'Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians Essay\r'

'Introduction During the 2010 Federal preference, some(prenominal) major policy-making parties campaigned on autochthonous affairs. Following the ALP’s victory, bloom pastor Gillard established an free-lance dear beautify to â€Å"to investigate how to dig effect to entire scholarship of primeval and Torres passing game islander the great unwasheds. ” Two schools of thought contrive henpecked the subject conversation of how this should be achieved. maven go out is that an amendment to the preamble of the constitution exit provide safe and symbolic recognition. The alternate(a) prospect is that more substantive remediate is required to unafraid equality forrader the fair play.\r\nOn January 16 2012, the gameboard presented the Prime Minister their report and proposed quintette amendments to the ground administration. This paper impart evaluate the cardinal objects and the reasons offered by the g step on it. Each amendment go out be anal ysed on its symbolic significance and authority legal ramifications. Fin aloney this paper pass on conclude on how to best give original Australians recognition at bottom the constitution. primitive acquaintance For the gore, fundamental recognition of original Australians means removing formulations in the system that contemplate racial inconsistency.\r\nWhether intended or non, the five proposals address the broader foreshortens of racial discrimination and equality to begin with the lawfulness inwardly the soil temper. Repealing character 25 In its report, the plug-in indicates that 97. 5% of all submissions okay of repealing region 25. division 25 withdraws: For the innovations of the go bad sh are, if by the law of all conjure up all individual(a)s of any race ar disqualified from vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the acres, and because, in reckoning the turning of the great deal of the give tongue to o r of the soil, persons of that race resident in that State shall non be counted.\r\nOn face value, surgical incision 25 appears antiblack as it contemplates States excluding voters on the evidence of race. This comment has been affirmed by Chief umpire Gibbs in McKinlays’s case (1975). voice 25 must be read with naval division 24 to ascertain the rattling intention of the framers. incision 24 specifies that the number of lower house representatives is determined by dividing the total number of pile of the earth by twice the number of senators and then dividing the population of each state by that quota.\r\nTherefore, by racially excluding voters the numerical introduce of the State’s population is cut down; the State’s federal official mental representation decreases and discriminative states forgo greater federal representation. Although member 25 was intended to penalize racially discriminatory states, a State was able to act out discriminato ry jurisprudence by drafting laws that did not deprive ‘all’ members of a racial class. For instance, bran-new South Wales denied certain classes of original good deal the counterbalance to vote. The adorn states that this proposal is ‘technically and legally sound’.\r\nMany thoroughgoing commentators agree save at that place is a small minority who take up place possible legal consequences. In 1980, umpire Dean included parting 25 as a provision guaranteeing the business to vote. The right to vote is not constitutionally entrenched. Parliament has authority to determine the electoral process consistent(predicate)(predicate) to divide 30. It is unreadable whether the tall tribunal would find mandate that disqualified sight of certain races from voting invalid because of the section 7 voice communication ‘directly chosen by the commonwealth’ and section 24.\r\nTheoretically, it sportsmanlikethorn be argued that section 2 5 should not be upstage until the right to vote is constitutionally entrenched. However, this view is highly unorthodox and section 25 should be repealed. Repealing section 51 (XXIV) subdivision 51(xxvi) autho raises the population to pull out laws with approve to â€Å"the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to look at special laws”. The circuit card recommends removing section 51(xxvi) as it contemplates discrimination against fundamental and Torres narrow islander peoples.\r\nIn Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen, the primitive earthly concern Fund Commission was denied purchasing country property from the Crown. The Queensland Minister for Lands reasoned that ‘the governing did not view favourable proposals to go large areas of land for development by Aborigines in isolation’. Koowarta argued that the Minister was in breach of sections 9 and 12 of the racial unlikeness figure out 1975 (Cth). Joh Bjelke-Petersen challenged the constitu tional robustness of the racial Discrimination make a motion 1975 (Cth). The premier(a) argued that s51(xxvi) ‘does not confer business leader to make laws which apply to all races’.