is a limit on the sovereignty of these nation states. And that's an important step by the way we tend to forget because the universal declaration of human rights in 1945 was a declaration, not a treaty. And human rights treaties came actually quite a bit later, a few decades later in a general sense. But what we, I think the evolution that we have seen and we are still seeing is a movement away of the idea that the nation state has absolute sovereignty. That's gone. You have the principle or the concept that the certain entities, certain groups, including indigenous people, have a right of self determination. And that is a change within the traditional UN approach in more recent decades. And there's also been the recognition that in terms of the right of political participation, effective political participation and representation must be guaranteed for everyone. And particularly in relation to minorities and indigenous peoples, this requires something perhaps different from the traditional one individual, one vote, and that's the end of the story. And by the way, may I say that in relation to democracy, what we have with human rights standards that as emerging has evolved at the international level is a recognition that democracy has to be more than simply the tyranny of the majority because of the well-known expression. And that we can fit in order to apply effective political participation and representation various forms of self-government that recognize a particular political, legal, and historical context of indigenous peoples and others. And I think this is important. We must not consider liberal democracies as something pure, unchanging, and unable to reflect what I refer to quite often as the reality on the ground. There is a diversity of interests which simply looking at the tyranny of the majority will not represent fully. And we are seeing that, I think, with the evolution towards self-governance, self-determination for indigenous people, but also for minorities, the right to effective political participation and representation. So I've seen some stifled yawns, like the coffee is coming, but if I don't take this question from the future Prime Minister of Australia, then I'm going to be in big trouble. Please don't say that, because it's misleading. Everybody has the passion in the net, say it. Don't say it, never do they say it. Thank you very much for that discussion. And thank you, Aunt, for allowing us to be on country here. And there are a number of sitting members of parliament and past members of parliament in the room. But the point that I wanted to make is that referendum, as you've pointed out, is extremely changed, is extremely difficult in Australia. And what people's aspiration are is referendum change to recognize first peoples in the Constitution. One of the traditional parts of the rhetoric in Australia, both at the state and federal level, has been a bipartisan approach to Aboriginal affairs. In reality, it's quite different. But sometimes bipartisanship can mean a race to the bottom instead of the aspirations that you've spoken about. Not sure if you want to comment on it, but that is very much part of our challenge, I think. Who would like to take that? Hillary? Well, Linda, I can just only agree with you. I think that we see that constantly, I was suggesting the way that it's very easy for both sides of the two major parties to agree, especially with respect to minority groups, that there are, I think I referred to refugees and prisoners as just two examples, where it's very easy for both sides of politics to say yes, or I would also cite some of the anti-terror legislation. A lot of the anti-terror legislation is very easy just to say there's often bipartisan support. So I agree that that is the great challenge. I was just making the point that politically, if you look at the eight that have got up, the eight referendum proposals that have actually been successful, it was when there wasn't, when there was bipartisan support. But I agree with you that perhaps in this, that's not a helpful starting point, because it may well be that one needs just a phenomenal level of leadership to bring this through. But I noticed in some of the reading about the Uluru Statement and the various polls that have been done on support for it, that there actually, the polls report that there is actually widespread public support for what was said there. And so there's a sense that perhaps the political quick reaction, oh, this is just a dangerous thing, isn't met in the wider community. So there has to be a way to sort of tap into that and the sense of frustration. I certainly see it at the university level with these bright young people coming along and who are very frustrated by what they see as the dead hand of the past, in this respect particularly.