Previously I wrote about the Declaration of Recognition. You might not have heard of it – even if you are familiar with the Uluru Statement, and “Voice, Treaty, Truth”. The Declaration of Recognition is a key part of the Uluru Statement reform package, but it is not “in the brochure” – so to speak. You are lucky to see a mention of it, anywhere.

Since my previous blog post on the Declaration of Recognition, a lot more pieces of the puzzle have come together. I have made a video on my facebook page. This post today is a written version of that information in the video linked/embedded below.

The origin of the Declaration of Recognition

In 2014, constitutional conservatives and members of the Samuel Griffith Society Damien Freeman and Jullian Leeser put out a booklet called The Australian Declaration of Recognition. Later on in 2015 they founded a non-profit think tank called Uphold and Recognise.

The Declaration of Recognition is very often compared with the US declaration of independence. I was, for a long time suspicious that perhaps that is exactly what it is. Now, I think that idea is “half right” as I’ll explain more in this post.

The Declaration of Recognition and Voice were proposed around the same time. Noel Pearson wrote a Quarterly Essay on the Voice around the same time the Declaration was being flogged. Noel Pearson endorsed Uphold and Recognise. These two ideas are related, and belong together as part of a larger overall reform package.

The Referendum Council Failure in Evaluation

The Referendum Council distilled a set of criteria from previous Expert Panels and from the regional dialogues to evaluate different reform proposals. These criteria were called “guiding principles”.

A statement of acknowledgement inside the constitution was properly evaluated and is in the table graphics from the final report below. However – the statement of acknowledgement outside of the constitution was never evaluated against the principles. This is despite it being an option in the original Referendum Council discussion papers. Neither was “truth-telling” evaluated – obstinately because truth-telling was not one of the original discussion paper options. Go figure.

Different reform proposals were also tested for their level of support during the regional dialogues.

Although the Declaration of Recognition is in the list of Referendum Council final recommendations – it does not appear to have been evaluated by the guiding principles criteria or by the regional dialogues. This is despite it being part of the original 2016 Referendum Council’s discussion paper proposals for reform. It should have been evaluated!

The Declaration snuck itself into the Referendum Council final report.

The Declaration of Recognition has literally snuck itself into the proposal with no scrutiny, no evaluation against the criteria, and without the endorsement of even the hand-picked Yulara delegates. The later Joint Select Committee also overlooked this omission. This is not surprising when you note who was on the select committee.

It is now being further bypassed from wider scrutiny by a carefully controlled campaign which barely ever brings it up for education, discussion or debate.

What the Declaration of Recognition is

After I have literally combed through decades worth of Australian law journals that are freely available on line, I came across some academic papers which shed a lot of light on this.

Two papers of particular interest are;

• Moshinsky, Mark — “Re-enacting the Constitution in an Australian Act” [1989]

• Dillon, Anthony — “A Turtle by Any Other Name: The Legal Basis of the Australian Constitution” [2001]

Without trying to bore you with the legalistic details, this is what it means.

Australia has a problem with it’s foundation. It is not a truly independent State. The Australia Acts (1986) made Australia legislatively and administratively independent. They don’t have constraints on their operation. However, Australian governments still run under the authority of the Crown. So they do not act in their own authority.

Moshinsky writes that Independence consists of two components.

1. Autonomy – which Australia fully gained in 1986.

2. Autochthony – which means native – is to have governance who’s authority springs from their own soil. The independence to act in their own right. Australia lacks this.

Dillon discusses this problem in A Turtle by Any Other Name and lays out some ideas on how to overcome it. What is needed – in a nutshell – is a reenactment of the constitution in the name of the “Australian people”.

If we also consider the UN Decolonisation principles (which Dillon touched on very lightly by mentioning “reconcilliation”, which I think is code for colonially-controlled decolonisation) – “Australian people” should ideally include the colonised first peoples – because the natives hold the requisite authority of the soil. An alternative source of authority could be used – (something like a God, nationalism, white Australia pioneers, ANZAC heroes, a personality cult figurehead like Kim Il Sung etc.) however that may create more complications if the colonised population later pursue decolonisation. Including the subjugated, colonised population as an integral part of the reenactment of the constitution is the most elegant solution for the colony. It kills two birds with one stone. It upholds the constitution and the colonial status quo, and subdues Aboriginal peoples’ special status as colonised peoples in one go.

Now – Uphold and Recognise released a publication called A Fuller Declaration of Australia’s Nationhood with perfect timing to submit to the Joint Select Committee. This publication was attached in an Uphold and Recognise Joint Select Committee submission (No 172). It was heavily referenced in the final Joint Select Committee Final Report.

If you compare Dillon’s A Turtle by Any Other Name paper proposed solutions with the Uphold and Recognise A Fuller Declaration, there is a huge similarity. So much so – that I would bet that whoever wrote based it off Dillon’s paper. (watch the video at top of post for more comparison/explanation)

Megan Davis and Noel Pearson (Aboriginal Referendum Council members) are credited with helping write A Fuller Declaration. I question how appropriate this is in terms of accountability to their Aboriginal community. These two ran the dialogues without evaluating the Declaration, but included it as a final recommendation. Then – to push the knife in even deeper – they help write Uphold and Recognise’s Joint Select Committee submissions.

The Joint Select Committee itself was chaired by Jullian Leeser – if you recall – one of the original authors of the Declaration of Recognition booklet the first time this idea was proposed. By that time he had resigned from Uphold and Recognise – but really… come on! They couldn’t get someone else? You gotta wonder – is that how he got his safe blue-ribbon LNP pre-selection – because they wanted him chairing the Joint Select Committee?

There are many conflicts of interest here and hardly any grassroots involvement. Even the handpicked Yulara delegates were bypassed on this one.

The purpose of the Declaration of Recognition is to make Australia authoritatively independent. Another way to look at it – is that the Australia Acts (1986) are HALF of a Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Recognition is the second half.

They are using Aboriginal sovereignty as an initial fire-spark to gain authority for themselves through the Declaration of Recognition.