* The Uluru Statement is a profound call to complete the great democratic project of Australia.

* Constitutional recognition, treaties, raise fundamental questions about the intersection of identity, history, and the tradition of liberal western democracy.

* Treaties, constitutional recognition, can be consistent and even strengthen Australia’s democratic principles.

* The complexity of group rights is just one problematic factor among many when we ponder the efficacy of treaty or recognition.

Summary:

In an opinion piece Stan Grant, Chair of Indigenous Affairs at Charles Sturt University (CSU) talks of his disappointment in the lack of political will to put the Uluru Statement to the Australian people. He also talks of the complexity of identity and the difficulty in creating a meaningful treaty that reflects Indigenous Australia’s diversity.

“Constitutional recognition, treaties, raise fundamental questions about the intersection of identity, history, and the tradition of liberal western democracy. Most obviously, who would the Commonwealth be recognising or negotiating with?”

The complexity of group rights is just one problematic factor among many when we ponder the efficacy of treaty or recognition. Proponents of the rights of Indigenous Australians often make claims of restorative justice; some form of reparations. The claim is linked to historically rooted and ongoing socio-economic disadvantage.

Clearly this is a much deeper challenge, with potentially nation changing consequences. So, there is a demand for a much more robust political justification for recognition of rights beyond socio-economic disadvantage or historic discrimination.

Read more here.