Search

This article reimagines the phrase 'Indigenous constitutionalism' (discussions about how constitutions affect Indigenous interests) and illustrates its application to recent Australian history. Three debates under the Hawke, Keating and Howard governments formed the contexts of Indigenous constitutionalism as it is understood here: whether Australia should be a republic; whether Australia's law and government should be disciplined by explicitly stated 'rights'; and how Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians should 'reconcile'. The article explores the positions on constitutional amendment taken by Indigenous and non- Indigenous leaders and intellectuals, and by government inquiries. Some of the proposed amendments reappeared in Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Peoples in the Constitution: Report of the Expert Panel in 2012. Two issues in the reception of the Expert Panel's recommendations would reflect and continue debates of the Hawke, Keating and Howard eras. One was whether reconciliation was compromised or advanced by recognising distinct Indigenous rights. The other was whether judicial scrutiny of the executive and parliament should be strengthened. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]