Journal articles on the topic 'New Zealand. Attorney-General'

The right to freedom from discrimination in New Zealand is underpinned by equality, one of the most influential, yet amorphous principles in political theory. This article argues that the failure of New Zealand courts to articulate the norms behind the anti-discrimination guarantee enables arbitrary and inconsistent reasoning. The decisions of the High Court in Taylor v Attorney-General and the Court of Appeal in Ngaronoa v Attorney-General thus reflect a wrong turn in New Zealand discrimination law, taken in the case of Ministry of Health v Atkinson. Because discrimination law necessitates moral judgment, this article argues that the courts have been wrong to treat discrimination law as a largely amoral enterprise. Seen in this context, it should be unsurprising that the decisions of Taylor v Attorney-General and Ngaronoa v Attorney-General appear to mask moral judgments behind a façade of empiricism and common sense, and reveal different conceptions of equality.

In Make It 16 Incorporated vs. the Attorney-General, 21 November 2022, the Supreme Court of New Zealand ruled that existing legislation that does not allow people to vote in elections before the age of 18 is discriminatory because it is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which guarantees citizens freedom from age discrimination after the age of 16. The New Zealand Supreme Court has issued a declaration of incompatibility in this regard. However, this does not oblige either the government or parliament to lower the voting age.

This address was given at the Second Annual Legal Conference, held at Wellington, 3-5 April 1929. It followed an address by the then Attorney-General T K Sidey on legal education, an address which not only summarised the meagre nature of formal educational requirements to become a New Zealand lawyer, but directly compared them to that in the United States.

In Attorney-General v Taylor, New Zealand's Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's recognition, and exercise, of an implied jurisdiction to make (non-binding) declarations of legislative inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (the NZ Bill of Rights). Recognition of this novel jurisdiction says something important about the evolution of judicial-legislative relations under the NZ Bill of Rights. The question is: what exactly? This article suggests that a close analysis of the Court of Appeal's decision in Taylor in fact discloses three interwoven narratives that speak to the constitutional role of the courts in enforcing the NZ Bill of Rights: the NZ Bill of Rights as "legal benchmark"; the NZ Bill of Rights as "facilitator of inter-branch dialogue"; and the "common law-fuelled bill of rights". The article unpicks these narratives, explores the relationship between them and discusses the extent to which they succeed in accommodating or justifying the new declaratory remedy.

Two recent successful appeals to the Privy Council from the Court of Appeal of New Zealand have once again emphasised the importance of proprietary claims in conferring priority in insolvency over the claims of the general creditors of a bankrupt. Attorney-General for Hong Kong v. Reid1 concerned land in New Zealand purchased with the proceeds of bribes accepted by a Hong Kong Public Prosecutor as an inducement to exploit his official position to obstruct the prosecution of certain criminals. The Privy Council imposed a constructive trust where the Court of Appeal of New Zealand had, in accordance with precedent,2 denied one and thus enabled the Government of Hong Kong to recover the land in priority to any other creditors of the Public Prosecutor. In Re Goldcorp Exchange3 concerned the liquidation of a gold-dealer which had offered its purchasers the option of leaving their gold in its custody as “non-allocated bullion”.

At both the international and domestic level, the existence of a right to education is given widespread support. But what are the content and consequences of this right? The meaning of the right to education was examined recently in the context of special education by the High Court and Court of Appeal in Daniels v Attorney-General. The High Court saw the right as a substantive one; the Court of Appeal viewed it in procedural terms. These different conceptions of the right affected the remedies available to the plaintiffs. This article assesses the competing understandings of the education right in NZ, and concludes, particularly in light of the House of Lords' decision in Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council, that the High Court's approach is to be preferred.

This article was presented as a Victoria University of Wellington Centennial Lecture during Law Festival week in 1999. The author critically examines two aspects of the current operational structure of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990—the subordination of the Bill of Rights to all enactments (section 4) and the issue of "positive vets" of proposed legislation by the Attorney-General (section 7). The author identifies them as weaknesses, and makes suggestions as to possible improvements.

This article reintroduces the "forgotten" cases of R v Taylor, Attorney-General v Whitaker and Scott v Grace and considers their specific historical contexts. They raise controversial questions about the extent of the New Zealand governor's ability to grant lands outside of the provisions of local ordinances and imperial statutes by using the prerogative. The article notes the flow-on effects of the policy lacuna created by these judgments. The judgments of Justice Chapman and Chief Justice Martin caused considerable unease on the part of the colonial government and policy-makers in London as well as some New Zealand Company operatives. This in turn led to the subsequent legislative and policy efforts to qualify the reach of prerogative powers in colonies. The text of the cases is appended to this article.

This article considers Attorney-General v Tamil X, a recent New Zealand Supreme Court decision on refugee status determinations. Specifically, it considers the approach taken to art 1F of the Refugee Convention in decisions on the exclusion of claimants from refugee status. As claims are increasingly affected by art 1F considerations, it is imperative that the law in this complicated area is clear and just. This article traces Tamil X's advancement through the courts, and presents an analysis of the Supreme Court's judgment. The article also recommends some future developments for the jurisprudence on the exclusion clauses, specifically the adoption of a modified version of the ICTY jurisprudence on joint criminal enterprise.

This article examines the human rights consistency of the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill 2012. The Bill proposes a new scheme to detain recidivist sex offenders beyond the expiration of their finite sentences, if they are seen as highly likely to reoffend. Despite obvious human rights concerns, the Attorney-General issued a statement contending the Bill was consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The article analyses the correctness of that statement, with a particular focus on whether the Bill establishes a form of civil committal and is, in substance, different to prison detention.

Following the release of the Auckland Women Lawyers' Association funded research Women's career progression in Auckland law firms: Views from the top, views from below, the Executive Director and past-President of the New Zealand Law Society, Christine Grice, did some research into the situation of women QCs. She explored the issues facing senior women lawyers in an interview with Kathryn Ryan on "Nine to Noon" on 10 March 2014. On 6 June 2014, the 14 new QCs announced, included four women, with the Attorney-General saying: "I am aware there are very talented women in the profession who remain reticent about putting their names forward and I hope to see increasing numbers represented in the future."

