> What is a way forward in the midst of the environmental and ecological crisis? How does religious studies engage with Indigenous Peoples? Philip P. Arnold explores these two different but interrelated questions in _The Urgency of Indigenous Values_ , which offers an alternative perspective on religion that shifts away from a settler-colonial worldview to better affirm Indigenous values. The book begins with the premise that there is a crisis in how humanity relates to one another and to the land. Arnold describes this ecological and social crisis as one of values. Indigenous values often stand in contrast to the modern values of settler-colonial people. He contends that understanding Indigenous values is essential for the survival of all life—human and nonhuman. It is through this lens that he critiques the category of religion. Considering the history of Native Peoples, the term religion, and the category of Indigenous religions more specifically, is problematic. Arnold claims that “religion was used to systematically obliterate Indigenous cultures by attempting to destroy their special relationship with the natural world” (5). He argues for a more appropriate term and category—Indigenous values. For Arnold, a collaborative model is the most viable path to understanding Indigenous values and securing the survival of all life.

## Abstract The Onondaga Nation is petitioning the Organization of American States (OAS) for land rights to Onondaga Lake, a notoriously polluted body of water in Central New York State. The Onondaga Nation is one of six nations of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy (Iroquois), and Onondaga Lake is the sacred site where Gayanashagowa, the Great Law of Peace, was established. As Keepers of the Central Fire, the Onondaga Nation bears the responsibility of maintaining unity and peace within the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. This article examines the history of the lake, its significance to the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, and the consequences of its desecration through industrial pollution. By juxtaposing Haudenosaunee teachings with the European Christian Doctrine of Discovery, we reveal how clashing worldviews led to violence, land theft, and genocide against the Haudenosaunee and other Indigenous Nations. Specifically, we apply Steven T. Newcomb’s Domination Code to analyze the settler-colonial justification for resource extraction, which left behind ecological and social devastation. We argue that returning Onondaga Lake to the Onondaga Nation is a vital step toward restoring this sacred place, bringing long-overdue healing to its people, the surrounding communities, and the natural world. The protection and restoration of Onondaga Lake is not only essential for its future but for the well-being of all. The restoration of Indigenous sacred spaces is a catalyst for meaningful social and ecological change.

> In short, neither this book nor the Skä·noñh—Great Law of Peace Center would have been possible without the groundbreaking work of Charles Long and the History of Religions. My wife Sandy Bigtree and I were introduced to Professor Long in the early 1980s in Boulder, Colorado where I was working for Davíd Carrasco in the Mesoamerican Archive and Research Project. I was very young and enthusiastic, but Long put me on a path to working collaboratively with Indigenous peoples by using ideas like sacred space, hierophany, and ceremonial gift exchange. The difference between Mircea Eliade and Charles Long, however, was the important elements settler-colonialism that always frame and interject themselves into our academic methodologies. First, this book addresses Long’s ideas by integrating a collaborative method, which is derived from the first formal agreement between the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) and European settlers called the Two Row Wampum. This was a co-habitation agreement between what we would now characterize as between Indigenous and settler-colonial people. It has been systematically violated since it was struck in Albany, New York in 1613. Second, “religion” is problematized as consistently used as a weapon against Indigenous Peoples. This is mapped with respect to the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, where a series of papal bulls from the Vatican are written between the 14th and 16th centuries to justify the enslavement, and seizure of lands and goods by Christian explorers when they encounter non-Christians.

_Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery: A Wakaga Sovereignty Series_ is a multi-article initiative by the Wakaga Economic Development Group examining how the centuries-old Doctrine of Christian Discovery still shapes federal Indian law and impacts tribal sovereignty today. Drawing on the research of Steven T. Newcomb, this 100+ article series explores the doctrine’s colonial origins, its influence on landmark Supreme Court decisions, and its continuing effect on U.S. Indian policy and Wakaga governance. Designed as a resource for tribal members, educators, policymakers, youth, and allies, the series combines historical analysis with practical insights to challenge the legacy of domination embedded in U.S. law and foster informed action toward true sovereignty. * * * 🚨 **New Series Alert!** 🚨 For centuries, the **Doctrine of Christian Discovery** has been used to justify the theft of Indigenous lands—and it’s STILL shaping federal Indian law today. The Wakaga Economic Development Group’s _Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery_ series digs deep into this colonial framework, unpacking its origins, its impact on landmark Supreme Court cases, and how it continues to affect **Wakaga sovereignty, land rights, and governance**. * 💡 Over 100 articles. * 📚 Groundbreaking research by Steven T. Newcomb. * ⚡ Tools to educate, challenge, and transform U.S. law’s legacy of domination. Join us on this journey to understand—and dismantle—the Doctrine of Discovery. 👉 Read the series here