\r\nA legal age of the High Court prove that sections 9 and 12 of the Racial Discrimination make a motion 1975 were invalid pursuant to s 51 (xxvi). The Hindmarsh Island duad case illustrates parliament’s ability to enact adversely discriminatory laws in relation to race. The case interested whether the Hindmarsh Island Bridge exploit 1997 (Cth) could remove rights which the plaintiffs enjoyed chthonic the Aboriginal and Torres passing play islander inheritance Protection defend 1986 (Cth). The Ngarrindjeri women argued that the races power just now allowed parliament to pass laws that are for the pull in of a particular race.\r\nThe land argued that thither were no limits to the power. The High Court install that as the heritage Protection interpret was validly enac ted nether s 51(xxvi), the resembling result of power could post a whole or partial repeal. The High Court was divided on whether S 51(xxvi) could sole(prenominal) be utilize for the patterned advance or advantage of a racial assemblage. In his judgement, legal expert Kirby found that section 51 (xxvi) ‘does not extend to the enactment of laws detrimental to or discriminatory against, the people of any race (including the Aboriginal race) by reference to their race’.\r\nJustices Gummow and Hayne said that in that location was no basis for reading s51(xxvi) as not permitting adverse discrimination. In summary, Kartinyeri v The Commonwealth did not confirm that laws enacted down the stairs section 51 (xxvi) must be beneficial. Since then, it has generally been accepted that s 51 (xxvi) gives the Commonwealth power to discriminate each in favour or against members of a particular race. The removal of S51 (xxvi) would be a strong symbolic gesture to original Australians as they are the provided group to whom section 51(xxvi) laws contract been enacted.\r\nNot all laws passed under s 51 (xxvi) take in been adversely discriminatory. In Commonwealth v Tasmania (The Tasmanian Dam Case), sections 8 and 11 of The earth Heritage Properties saving crop 1983 (Cth) were held to be constitutionally valid pursuant to s 51 (xxvi). As a result, the Franklin River Hydroelectric Dam could not be constructed in a place make outed sumually of import by Aboriginal people. A repeal of section 51 (xxvi) top executive not invalidate the World Heritage Properties Conservation bring.\r\nOther powers, specifically the outside(a) affairs power in s51 (xxix), would pledge this enactment under the principle of three-fold characterisation. Other beneficial polity whitethorn not be brave outed under the alike(p) principle. In westerly Australia v The Commonwealth, the courtyard found The primordial appellation make a motion 1993 (Cth) constit utionally valid pursuant to section 51 (xxvi). The court did not find it necessary to consider any other heads of power. Australia’s endorsement of the UN subnormality on the Rights of original People may provide scope to support the infixed name Act 1993 (Cth) under the immaterial affairs power.\r\nHowever, it seems reckless to gamble with legislation that establishes a framework for the trade protection and recognition of native title. Repealing section 51 (xxvi) go out in like manner limit the Commonwealth’s ability to pass new laws for the procession of autochthonous Australians. For these reasons, the display panel proposes that the repeal of section 51 (xxvi) must be accompany by a new head of power with heed to natural Australians. Inserting section 51A The preamble to S51A is the first recommendation which genuinely addresses the great contri andions of endemical Australians.\r\n sectionalization 51A in addition allows the Commonwealth to mak es laws with respect to Aboriginal and Torres liberty chit island-dwellers. Similar to section 51(xxvi), the power contained in spite of appearance section 51A is not subject to any conditions. This is somewhat of a double advance s vocalize. All laws actually passed under section 51 (xxvi) meet all been enacted with respect to indigenous Australians. As the power is not subject to any restriction, all legislation pursuant to section 51 (xxvi) would intimately in all likelihood be supported by section 51A. Alternatively, section 51A could be used to enact legislation that is adversely discriminatory.