True proportionality between the degree of a tortfeasor's fault and the extent of a plaintiff's loss is unachievable in negligence law in New Zealand. As Mallon J's judgment in Strathboss Kiwifruit Ltd v Attorney-General highlighted, the concept of proportionality can only be used to negate an alleged tortfeasor's duty of care, thereby eliminating the potential for liability. This approach does not accommodate differing levels of disproportionality. Moreover, relying on negligence law's liability limiting mechanisms to achieve proportionality, as Mallon J did in Strathboss, will not always be fruitful; there may still be a large gap between what a defendant has done and what the defendant is held accountable for. The extent of a tortfeasor's liability may depend on luck rather than principle. However, internationally, the wrongful conception and birth cases reveal a more nuanced use of proportionality: reducing the scope of a tortfeasor's duty of care. While this may be seen as inconsistent with negligence law's compensatory objective, I argue that a tortfeasor's interest in being free from undue burdens should constrain this objective, where necessary. This article develops on the reasoning in the wrongful conception and birth cases and borrows from the language of the Contributory Negligence Act 1947 to create a general mechanism for limiting a tortfeasor's liability in the interests of proportionality. The proposed mechanism aims to ensure that the law of negligence delivers more just results.

The use of comparator groups has to date been central to establishing a breach of s 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The New Zealand courts' approach to the formulation of comparator groups admits a lack of a clear methodology. The author argues that, in the absence of a framework guiding the formulation of the comparator, the methodology permits arbitrary and inconsistent decision-making. The flexibility of the approach risks premature exclusion of claims in reliance on intuitive rather than analytical reasoning, limiting the transformative potential of non-discrimination provisions and offending against the proper construction of s 19. Of particular concern is the involvement of matters of justification at the comparator stage. The judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal in B v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development and G B as Executor of the Estate of B of Whangarei v the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development respectively are emblematic of these concerns. Recent developments at the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Health v Atkinson and Child Poverty Action Group Inc v Attorney-General have provided some guidance, but have not gone far enough. The author recommends that the courts defer to the claimant's choice of comparator, and decouple the identification of differential treatment from questions of causation.

This article argues that the employment relationship should remain the underpinning rationale for vicarious liability. The article draws a distinction between cases where liability is imposed because the defendant is an employer, and those where liability is based on agency. Other non-employment vicarious liability cases are distinguished using liability for breach of non-delegable duties. The article also considers English cases where vicarious liability has been extended to relationships with similar characteristics to employment, and argues that this approach should be preferred to the New Zealand Court of Appeal's approach in S v Attorney-General. At the end of the article there is a discussion of the relationship between exemplary damages and vicarious liability. It is argued that, although exemplary damages may be inappropriate in vicarious liability cases, they should be available for breach of a non-delegable duty. Such an approach may better explain some of the decided vicarious liability cases.

This article concerns the case of Humane Society International v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd, in which the Humane Society, a non-governmental organisation, attempted to sue a Japanese company conducting whaling in the Southern Ocean in an area claimed as an exclusive economic zone by Australia. The Humane Society failed to convince the Federal Court to allow it to serve proceedings on the Japanese company outside Australia, after the judge agreed with the arguments provided by the Australian Attorney-General. These submissions included the possibility of an embarrassing international incident that could arise if a Japanese company were to be served with proceedings enforcing a law that Japan considers to be inconsistent with the freedom of navigation on the high seas. Underpinning the whole case was the issue of sovereignty over Antarctica, which Australia and other countries have disputed for many decades. The author evaluates Australia’s claim to an exclusive economic zone around its Antarctic territorial claim, and its use of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to declare a whale sanctuary in that part of the world. The author suggests that it might be possible for the Australian courts to read the whale sanctuary legislation in line with international law, potentially relying on the New Zealand Sellers case, to exclude overseas companies from the effects of the legislation. However, the author concludes it would not be desirable for the Australian Government to rely on such a possibility to avoid potential international repercussions from its domestic legislation.

Advance care planning for people with dementia has become a focus of dementia care policies in developed countries. In New Zealand, the framework for dementia care relies on the person with dementia having a level of competence to enable them to participate in the planning process. For people with dementia, it may be too late to initiate these discussions in terms of decision-making capacity. Consequently, decisions about end-of-life care for people with dementia are typically made by a family member who acts as a surrogate decision maker on behalf of the person with dementia. An exploratory qualitative study of 23 people who had been carers or provided support for a family member with dementia who had died within five years of the interview was undertaken. The overarching theme, ‘ordinary everyday conversations’, describes how informal conversations and discussions within the family relating to preferences at the end of life had been embedded in interactions within the families over years. Sub-themes revealed three important components enabling adherence to the prior wishes of the person with dementia through these conversations: knowing the person and belief in ‘doing the right thing’; the importance of Wills and Enduring Power of Attorney; and negotiating unexpected encounters. There is potential for families to be well prepared for the time when they may need to make decisions for the person with dementia based on ordinary everyday conversation that take place within families and throughout life. This study also suggests that more innovative approaches to making a Will may provide an important vehicle for expressing advanced care wishes.

As her inevitable death from brain cancer approached, a 42-year-old lawyer named Lecretia Seales wanted the option of receiving aid in dying from her (unnamed) general practitioner, who in turn was willing to provide that aid. Seales’ own actions would not breach the law; it has not been an offence in New Zealand for anyone to attempt to end her or his own life since 1961. However, should a doctor aid Seales to do so, she or he ran the risk of arrest and prosecution for breaching the Crimes Act 1961. A doctor who directly administers a lethal dose of medication at Seales’ request for the purpose of ending her life might be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter under section 160 of the Crimes Act. Providing Seales with a lethal dose of medication in the knowledge she may self-administer it to end her life some time in the future might lead to a prosecution for aiding or abetting suicide under section 179.

Controversy over access to minerals is not recent. For example, in 2011 the Supreme Court will hear the Paki v Attorney General case, involving Māori claims to continued interests in the bed of the Waikato River. In 1903, under the Coal Mines Amendment Act of that year, the beds of all ‘navigable’ rivers in New Zealand were taken because of a concern at the time about coal being mined under river beds. That law remains in force under the Crown Minerals Act 1991 (CMA) (section 11(2)). The case arises because there has never been a clear understanding of what ‘navigable’ means.

The 37th Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) witnessed some painful political inflammation in 2006. Its October annual heads of government meeting, held in Fiji, saw Australian prime minister John Howard face a Melanesian wall of resentment. This was instigated by a row that erupted over former Solomon Islands attorney general Julian Moti, an Australian lawyer facing extradition over child sex charges, who was sheltered by Solomon Island prime minister Manasseh Sogavare and his Papua New Guinea counterpart, Sir Michael Somare. With Australian impatience and willingness to assert aid conditionality, the temperature rose sharply. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer claimed that taxpayers deserved a far better return for what had been invested in the region.

