Uluru Statement From the Heart: Australian Public Law Pluralism
File version
Version of Record (VoR)
Author(s)
Galloway, Kathrine
Griffith University Author(s)
Primary Supervisor
Other Supervisors
Editor(s)
Date
Size
File type(s)
Location
Abstract
It is now over a year since the declaration of the Uluru Statement from the Heart (the ‘ Uluru Statement’). Following an exhaustive series of dialogues with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community throughout Australia, the Uluru Statement offers an Indigenous-led legal, political, and cultural solution for bringing together Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within our system of governance. Its three pillars are Voice, treaty, and truthtelling. In this comment we provide an overview of the Uluru Statement and its importance in Australia’s legal landscape. We do so as a background to our key contention that the Uluru Statement is a central pillar in a truly pluralistic Australian public law. Regardless of its political reception — at the time of writing the Australian government has rejected it out of hand — the Uluru Statement represents a milestone of Australian law offering a vital opportunity to integrate Indigenous law into an otherwise settler legal system.
Journal Title
Bond Law Review
Conference Title
Book Title
Edition
Volume
30
Issue
2
Thesis Type
Degree Program
School
DOI
Patent number
Funder(s)
Grant identifier(s)
Rights Statement
Rights Statement
© The Author(s) 2018. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License, which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, providing that the work is properly cited.
Item Access Status
Note
Access the data
Related item(s)
Subject
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the law
Public law
Law and legal studies
Persistent link to this record
Citation
Larkin, D; Galloway, K, Uluru Statement From the Heart: Australian Public Law Pluralism, Bond Law Review, 2018, 30 (2), pp. 335-345