\r\nThe Panel states that the preamble which acknowledges ‘the need to secure the approach of Aboriginal and Torres phone island-dweller peoples’ will mitigate this risk. However, a preamble is and used to resolve an ambiguity in spite of appearance a text. The power to make laws with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is not particularly a mbiguous. The Panel’s predicts laws passed pursuant to s 51A would be assessed on whether they broadly benefit the group concerned. The actual word used is ‘advancement’ which would be taken differently to ‘benefit’.\r\nFurthermore, the High Court is not al shipway ready to get the picture a value judgement such(prenominal) as one based ‘benefit’. Credit should be given to the Panel for this proposal. The preamble to variance 51A constitutionally recognises the history, kitchen-gardening and contributions of endemical Australians. The new head of power will likely ensure that current legislation pursuant to section 51 (xxvi) will continue to operate. sectionalisation 51A in like manner removes parliament’s power to enact laws with regards to a person’s race. This proposal addresses the apartheid nature of our constitution.\r\nHowever, Section 51A is not the white knight which was hoped for. It will be the courts wh o specify whether this new power is ambiguous. If Section 51A is found to be ambiguous, the courts will have significant fineness in interpreting the import of â€Å"advancement”. To overcome these introduces, the panel has recommended that a racial non-discrimination provision (S116A) be added to the constitution. Inserting section 116A There are both insurance policy and legal issues concerning section 116A. Firstly, Australia has a history of avoiding constitutional entrenchments of rights.\r\nThe proposed anti-discrimination provision only protects racial groups. Section 116A may be viewed as privileging anti-racial discrimination over anti-sex discrimination or anti-homophobic discrimination. The first legal consideration is which groups will be protected by section 116A. Jewish people are accepted as an ethnic group but Muslims are not. It is uncertain whether Muslims would receive the same protection as Jews. Furthermore, would a person who converted to Judaism r eceive identical protection as a person who was born(p) Jewish?\r\nThe second legal issue is how Section 116A will affect breathing state and commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation. For example, Anti-discrimination state law authorise discrimination in the interlocking of actors for reasons of ‘authenticity’. In addition, sections 12 and 15 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) permits people to discriminate when they are searching for someone to share or work with in their home. Once again, it will be for the court to decide if these provisions are constitutionally invalid.\r\nThe panel has affirmed that S116A (2) will support laws enacted under s 51 (xxvi) and section 51A. Like section 51A, section 116A could be interpreted by the courts in ways that were not intended. The courts will have significant discretion in determining what â€Å"is for the purpose of overcoming disadvantage”. An important issue for the Indigenous community is the Norther n filth Intervention. In Wurridjal v Commonwealth, the high court upheld the regimen’s partial repeal of the Racial Discrimination Act under the race powers.\r\nThe court also upheld the Northern Territory National hint reply Act pursuant to section 51 (xxix). receivable to the principle of dual characterisation, it is unlikely that S116A will provide an avenue for Indigenous people to contest the intervention. S116A is probably the most contentious recommendation as it concerns equality before the law. This issue is probably better dealt with by an expert panel assessing a explanation of Rights. To achieve a similar result, the panel could propose that section 51A has an accompanying provision similar to 116A(2). Insert section 127A.\r\nSection 127A is a provision which recognises Indigenous deliin truths as the original language of Australia. A mark language provision is necessary to beguile the importance of traditional languages within Indigenous culture. Sectio n 127A also acknowledges that English is the national language of Australia. The Panel rejected a submission suggesting ‘all Australian citizens shall have the freedom to speak, maintain and transmit the language of their choice’. The Panel did not hope to give rise to legal challenges regarding the right to deal with governance in languages other than English.\r\nIt is unclear what practical consequence would mix from s127A. Section 127A could be used to secure funding for Indigenous languages on the grounds of ‘national heritage’. Nonetheless, the Panel does not intend for this provision to give rise to new legal rights. S127A is symbolically important and is an appropriate way of constitutionally recognising Indigenous Australians. Summary of analysis This analysis concludes that the five proposals put forward by the panel appropriately balance substantive unsnarl and symbolic significance. As a result, the Panel should be congratulated.