Content alignment of journalistic reporting about scandals in the news or social media can be analyzed by identifying frames, a process by which they are derived from the material about a particular issue (inductive frame analysis) or using a set of re-occurring frames, which has been identified and operationalized in previous studies. This research overview will describe a catalog of frames measured in news coverage and journalistic Twitter communication of various scandals in different countries (e.g., Berti, 2019, Eder, 2023, Maier et al., 2019). Field of application/Theoretical foundation Political scandals have become an everyday phenomenon in news media. They also play a significant role when analyzing journalistic news and public communication processes as they reveal specific narrative patterns. Media content analyses investigate how journalists present information about evident or uncertain misbehavior by political actors and other elites. At the same time, there is still no consensus on a definition. One of the most comprehensive definitions so far—which integrates actor-centered definitions, approaches that define political scandals through a social framework, and approaches that reject a limitation to the political-administrative sphere—comes from von Sikorski (2018), who defines such scandals as follows: “Political scandals refer to real or conjectured norm transgressions of political actors or institutions. A particular norm transgression may occur in the context of political processes or in a politician’s private life and may or may not have legal consequences (e.g., official investigation by the office of the district attorney). […] News coverage about an alleged norm transgression must be framed as scandalous (scandal frame), and the scandalous behavior has to be unambiguously condemned” (pp. 136–137). Political scandals can be described as the result of journalists publishing information about misconduct and especially (financial) corruption of political actors. Therefore, “the analysis of the reasons for scandals usually overlaps with analyses of corruption” (Tumber & Waisbord, 2004, p. 1032), making (journalistic) content about corruption of political actors also relevant for framing research. Likewise, there is no gold standard for measuring (scandal) frames. Five different, not mutually exclusive, methodological approaches have emerged in the past decades (Matthes & Kohring, 2008), while the framing of political scandals has been mainly researched with the following two measurements: First, in the sense of Entman (1993), frames can be measured by different frame elements: particular problem definition, causal interpretation, treatment recommendation, and moral evaluation. Accordingly, a frame is present if more than one of the elements is present in the analyzed content. At the same time, not all (partial) elements need to be present (Entman, 1993, p. 52). Second, frames can be measured holistically, where thematic and episodic frames are used to identify patterns (de Vreese & Lecheler, 2012). In particular, the categorization of thematic frames by Semetko and Valkenburg (2000) has been proven reliable across different issues. References/Combination with other methods The framing of (political) scandals can be analyzed in various content, such as news articles, video, audio, and postings on (digital) platforms. At the same time, there is no consensus on the standardized measurement of frames. Moreover, the analysis of frames on political scandals has not been combined with other methods but rather relied on qualitative content analysis (see Eder, pp. 176–178), while the „issue-sensitivity makes analyses drawing on issue-specific frames difficult to generalize, compare and use as empirical evidence for theory building” (de Vreese & Lecheler, 2012, p. 295). Example studies Berti, C. (2019). Rotten apples or rotten system? Media framing of political corruption in New Zealand and Italy. Journalism Studies, 20(11), 1580–1597. DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2018.1530068 Eder, M. (2023). Politische Journalistinnen und Journalisten auf Twitter: Eine Framing-Analyse der Ibiza-Affäre im deutsch-österreichischen Vergleich [Political journalists on Twitter: A framing analysis of the Ibiza affair in German-Austrian comparison]. Nomos. DOI: 10.5771/9783748939832 Maier, J., Jansen, C. & von Sikorski, C. (2019). Media framing of political scandals: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence. In H. Tumber & S. R. Waisbord (Hrsg.), The Routledge companion to media and scandal (S. 104–114). Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781351173001-11 Information on Berti, 2019 Author: Carlo Berti Research question: How can different levels of corruption determine media representations of two corruption scandals in New Zealand and Italy? The author asked (a) how corruption is framed in the news media, (b) if there are relevant differences or similarities between those two countries, and (c) which different aspects of corruption and anti-corruption the identified frames make salient, unimportant, or invisible. Object of analysis: The first part of the study was based on a selected sample of news articles from four Italian and three New Zealand newspapers on the “Field scandal” and the “Expo scandal” (N = 220 articles; 134 for Italy, 86 for New Zealand). In the second part of the study, findings were integrated through a qualitative framing analysis of the print media coverage of the Corruption Perception Index in the two countries (N = 37 articles; 18 for Italy, 19 for New Zealand) over a period of twenty years (1996–2016). Time frame of analysis: Italy: May 8, 2014 to May 21, 2014 and November 28 to December 11, 2014; New Zealand: July 18, 2006 to September 10, 2006 and August 5 to August 18, 2009 Info about variables Variables: “The first frame, ‘systemic corruption’, is characterized by the use of a single case to draw generalizations on the high levels of corruption in the country. […] The second frame, ‘corruption as individual crime’, has a stronger focus on individual responsibilities of corrupt actors, juxtaposed with the integrity attributed to Parliament and/or society.” (p. 1586) Level of analysis: news article Variables and values: frame function – problem definition: Corruption as emergency, disaster, epidemic, environment, war (widespread problem); corruption as exception or integrity of the system (isolated case) frame function – causes: References to individuals accused of corruption (rotten apple(s); references to corruption networks, institutions, corrupt politics, political connivance (corrupt political system); references to a corrupt society or genetic corruption (corrupt society) frame function – moral judgment: Individual responsibilities or breach of trust (negative/ Individuals); immoral institutions, politics, parties; connivance or whitewash (negative/politics and institutions); immoral society or