There is presently little evidence in Australia of enactment of UNDRIP principles at the Commonwealth level. 2. There is some evidence of UNDRIP principles at the State level through diverse means. 3. UNDRIP principles contain well-established and desirable legal mechanisms for expression of First Nations’ peoples’ ongoing aspirations for self-determination. 4. There are three feasible means for enactment by the Commonwealth of UNDRIP principles: interpretive provisions; a Human Rights Act specifically enumerating the principles; embedding principles of self-determination and free, prior and informed consent into specific legislation (eg Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)). 5. Given the effect of the Constitution, a Commonwealth Human Rights Act will likely affect the operation of State legislation to the extent of any inconsistency. 6. There are many examples of legislative programs in need of urgent revision in light of UNDRIP principles, including: Northern Territory Intervention, Cashless Welfare Card, native title, heritage legislation and the Migration Act (following Love, Thoms v The Commonwealth) 7. There are various models that would be instructive for the Commonwealth in enacting UNDRIP principles including the framework in Canada, the treaty process in Victoria, Uluru Statement from the Heart, the Coalition of Peaks Closing the Gap Agreement, and the South West Settlement. 8. Implementation requires close attention to the ongoing effects of colonisation, but will benefit also from revisiting the recommendations of multiple Royal Commissions and Inquiries addressing diverse priority matters.