\r\nIf the Pa nel’s remainder was to remove overtly racist tones within the Australian reputation then they have accompanyed. If the panels objective was to definitively correct the wrongs of Kartinyeri v Commonwealth and the Northern Territory Intervention then they have failed. The amendments proposed do not sufficiently address racial discriminatory acts passed under other heads of power. Section 116A(2) has been perceived as a tasteful revitalizeulation of the races power. Furthermore, the proposals provides the courts substantial discretion in interpreting terms such as â€Å"overcoming disadvantage”, â€Å"advancement” and â€Å"group”.\r\nIn essence, the most important issue does not concern symbolic switch or substantive reform. It is simply a question of which proposals will gain bipartizan support. Conclusion The panel’s proposals could succeed at referendum. Firstly, Australians are more likely to support something substantive than purely symbol ic. Secondly, this is not an issue which would be perceived as a ‘politicians’ proposal. Australians are hesitant to support proposals perceived as self-serving. Thirdly, the Panel indicates that its proposals are capable of being supported by an overwhelming majority of Australians.\r\nNonetheless, to succeed at referendum, the support from the Federal opposition government and all State governments is essential. It is very easy, and sometimes attractive, for the federal Opposition to pit a referendum. It can be a efficacious way of generating a negative populace reaction to the government and its agenda. Since 2010, the Coalition has fought the government on nearly every political issue. Even when the parties agree in principle, they have different ways of solving the issue. For example, both parties are for off-shore processing of illegal immigrants but disagree on where and how it should be done.\r\n some(prenominal) parties are committed to recognising Indigenou s Australians within the constitution. So far, the LNP has said it will consider substantive reform but has only committed to preambular recognition. The Panel not only recommends substantive reform but also addresses racial equality before the law. It is very uncertain whether the LNP will support a policy so different to their 2010 election promise. The next federal election is only 18 months away. If the referendum and election are held concurrently, there is more incentive for the Coalition to oppose the Panel’s recommendation.\r\nIt would be blackened for the nation if the referendum fails. The ‘gap’ will puff and the international community will view Australia as a nation of racists. It could be argued that the Government should have appointed a bipartisan panel rather than an independent panel. A bipartisan panel may not have produced ‘better’ recommendations to those of the Panel. They would, however, have generated proposals that both part ies would stand behind. Bibliography * ABC Television, ‘ introduction seeker stand-off intensifies’, The Midday Report, 20 celestial latitude 2011.\r\n< http://www.abc. net. au/news/2011-12-20/bowen-seeks-bipartisan-meeting-on-offshore-processing/3739984> at 29 April 2012. * Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander neighborly Justice Commissioner, ‘Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Australian Human Rights Commission’, <http://www. hreoc. gov. au/social_justice/international_docs/2011_EMRIP * Agreement between the Australian honey oil and the Australian Labor Party, 1 kinfolk 2010. * Attwood, Bain and Markus, Andrew, The 1967 Referendum: hightail it, Power and the Australian shaping, (Aboriginal Studies Press, 2007).\r\n* Behrendt, Larissa, ‘Mind, body and spirit: pathways forward for reconciliation’ (2001) 5 Newcastle faithfulness revue 1. * Brennan, Sean, ‘organic reform and its birth to land justice’ (2011) 5 Land, Rights, integritys: Issues of Native deed 2. * Castan, Melissa, Submission to Panel on Indigenous native course credit (Monash University Castan warmheartedness for Human Rights law, September 2011). * Castan, Melissa, ‘ positive deficiencies in the protection of Indigenous rights: reforming the ‘races power’. ’ (2011) 7 Indigenous integrity bare 25. * conference Debates, Melbourne, 1898, scalawags 665-714.\r\n* Costar, Brian, ‘Odious and outmoded? ’ Race and Section 25 of the make-up, in John Chesterman and David Philips (eds), discriminating Democracy: Race, Gender and the Australian pick out (Melbourne Publishing Group, 2003). * Davis, Megan, ‘A culture of contempt: Indigenous peoples and Australian public institutions’ (2006) UTS truth polish 8. * Davis, Megan, ‘ constituent(a) emend and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders People: Why do we want it now? ’ (2011) 7 Indigenous just ice Bulletin 25. * Davis, Megan and Lino, Dylan, ‘ constituent(a) crystallize and Indigenous Peoples’ (2010) 7 Indigenous uprightness Bulletin 19.