Julian R Murphy and Shireen Morris

The federal government’s recent decision to discontinue the proceedings in Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Anor v Montgomery, a high-profile case concerning the constitutional status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, has attracted criticism from the shadow Attorney-General and some conservative legal commentators. These commentators argue that the decision not to pursue the appeal, in which the government challenged the earlier High Court decision in Love v Commonwealth [2020], risks politicising the Court.

In this post we argue that when the decision is seen in its proper context, the government’s change of position is justified. First, because it concerns matters of immigration policy and discretionary decision-making that are properly the province of the executive. Second, the government’s decision may help depolarise public debate on this issue, to facilitate more respectful and informed public deliberation in the lead up to a referendum on a constitutionally guaranteed First Nations Voice.

Dani Larkin, Harry Hobbs, Dylan Lino and Amy Maguire

In the wake of the historic 1967 referendum extending the Commonwealth Parliament’s legislative power in Indigenous affairs, Prime Minister Harold Holt made a prediction to his Cabinet that the electorate would undoubtedly look increasingly to the Commonwealth Government as the centre of policy and responsibility regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. That prediction proved true.