genetic corruption (Negative/society) frame function – solutions: Investigations, trials, arrests, convictions, expulsions (law enforcement/political punishment); reforms or introduction of ethical codes (reform); special laws, task forces (emergency measures); impossibility of efficient anti-corruption, references to previous failures (fatalism) Reliability: “Intercoder reliability (two independent coders, 26 randomly selected units of analysis) resulted in percent agreements of at least 0.8 and Cohen’s Kappa of at least 0.6 for each category. Pilot tests were used to refine the coding manual.” (p. 1585) Codebook: available upon request Information on Eder, 2023 Author: Maximilian Eder Research question: How do German and Austrian political journalists use media frames on Twitter to report on political scandals? The author asked (a) which frames political journalists use and (b) whether there are relevant differences or similarities between journalists from those two countries. Object of analysis: The study was based on a selection of 885 tweets (497 for Germany; 388 for Austria) from 149 political journalists (87 from Germany; 62 from Austria) working for print media with the most significant political relevance and national reach in Germany and Austria (N = 18). Time frame of analysis: May 17, 2019 to June 3, 2019 Info about variables Variables: Variables were derived from two previous studies on framing in the context of political scandalization (Berti, 2019; Maier et al., 2019) and were applied to the Twitter communication by political journalists. The established framing typology of Semetko and Valkenburg (2000) was also used. Level of analysis: tweets Variables and values: corruption frame: References to individuals accused of corruption (corruption as personal misbehavior); references to corrupt networks, institutions, or politics (corruption as systematic misbehavior) attack/defense frame: References to violation of norms, condemnation from others (attack of the issue); references to no violation of norms, support from others (defense of the issue) general frame: References to responsibility for issue (attribution of responsibility); references to human example, personal vignette (human interest); references to disagreement between parties, individuals, groups, and countries (conflict); references to moral messages, how to behave (morality); references to financial losses or gains, costs or expense (economics) Reliability: Overall reliability was calculated according to Holsti and Krippendorff’s α for a random sample of 90 tweets (10 percent of the total sample). The following satisfactory results were obtained: .97 (rH) and .74 rα (intercoder reliability test); .93 (rH) and .75 (rα) (intracoder reliability test). Reliability values for individual variables range from .95 to .99 (rH) and .69 to .83 (rα) (intercoder reliability test); .91 to .96 (rH) and .66 to .75 (rα) (intracoder reliability test). Such values among the threshold defined by Krippendorff (2004, p. 429) are the result of a “’one-sided distribution” (Riffe et al., 2019, p. 128). Further values can be obtained from the appendix. Codebook: in the appendix (in German) Information on Maier et al., 2019 Author: Jürgen Maier, Carolin Jansen, & Christian von Sikorski Research question: How do German print media frame a scandal? Therefore, the authors ask whether the media defends or attacks the actor involved in a scandal. Object of analysis: The study was based on a sample of print media articles on the 2011 plagiarism scandal of the German Secretary of Defense zu Guttenberg from the five most important nationwide German daily newspapers (N = 261 articles). Time frame of analysis: February 16, 2011 to March 1, 2011 Info about variables Variables: Variables describe the different framing by media outlets of the behavior from zu Guttenberg. If he “is to blame for his behavior, we call this the use of an ‘attack frame.’ If the media show sympathy for what he did, tries to explain or even to defend him, we label this strategy of coverage ‘defense frame’” (p. 108). Moreover, the authors coded explicit frames if all four frame elements, according to Entman (1993), were present in the articles; implicit frames if only two or three frame elements could be identified. No frame was coded for an article if none or only one of the frame elements is mentioned. Level of analysis: news article Variables and values: frame element – problem definition: Violation of norms and public issue (attack frame); no violation of norms and private issue (defense frame) frame element – causal interpretation: Personal fault, personality, full personal control (attack frame); external circumstances, coincidence, out of personal control (defense frame) frame element – moral evaluation: Condemnation from own camp, condemnation from opposition, condemnation from other media, condemnation from citizens (attack frame); support from own camp, support from the opposition, support from other media, support from citizens (defense frame) frame element – treatment recommendation: Support of: general/unspecific actions, resignation from office, personal punishment, defamation, a complete solving, an apology, constitution of committees, structural actions (attack frame); refusal of: general/unspecific actions, resignation from office, personal punishment, defamation, a complete solving, an apology, constitution of committees, structural actions (defense frame) Reliability: “Intercoder reliability (Holsti 1969, 140) was calculated for a random sample of 10 percent of the total sample. Reliability for the indicators of the elements of the attack and the defense frame ranges from 0.80 to 0.88.” (p. 112) Codebook: n.a. References de Vreese, C. H. & Lecheler, S. (2012). News framing research: An overview and new developments. In H. A. Semetko & M. Scammell (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of political communication (pp. 292–306). Sage. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411–433. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00738.x Matthes, J., & Kohring, M. (2008). The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving reliability and validity. Journal of communication, 58(2), 258–279. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00384.x Semetko, H. A. & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93–109. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02843.x Riffe, D., Lacy, S., Watson, B. R. & Fico, F. (2019). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research (4. ed.). Routledge. Tumber, H., & Waisbord, S. R. (2004). Introduction: Political scandals and media across democracies (Vol 1.). American Behavioral Scientist, 47(8), 1031–1039. DOI: 10.1177/0002764203262275 von Sikorski, C. (2018). The contents and effects of political scandals: A synopsis. In A. Haller, H. Michael & M. Kraus (Hrsg.), Scandalogy: An interdisciplinary field (pp. 135–154). Herbert von Halem.