\r\n* D’Cruz,Raylen, ‘ Assessing the Need for a ecesisally Entrenched Bill of Rights in Australia’ (2007) Student Law Review, Bond University <http://epublications. bond. edu. au/cgi/viewcontent. cgi? article=1002&context=buslr> rogue 2 at 27 April 2012. * near Panel on built-in actualization of Indigenous Australians, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution, (January, 2012): http://www. youmeunity. org. au/finalreport. * Griffith, Gareth, ‘The Constitutional knowledge of Aboriginal People’ (2010) 12 Constitutional Law and Policy Review 4.\r\n* Jonas, William, ‘’ rough-cut business’: the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights’ (2001) 5 Newcastle Law Review 1. * Karvelas,Patricia, ‘Refer endum’s timing fluid’, The Australian, 18 April 2012 < http://www. theaustralian. com. au/national-affairs/indigenous/referendums-timing-fluid/story-fn9hm1pm-1226330762268>. * Kerr, Christian, ‘Libs baulk on referendum support’, The Australian, 30 January 2012 < http://www. theaustralian. com. au/national-affairs/indigenous/libs-baulk-on-referendum-support/story-fn9hm1pm-1226256684571>.\r\n* Keyzer, Patrick, Principles of Australian Constitutional Law (LexisNexis Butterworths, Australia: tertiary ed, 2010). * Kildea, Paul, ‘More than mere symbolism’, Australian Financial Review, 10 February 2012. * Kirby, Michael, Constitutional Law and Indigenous Australians: Challenge for a dry Continent, Law Council of Australia, Old Parliament House, Canberra, Friday 22 July 2011 watchword Forum ‘Constitutional intensify: science or satisfying Rights? ’. * Law Council of Australia, Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Au stralians handling Paper, 19 March 2011.\r\n* LexisNexis AU, Halsbury’s Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’90 Constitutional Law’ [90. 1620]. * McHugh, Michael, Australian Constitutional Landmarks (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003). * McQuire, Amy, ‘Constitutional reform report sparks change integrity reviews’, Tracker, 19 January 2012. * Morris, Shireen, ‘Agreement-making: the need for democratic principles, individual rights and equal opportunities in Indigenous Australia’ (2011) 36 Alternative Law diary 3. * Morris, Shireen, ‘Indigenous constitutional recognition, non-discrimination and equality before the law: why reform is necessary’ (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Bulletin 26.\r\n* Morse, Bradford, â€Å"Indigenous Provisions in Constitutions Around the World” 2011 Paper located at <http://www. youmeunity. org>. * Pengelley, Nicholas, ‘Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act †Must Laws Based on the Race Power be for the gain ground of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders- and What has Bridge twist got to do with the Race Power anyways’ (1998) 20 Sydney Law Review 144. * Prior, Flip, ‘Recognition poll unlikely, days Dodson’, The West Australian, 11 April 2012. * Rintoul, Stuart, ‘Race power opens Pandora’s boxful’, The Australian, 22 December 2011\r\n* Rowse, Tim, ‘The practice and symbolism of the ‘race power’: rethinking the 1967 referendum’ (2008) 19 Australian Journal of Anthropology 1. * Sawer, G, ‘The Australian Constitution and the Australian Aborigine’ (1966) 2 FL Rev 17. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional stead’ [1. 1. 280]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 300]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional St atus’ [1. 1. 430]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1.\r\n1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 450]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 460]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 480]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 6 Civil Justice Issues’ [1. 6. 190]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 6 Civil Justice Issues’ [1. 6. 240]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 7 International Law’ [1. 7. 180]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’19.\r\n1 Constitutional Law’ [19. 1. 230]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’19. 5 Federal constitutional system’ [19. 5. 157. 1]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australi a, (at April 2012), ’21. 10 Equality and the sway of Law’ [21. 10. 160] * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’21. 10 Equality and the detect of Law’ [21. 10. 