A rightful relationship: towards a deliberative practice of constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Australia is struggling to forge a new relationship between Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander peoples, non-Indigenous Australians and Australian governments based on mutual understanding, recognition and respect.Constitutional recognition is currently being considered as a step towards such a relationship.Reaching agreement on how to institutionalize such recognition is proving difficult.The greatest disagreement is over whether or not legislative power in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should be limited, for instance, by an express prohibition on discrimination or by a requirement that the laws be beneficial.However, this focus on whether or not legislative power should be expressly limited fails to acknowledge that the majoritarian nature of our current parliamentary model suffers from a democratic legitimacy problem.That is, it does not give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples an adequate say over laws and measures that affect their rights and interests.This thesis argues that: first, a deliberative democratic, rather than liberal/nationalist accommodationist, approach addresses this legitimacy problem in a way that eases the tension between majoritarian democracy and rights entrenchment; and second, democratic experimentalism offers a promising framework for institutionalizing such a deliberative approach.Rather than focusing on Parliament or the courts, it focuses on the public sphere acting through legally empowered deliberative forums to solve problems in a way that is constitutive of a new relationship characterized by mutual understanding, recognition and respect.____________________ L'Australie s'efforce de forger une nouvelle relation fondée sur la compréhension mutuelle, la reconnaissance et le respect entre les peuples autochtones, les Australiens non autochtones et les gouvernements australiens.La reconnaissance constitutionnelle est aujourd'hui envisagée comme étant une étape supplémentaire vers cette nouvelle relation.Cependant, parvenir à un accord sur la façon d'institutionnaliser la reconnaissance s'avère une tâche difficile.Le désaccord le plus important traite de la question de savoir si le pouvoir législatif concernant les peuples autochtones devrait être constitutionnellement limité ou non, en particulier par une interdiction expresse de discriminer ou par une exigence que les lois leur soient favorables.Toutefois, cette attention particulière donnée aux garanties being available and providing an ear and invaluable comments when I was (often) in a pickle.To Charlie Feldman, for your ruthless but invaluable proofing, and of course for your encouragement at all the right moments, and your unending energy and hugs.To my Montreal friends, thank you for all of your support, hugs and confidence this year, I could not have done this without each and every one of you.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.100 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".