Introduction In 2017, 250 Indigenous delegates from across the country convened at the National Constitution Convention at Uluru to discuss a strategy towards the implementation of constitutional reform and recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Referendum Council). Informed by community consultations arising out of 12 regional dialogues conducted by the government appointed Referendum Council, the resulting Uluru Statement from the Heart was unlike any constitutional reform previously proposed (Appleby & Synot). Within the Statement, the delegation outlined that to build a more equitable and reconciled nation, an enshrined Voice to Parliament was needed. Such a voice would embed Indigenous participation in parliamentary dialogues and debates while facilitating further discussion pertaining to truth telling and negotiating a Treaty between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. The reforms proposed are based on the collective input of Indigenous communities that were expressed in good faith during the consultation process. Arising out of a government appointed and funded initiative that directly sought Indigenous perspectives on constitutional reform, the trust and good faith invested by Indigenous people was quickly shut down when the Prime Minster, Malcolm Turnbull, rejected the reforms without parliamentary debate or taking them to the people via a referendum (Wahlquist Indigenous Voice Proposal; Appleby and McKinnon). In this article, we argue that through its dismissal the government treated the Uluru Statement from the Heart as a passing phase or mere “thought bubble” that was envisioned to disappear as quickly as it emerged. The Uluru Statement is a gift to the nation. One that genuinely offers new ways of envisioning and enacting reconciliation through equitable relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations. Indigenous voices lie at the heart of reconciliation but require constitutional enshrinement to ensure that Indigenous peoples and cultures are represented across all levels of government. Filter Bubbles of Distortion Constitutional change is often spoken of by politicians, its critics, and within the media as something unachievable. For example, in 2017, before even reading the accompanying report, MP Barnaby Joyce (in Fergus) publicly denounced the Uluru Statement as “unwinnable” and not “saleable”. He stated that “if you overreach in politics and ask for something that will not be supported by the Australian people such as another chamber in politics or something that sort of sits above or beside the Senate, that idea just won't fly”. Criticisms such as these are laced with paternalistic rhetoric that suggests its potential defeat at a referendum would be counterproductive and “self-defeating”, meaning that the proposed changes should be rejected for a more digestible version, ultimately saving the movement from itself. While efforts to communicate the necessity of the proposed reforms continues, presumptions that it does not have public support is simply unfounded. The Centre for Governance and Public Policy shows that 71 per cent of the public support constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. Furthermore, an online survey conducted by Cox Inall Ridgeway found that the majority of those surveyed supported constitutional reform to curb racism; remove section 25 and references to race; establish an Indigenous Voice to Parliament; and formally recognise Indigenous peoples through a statement of acknowledgment (Referendum Council). In fact, public support for constitutional reform is growing, with Reconciliation Australia’s reconciliation barometer survey showing an increase from 77 per cent in 2018 to 88 per cent in 2020 (Reconciliation Australia). Media – whether news, social, databases, or search engines – undoubtedly shape the lens through which people come to encounter and understand the world. The information a person receives can be the result of what Eli Pariser has described as “filter bubbles”, in which digital algorithms determine what perspectives, outlooks, and sources of information are considered important, and those that are readily accessible. Misinformation towards constitutional reform, such as that commonly circulated within mainstream and social media and propelled by high profile voices, further creates what neuroscientist Don Vaughn calls “reinforcement bubbles” (Rose Gould). This propagates particular views and stunts informed debate. Despite public support, the reforms proposed in the Uluru Statement continue to be distorted within public and political discourses, with the media used as a means to spread misinformation that equates an Indigenous Voice to Parliament to the establishment of a new “third chamber” (Wahlquist ‘Barnaby’; Karp). In a 2018 interview, PM Scott Morrison suggested that advocates and commentators in favour of constitutional reform were engaging in spin by claiming that a Voice did not function as a third chamber (Prime Minister of Australia). Morrison claimed, “people can dress it up any way they like but I think two chambers is enough”. After a decade of consultative work, eight government reports and inquiries, and countless publications and commentaries, the Uluru Statement continues to be played down as if it were a mere thought bubble, a convoluted work in progress that is in need of refinement. In the same interview, Morrison went on to say that the proposal as it stands now is “unworkable”. Throughout the ongoing movement towards constitutional reform, extensive effort has been invested into ensuring that the reforms proposed are achievable and practical. The Uluru Statement from the Heart represents the culmination of decades of work and proposes clear, concise, and relatively minimal constitutional changes that would translate to potentially significant outcomes for Indigenous Australians (Fredericks & Bradfield). International examples demonstrate how such reforms can translate into parliamentary and governing structures. The Treaty of Waitangi (Palmer) for example seeks to inform Māori and Pākehā (non-Maori) relationships in New Zealand/Aotearoa, whilst designated “Māori Seats” ensure Indigenous representation in parliament (Webster & Cheyne). More recently, 17 of 155 seats were reserved for Indigenous delegates as Chile re-writes its own constitution (Bartlett; Reuters). Indigenous communities and its leaders are more than aware of the necessity of working within the realms of possibility and the need to exhibit caution when presenting such reforms to the public. An expert panel on constitutional reform (Dodson 73), before the conception of the Uluru Statement, acknowledged this, stating “any proposal relating to constitutional recognition of the sovereign status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would be highly contested by many Australians, and likely to jeopardise broad public support for the Panel’s recommendations”. As outlined in the Joint Select Committee’s final report on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Referendum Council), the Voice to parliament would have no veto powers over parliamentary votes or decisions. It operates as a non-binding advisory body that remains external to parliamentary processes. Peak organisations such as the Law Council of Australia (Dolar) reiterate the fact that the proposed reforms are for a voice to Parliament rather than a voice in Parliament. Although not binding, the Voice should not be dismissed as symbolic or something that may be easily circumvented. Its effectiveness lies in its ability to place parliament in a position where they are forced to confront and address Indigenous questions, concerns, opinions, and suggestions within debates before decisions are made. Bursting the ‘Self-Referential Bubble’ Indigenous affairs continue to be one of the few areas where a rhetoric of bipartisan agreement is continuously referenced by both major parties. Disagreement, debate, and conflict is often avoided as governments seek to portray an image of unity, and in doing so, circumvent accusations of turning Indigenous peoples into the subjects of political point scoring. Within parliamentary debates, there is an understandable reservation and discomfort associated with