350]. * Twomey, Ann, Indigenous Constitutional Recognition Explained (University of Sydney Law School Constitutional Reform Unit, 26 January 2012). * Ward, Alexander, ‘At the jeopardy of Rights: Does straight recognition require substantive reform?\r\n’ (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Review 25. * Watson, Nicole, ‘The Northern Territory Emergency Response †Has It Really Improved the Lives of Aboriginal Women and Children? ’ (2011) 35 Australian Feminist Law Journal 147. * Williams, George, ‘Recognising Indigenous peoples in the Australian Constitution: what the Constitution should say and how the referendum can be won’ (2011) 5 Land, Rights, Laws: Issues of Native title 1. * Winckel, Anne, ‘Recognising Indigenous Peoples in the Prea mble: Implications, Issues and adaptation’ (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Bulletin 22.\r\nCase List * Attorney-General (Cth); Ex Rel Mckinlay v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 1 * Commonwealth v Tasmania (Tasmanian Dams Case) (1983) 158 CLR 1 * Jones v Toben [2002] FCA 1150 [69]. * Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1988) 195 CLR 337 * Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168 * Kruger v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1 * Leak v Commonwealth (1997) 187 CLR 579. * Miller v Wertheim [2002] FCAFC 156 [14]; * Western Australia v Commonwealth (Native Title Act Case) (1995) 183 CLR 373 * Wurridjal v The Cth (2009) 237 CLR 309 Legislation List.\r\n* Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1986 (Cth) * Australian Constitution Act 1975 (Cth) * Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) * Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) * Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997 (Cth) * Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) * Native Title (Queensland) Act 1993 (Qld) * Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth) * Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) * Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (Nsw) â€â€â€â€â€â€â€â€â€â€â€â€â€â€â€ [ 1 ]. Law Council of Australia, Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians: Discussion Paper March 2011 part 1.\r\n1 at 23 April 2012. [ 2 ]. Australia, Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution pageboy 1 at 23 April 2012. [ 3 ]. Alexander Ward, ‘At the Risk of Rights: Does True Recognition Require Substantive Reform’ (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Bulletin 3, 3. [ 4 ]. ibidem [ 5 ]. ibid. [ 6 ]. Australia, Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution page 1 at 23 April 2012.\r\n[ 7 ]. ibidem[4]. [ 8 ]. Ibid [5. 3]. [ 9 ]. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth) s 25. [ 10 ]. B Costa, ‘Odious and Outmoded’? Race and Section 25 of the Constitution (2011) The Swinburne comprise for hearty Research page 1 at 25 April 2012. [ 11 ]. Attorney-General (Cth); Ex Rel Mckinlay v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 1, [36], [44]. [ 12 ]. B Costa, ‘Odious and Outmoded’? Race and Section 25 of the Constitution (2011) The Swinburne Institute for hearty Research page 1 at 25 April 2012. [ 13 ]. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth) s 24. [ 14 ]. Ibid. [ 15 ].\r\nConvention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, pages 665-714. [ 16 ]. B Costa, ‘Odious and Outmoded’? Race and Section 25 of the Constitution (2011) The Swinburne Institute for tender Research page 4 at 25 April 2012. [ 17 ]. Australia, Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution page 5. 3 at 23 April 2012. [ 18 ] . B Costa, ‘Odious and Outmoded’? Race and Section 25 of the Constitution (2011) The Swinburne Institute for Social Research page 6 at 25 April 2012.\r\n[ 19 ]. Ibid [5]. [ 20 ]. Ibid [6]. [ 21 ]. Ibid [5]. [ 22 ]. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth) s 51 (xxvi). [ 23 ]. Australia, Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution page 5. 4 at 23 April 2012. [ 24 ]. Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168. [ 25 ]. Ibid [169-170]. [ 26 ]. Ibid. [ 27 ]. Ibid. [ 28 ]. Ibid [174]. [ 29 ]. Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (the Hindmarsh Island Bridge case) (1998) 195 CLR 337. [ 30 ].\r\nHindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997 (Cth). [ 31 ]. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1986 (Cth). [ 32 ]. Ibid. [ 33 ]. Ibid [416-7]. [ 34 ]. Ibid [379-381]. [ 35 ]. Thomson Reuters Legal Online, Halsbury’s Laws of Australia (at 15 January 1998) 19 Government, ’19. 5 Federal Constitutional arrangement’ [19. 5 †157. 1] [ 36 ]. Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth). [ 37 ]. (1983) 158 CLR 1. [ 38 ]. Ibid. [ 39 ]. Ibid [5 †8]. [ 40 ]. Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) [ 41 ]. Western Australia v The Commonwealth (1995) 183 CLR 373. [ 42 ]. Ibid.\r\n'