discussions about what is often seen as an Indigenous “other” (Moreton-Robinson) and the policies that a predominantly white government enact over their lives. Yet, it is through rigorous, open, and informed debate that policies may be developed, challenged, and reformed. Although bipartisanship can portray an image of a united front in addressing a so-called “Indigenous problem”, it also stunts the conception of effective and culturally responsive policy. In other words, it often overlooks Indigenous voices. Whilst education and cultural competency plays a significant role within the reconciliation process, the most pressing obstacle is not necessarily non-Indigenous people’s inability to fully comprehend Indigenous lives and socio-cultural understandings. Even within an ideal world where non-Indigenous peoples attain a thorough understanding of Indigenous cultures, they will never truly comprehend what it means to be Indigenous (Fanon; de Sousa Santos). For non-Indigenous peoples, accepting one’s own limitations in fully comprehending Indigenous ontologies – and avoiding filling such gaps with one’s own interpretations and preconceptions – is a necessary component of decolonisation and the movement towards reconciliation (Grosfoguel; Mignolo). As parliament continues to be dominated by non-Indigenous representatives, structural changes are necessary to ensure that Indigenous voices are adequality represented. The structural reforms not only empower Indigenous voices through their inclusion within the parliamentary process but alleviates some of the pressures that arise out of non-Indigenous people having to make decisions in attempts to solve so-called Indigenous “problems”. Government response to constitutional reform, however, is ridden with symbolic piecemeal offerings that equate recognition to a form of acknowledgment without the structural changes necessary to protect and enshrine Indigenous Voices and parliamentary participation. Davis and her colleagues (Davis et al. “The Uluru Statement”) note how the Referendum Council’s recommendations were rejected by the then minister of Indigenous affairs Nigel Scullion on account that it privileged Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices. They note that, until the Referendum Council's report, the nation had no real assessment of what communities wanted. Yet by all accounts, the government had spent too much time talking to elites who have regular access to them and purport to speak on the mob's behalf. If he [Scullion] got the sense constitutional symbolism and minimalism was going to fly, then it says a lot about the self-referential bubble in which the Canberra elites live. The Uluru Statement from the Heart stands as testament to Indigenous people’s refusal to be the passive recipients of the decisions of the non-Indigenous political elite. As suggested, “symbolism and minimalism was not going to fly”. Ken Wyatt, Scullion’s replacement, reiterated the importance of co-design, the limitations of government bureaucracy, and the necessity of moving beyond the “Canberra bubble”. Wyatt stated that the Voice is saying clearly that government and the bureaucracy does not know best. It can not be a Canberra-designed approach in the bubble of Canberra. We have to co-design with Aboriginal communities in the same way that we do with state and territory governments and the corporate sector. The Voice would be the mechanism through which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interests and perspectives may be strategically placed within parliamentary dialogues. Despite accusations of it operating as a “third chamber”, Indigenous representatives have no interest in functioning in a similar manner to a political party. The language associated with our current parliamentary system demonstrates the constrictive nature of political debate. Ministers are expected to “toe the party line”, “crossing the floor” is presented as an act of defiance, and members must be granted permission to enter a “conscience vote”. An Indigenous Voice to Parliament would be an advisory body that works alongside, but remains external to political ideologies. Their priority is to seek and implement the best outcome for their communities. Negotiations would be fluid, with no floor to cross, whilst a conscience vote would be reflected in every perspective gifted to the parliament. In the 2020 Australia and the World Annual Lecture, Pat Turner described the Voice’s co-design process as convoluted and a continuing example of the government’s neglect to hear and respond to Indigenous peoples’ interests. In the address, Turner points to the Coalition of the Peaks as an exemplar of how co-design negotiations may be facilitated by and through organisations entirely formed and run by Indigenous peoples. The Coalition of the Peaks comprises of fifty Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled peak organisations and was established to address concerns relating to closing the gap targets. As Indigenous peak organisations are accountable to their membership and reliant on government funding, some have questioned whether they are appropriate representative bodies; cautioning that they could potentially compromise the Voice as a community-centric body free from political interference. While there is some debate over which Indigenous representatives should facilitate the co-design of a treaty and Makarrata (truth-telling), there remains a unanimous call for a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament that may lead negotiations and secure its place within decision-making processes. Makarrata, Garma, and the Bubbling of New Possibilities An Indigenous Voice to Parliament can be seen as the bubbling spring that provides the source for greater growth and further reform. The Uluru Statement from the Heart calls for a three-staged approach comprising of establishing an Indigenous Voice, followed by Treaty, and then Truth-Telling. This sequence has been criticised by some who prioritise Truth and Treaty as the foundation for reform and reconciliation. Their argument is based on the notion that Indigenous Sovereignty must first be acknowledged in Parliament through an agreement-making process and signing of a Treaty. While the Uluru Statement has never lost sight of treaty, the agreement-making process must begin with the acknowledgment of Indigenous people’s inherent right to participate in the conversation. This very basic and foundational right is yet to be acknowledged within Australia’s constitution. The Uluru Statement sets the Voice as its first priority as the Voice establishes the structural foundation on which the conversation pertaining to treaty may take place. It is through the Voice that a Makarrata Commission can be formed and Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples may “come together after a struggle” – the translation of the word’s Yolngu origins (Gaykamangu; Pearson). Only then may we engage in truth telling and forge new paths towards agreement-making and treaty. This however raises the question as to how a Voice to Parliament may look and what outcomes it aims to achieve. As discussed in the previous section, it is a question that is often distorted by disinformation and conjecture within public, political, and news-media discourses. In order to unpack what a Voice to Parliament may entail, we turn to another Yolngu word, Garma. Garma refers to an epistemic and ontological positioning in which knowledge is attained from a point where differences converge and new insights arise. For Yolngu people, Garma is the place where salt and fresh water intersect within the sea. Fresh and Salt water are the embodiments of two Yolngu clans, the Dhuwa and Yirritja, with Garma referring to the point where the knowledge and laws of each clan come into contact, seeking harmonious balance. When the ebb and flow of the tides are in balance, it causes the water to foam and bubble taking on new form and representing innovative ideas and possibilities. Yolngu embrace this phenomenon as an epistemology that teaches responsibility and obligations towards the care of Country. It acknowledges the autonomy of others and finds a space where all may mutually benefit. When the properties of either water type, or the knowledge belonging a single clan dominates, ecological, social, political, and cosmological balance is overthrown. Raymattja Marika-Munungguritj (5) describes Garma as a dynamic interaction of knowledge traditions. Fresh water from the land, bubbling up in fresh water springs to make waterholes, and salt water from the sea are interacting with each other with the energy of the tide and the energy of the bubbling spring. When the tide is high the water rises to its full. When the tide goes out the water reduces its capacity. In the same way Milngurr ebbs and flows. In this way the Dhuwa and Yirritja sides of Yolngu life work together. And in this way Balanda and Yolngu traditions can work together. There must be balance, if not either one will be stronger and will harm the other. The Ganma Theory is Yirritja, the Milngurr Theory is Dhuwa. Like the current push for constitutional change and its rejection of symbolic reforms, Indigenous peoples have demanded real-action and “not just talk” (Synott “The Uluru statement”). In doing so, they implored that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples be involved in all decision-making processes, for they are most knowledgeable of their community’s needs and the most effective methods of service delivery and policy. Indigenous peoples have repeatedly expressed this mandate, which is also legislated under international law through the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Coming together after a struggle does not mean that conflict and disagreement between and amongst Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities will cease. In fact, in alignment with political theories such as agonism and pluralism, coming together within a democratic system necessitates a constructive and responsive embrace of different, competing, and in some cases incommensurable views. A Voice to Parliament will operate in a manner where Indigenous perspectives and truths, as well as disagreements, may be included within negotiations and debates (Larkin & Galloway). Governments and non-Indigenous representatives will no longer speak for or on behalf of Indigenous peoples, for an Indigenous body will enact its own autonomous voice. Indigenous input therefore will not be reduced to reactionary responses and calls for reforms after the damage of mismanagement and policy failure has been caused. Indigenous voices will be permanently documented within parliamentary records and governments forced to respond to the agendas that Indigenous peoples set. Collectively, this amounts to greater participation within the democratic process and facilitates a space where “salt water” and the “bubbling springs” of fresh water may meet, mitigating the risk of harm, and bringing forth new possibilities. Conclusion When salt and fresh water combine during Garma, it begins to take on new form, eventually materialising as foam. Appearing as a singular solid object from afar, foam is but a cluster of interlocking bubbles that gain increased stability and equilibrium through sticking together. When a bubble stands alone, or a person remains within a figurative bubble that is isolated from its surroundings and other ways of knowing, doing, and being, its vulnerabilities and insecurities are exposed. Similarly, when one bubble bursts the collective cluster becomes weaker and unstable. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a vision conceived and presented by Indigenous peoples in good faith. It offers a path forward for not only Indigenous peoples and their future generations but the entire nation (Synott “Constitutional Reform”). It is a gift and an invitation “to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future”. Through calling for the establishment of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, a Makarrata Commission, and seeking Truth, Indigenous advocates for constitutional reform are looking to secure their own foothold and self-determination. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is more than a “thought bubble”, for it is the culmination of Indigenous people’s diverse lived experiences, outlooks, perspectives, and priorities. When the delegates met at Uluru in 2017, the thoughts, experiences, memories, and hopes of Indigenous peoples converged in a manner that created a unified front and collectively called for Voice, Treaty, and Truth. Indigenous people will never cease to pursue self-determination and the best outcomes for their peoples and all Australians. As an offering and gift, the Uluru Statement from the Heart provides the structural foundations needed to achieve this. It just requires governments and the wider public to move beyond their own bubbles and avail themselves of different outlooks and new possibilities. References Anderson, Pat, Megan Davis, and Noel Pearson. “Don’t Silence Our Voice, Minister: Uluru Leaders Condemn Backward Step.” Sydney Morning Herald 20 Oct. 2017. <https://www.smh.com.au/national/don-t-silence-our-voice-minister-uluru-leaders-condemn-backward-step-20191020-p532h0.html>. Appleby, Gabrielle, and Megan Davis. “The Uluru Statement and the Promises of Truth.” Australian Historical Studies 49.4 (2018): 501–9. Appleby, Gabrielle, and Gemma Mckinnon. “Indigenous Recognition: The Uluru Statement.” LSJ: Law Society of NSW Journal 37.36 (2017): 36-39. Appleby, Gabrielle, and Eddie Synot. “A First Nations Voice: Institutionalising Political Listening. Federal Law Review 48.4 (2020): 529-542. Bailes, Morry. “Why the Law Council Backs an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.” InDaily 31 July 2018. <https://indaily.com.au/opinion/2018/07/31/why-the-law-council-backs-an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament/>. Bartlett, John. "Chile’s Largest Indigenous Group Sees Opportunity in a New Constitution." New York Times, 16 Sep. 2020. 19 Nov. 2020 <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/16/world/americas/chile-mapuche-constitution.html>. Brennan, Bridget. “Indigenous Leaders Enraged as Advisory Board Referendum is Rejected by Malcolm Turnbull.” ABC News 27 Oct. 2017. <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-27/indigenous-leaders-enraged-by-pms-referendum-rejection/9090762>. Centre for Governance and Public Policy. OmniPoll Australian Constitutional Values Survey 2017. Griffith University: Centre for Governance and Public Policy, 30 Oct. 2017. <https://news.griffith.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Griffith-University-UNSW-Australian-Constitutional-Values-Survey-Sept-2017-Results-2.pdf>. Davidson, Helen, and Katherine Murphy. “Referendum Council Endorses Uluru Call for Indigenous Voice to Parliament.” The Guardian 17 July 2017. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/17/referendum-council-endorses-uluru-call-indigenous-voice-parliament>. Davis, Megan. “Some Say a Voice to Parliament Is Toothless. But Together Our Voices Are Powerful.” The Guardian 13 Aug. 2020. <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/13/some-say-a-voice-to-parliament-is-toothless-but-together-our-voices-are-powerful>. ———. “No Time for the Meek.” The Monthly Oct. 2019. <https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2019/october/1569370776/megan-davis/no-time-meek>. ———. “Moment of Truth.” Quarterly Essay 69 (2019). <https://www.quarterlyessay.com.au/content/correspondence-megan-davis>. ———. “The Long Road to Uluru – Truth before Justice.” Griffith Review 2018. <https://www.griffithreview.com/articles/long-road-uluru-walking-together-truth-before-justice-megan-davis/>. ———. “The Status Quo Ain’t Working: The Uluru Statement from the Heart Is the Blueprint for an Australian Republic.” The Monthly 7 June 2018. <https://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/megan-davis/2018/07/2018/1528335353/status-quo-ain-t-working>. Davis, Megan, Rosalind Dixon, Gabrielle Appleby, and Noel Pearson. “The Uluru Statement.” Bar News: The Journal of the NSW Bar Association Autumn (2018): 41–48. <https://search-informit-com.au.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/fullText;dn=20180726000224;res=AGISPT>. Davis, Megan, Cheryl Saunders, Mark McKenna, Shireen Morris, Christopher Mayes, and Maria Giannacopoulos. “The Uluru Statement from Heart, One Year On: Can a First Nations Voice Yet Be Heard?” ABC Religion and Ethics 26 May 2018. <https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-uluru-statement-from-heart-one-year-on-can-a-first-nations-v/10094678>. De Sousa Santos, Boaventura. Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide. Routledge, 2015. Dodson, P. 2012. Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution: Report of the Expert Panel. <http://australianpolitics.com/downloads/issues/indigenous/12-01-16_indigenous-recognition-expert-panel-report.pdf>. Dolar, Sol. “Law Council Explains Government’s Key Misunderstanding of the Uluru Statement.” Australasian Lawyer 5 Nov. 2019. <https://www.thelawyermag.com/au/news/general/law-council-explains-governments-key-misunderstanding-of-the-uluru-statement/208247?m=1>. Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. Macgibbon & Kee, 1965. Fredericks, Bronwyn, and Abraham Bradfield. “We Don’t Want to Go Back to ‘Normal’, When ‘Normal’ Wasn’t Good for Everyone.” Axon: Creative Explorations 10.2 (2020). <https://www.axonjournal.com.au/issue-vol-10-no-2-dec-2020/we-don-t-want-go-back-normal-when-normal-wasn-t-good-everyone>. Ford, Mazoe, and Clare Blumer. “Vote Compass: Most Australians Back Constitutional Recognition for Indigenous Australians.” ABC News 20 May 2016. <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-20/vote-compass-indigenous-recognition/7428030?nw=0>. Gaykamangu, James, and Danial Terence Kelly. “Ngarra Law: Aboriginal Customary Law from Arnhem Land.” Northern Territory Law Journal 2.4 (2012): 236-248. Grant, Stan. “Three Years on From Uluru, We Must Lift the Blindfolds of Liberalism to Make Progress.” The Conversation 25 May 2020. <https://theconversation.com/three-years-on-from-uluru-we-must-lift-the-blindfolds-of-liberalism-to-make-progress-138930>. Grosfoguel, Ramón. "Decolonizing Post-Colonial Studies and Paradigms of Political Economy: Transmodernity, Decolonial Thinking, and Global Coloniality." Transmodernity 1.1 (2011): 1-36. Hunter, Fergus. “'It's Not Going to Happen': Barnaby Joyce Rejects Push for Aboriginal Body in Constitution.” Sydney Morning Herald 29 May 2017. <https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/its-not-going-to-happen-barnaby-joyce-rejects-push-for-aboriginal-body-in-constitution-20170529-gwf5ld.html>. Karp, Paul. “Scott Morrison Claims Indigenous Voice to Parliament Would Be a Third Chamber.” The Guardian, 26 Sep. 2018. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/26/scott-morrison-claims-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-would-be-a-third-chamber>. Koziol, Michael. “Joyce Admits He Was Wrong to Call Indigenous Voice a 'Third Chamber’.” Sydney Morning Herald 18 July 2019. <https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/barnaby-joyce-admits-he-was-wrong-to-call-indigenous-voice-a-third-chamber-20190718-p528ki.html>. Larkin, Dani, and Kate Galloway. “Uluru Statement from the Heart: Australian Public Law Pluralism.” Bond Law Review 30.2 (2018): 335–345. Law Council of Australia. “Nothing ‘Un-Australian’ about Human Rights, the Constitution and the Rule of Law.” 14 Aug. 2017. <https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/media/media-releases/nothing-unaustralian-about-human-rights-the-constitution-and-the-rule-of-law>. Law Council of Australia. “Law Council Supports Calls for Voice to Parliament.” 15 June 2018. <https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/media/media-releases/law-council-supports-calls-for-voice-to-parliament>. Marika-Munugurritj, Raymattja. Workshops as Teaching Learning Environments. Paper presented to Yirrkala Action Group, 1992. Martin, Wayne AC. Constitutional Law Dinner 2018 Address by Wayne Martin AC Chief Justice of Western Australia. Sydney: Parliament House, 23 Feb. 2018. Mignolo, Walter. Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton University Press, 2012. Moreton-Robinson, Aileen. The White Possessive: Property, Power, and Indigenous Sovereignty. U of Minnesota P, 2015. Norman, Heidi. “From Recognition to Reform: The Uluru Statement from the Heart.” Does the Media Fail Aboriginal Political Aspirations? Eds. Amy Thomas, Andrew Jakubowicz, and Heidi Norman. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, 2019. 216–231. Pearson, Luke. “What Is a Makarrata? The Yolngu Word Is More than a Synonym for Treaty.” ABC Radio National 10 Aug. 2017. <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-10/makarrata-explainer-yolngu-word-more-than-synonym-for-treaty/8790452>. Praiser, Eli. The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. Penguin, 2012. Prime Minister, Attorney General, and Minister for Indigenous Affairs. Response to Referendum Council's Report on Constitutional Recognition. 26 Oct. 2017. <https://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/response-to-referendum-councils-report-on-constitutional-recognition>. Prime Minister of Australia. Radio interview with Fran Kelly. ABC Radio National 26 Sep 2018. <https://www.pm.gov.au/media/radio-interview-fran-kelly-abc-rn>. Reconciliation Australia. 2020 Australian Reconciliation Barometer, 2020. <https://www.reconciliation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/australian_reconciliation_barometer_2020_-full-report_web.pdf>. Referendum Council. Referendum Council Final Report, 2017. <https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/report_attachments/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf>. Reuters. "Chile Reserves Seats for Indigenous as It Prepares to Rewrite Constitution." Reuters, 16 Dec. 2020. 19 Nov. 2020 <https://www.reuters.com/article/chile-constitution-indigenous-idUSKBN28Q05J>. Rose Gould, Wendy. “Are You in a Social Media Bubble? Here's How to Tell.” NBC News 22 Oct. 2019. <https://www.nbcnews.com/better/lifestyle/problem-social-media-reinforcement-bubbles-what-you-can-do-about-ncna1063896>. Rubenstein, Kim. “Power, Control and Citizenship: The Uluru Statement from the Heart as Active Citizenship.” Bond Law Review 30.1 (2018): 19-29. Synott, Eddie. “The Uluru Statement Showed How to Give First Nations People a Real Voice – Now It’s the Time for Action.” The Conversation 5 Mar. 2019. <https://theconversation.com/the-uluru statement-showed-how-to-give-first-nations-people-a-real-voice-now-its-time-for-action-110707>. ———. “Constitutional Reform Made Easy: How to Achieve the Uluru Statement and a Voice.” The Conversation 7 May 2019. <https://theconversation.com/constitutional-reform-made-easy-how-to-achieve-the-uluru-statement-and-a-first-nations-voice-116141>. Turner, Pat. “The Long Cry of Indigenous Peoples to Be Heard – a Defining Moment in Australia.” The 'Australia and the World' 2020 Annual Lecture. National Press Club of Australia, 30 Sep. 2020. <https://ausi.anu.edu.au/events/australia-and-world-2020-annual-lecture-pat-turner-am>. Wahlquist, Calla. “A Year On, the Key Goal of Uluru Statement Remains Elusive.” The Guardian 26 May 2018. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/26/a-year-on-the-key-goal-of-uluru-statement-remains-elusive>. ———. “Barnaby Joyce Criticised for Misinterpreting Proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament.” The Guardian 29 May 2017. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/may/29/barnaby-joyce-criticised-for-misinterpreting-proposed-indigenous-voice-to-parliament>. ———. “Indigenous Voice Proposal ‘Not Desirable’, Says Turnbull.” The Guardian 26 Oct. 2017. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/26/indigenous-voice-proposal-not-desirable-says-turnbull>. ———. “Turnbull’s Uluru Statement Rejection Is ‘Mean-Spirited Bastardry’ – Legal Expert.” The Guardian 26 Oct. 2017. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/26/turnbulls-uluru-statement-rejection-mean-spirited-bastardry-legal-expert>. Wyatt, Ken. “Indigenous Australia: A New Way of Working.” 15 Sep. 2020. <https://ministers.pmc.gov.au/wyatt/2020/indigenous-australia-new-way-working>. Yunupingu, Galarrwuy. “Rom Watangu: An Indigenous Leader Reflects on a Lifetime Following the Law of the Land.” The Monthly (2016). Zillman, Stephanie. “Indigenous Advisory Body Would Be Supported by Australians, Survey Finds.” ABC News 30 Oct. 2017. <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-30/australians-would-support-referendum-indigenous-voice-parliament/9101106>.