> In 2022 Syracuse University received a Henry Luce Foundation grant to support the work of Philip P. Arnold and the Indigenous Values Initiative’s Doctrine of Discovery Project (doctrineofdiscovery.org). We received three years of funding for “200 Years of Johnson v. M’Intosh (JvM): Indigenous Responses to the Religious Foundations of Racism.” This grant and project has been a collaborative initiative made possible through relationships developed over 30 years between academic and Indigenous communities. At its core, the project seeks to interrogate and critically examine connections between the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (DoCD), the Catholic Papal Bulls that undergird the Doctrine, and the Doctrine’s pernicious influence on United States Indian Law today. > > The 200th anniversary of _JvM_ provided an excellent moment to challenge the theology and jurisprudence of the DoCD and this critical Supreme Court decision. The project delved into a range of products and written works such are included in this volume. The essays, podcasts, conference, and public outreach activities of the project grant have helped to raise awareness about the harmful impacts of the DoCD. > > * * * > > […] We are excited to be collaborating with CrossCurrents on this special edited volume as we believe it will provide support to this global, inter/intra-religious movement to: (1) dismantle existing knowledge paradigms about DoCD; (2) increase the number of religious leaders and their followers who have publicly repudiated the DoCD; and (3) apply pressure on the Vatican to rescind the Catholic Papal Bulls that have created the foundational justification for the Doctrine. > > The work of CrossCurrents and its parent organization The Association for Public Religion and Intellectual Life (APRIL) has highlighted issues of inter-cultural contact between different religious communities that has dominated the field of religious studies for the last 50 years or more.2 Along these lines, our work extends that of historian of religion Charles Long, for example, who examined religion’s role in settler-colonialism and the oppression of Indigenous Peoples. In Native American and Indigenous Studies (NAIS) this reached a peak around the 500th anniversary of Columbus’ “discovery” of the New World. In more recent decades, multiple academics and activists have been focused on the DoCD.

⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe ## Special Episode This episode is a live recording of _The Doctrine of Christian Discovery, The Jesuits, and Laudato si: Defending Mother Earth_ an educational event that took place on Saturday, June 14, 2025 from 1:00-4:00PM. This event seredepitiously coincided with the #NoKings protests which were happening across the nation. The event at the Skä•noñh &emdash; Great Law of Peace Center focused on the Doctrine of Discovery, the Jesuits, and Laudato Si. Speakers discussed the Thanksgiving address, emphasizing gratitude and respect for nature. Philip P. Arnold highlighted the Jesuits’ role in colonization and the need for Jesuit institutions to address their history. Christiana Zenner and Kim Carrefour stressed the importance of indigenous knowledge and environmental justice. Oren Lyons and Jake Edwards underscored the significance of the Great Tree of Peace and the need for world peace. The discussion concluded with a call for Jesuit institutions to educate on their historical impact and promote reconciliation. The discussion centers on the challenges faced by Native American communities in preserving their traditions and sovereignty. Speakers highlight the impact of colonial hierarchies and the suppression of indigenous practices. They emphasize the importance of language revitalization, food sovereignty, and traditional practices. Historical accounts of forced assimilation, such as the Sullivan Clinton campaign of 1779, are recounted, illustrating the violent suppression of Native cultures. The conversation also touches on the significance of treaties, the role of Christian missionaries, and the need for land return to foster environmental and cultural healing.

## Part 2 ### **Gomeroi Native Title - Living in the Shadow of _Terra Nullius_** Santos NSW Pty Ltd and Another v Gomeroi People and Another [2025] NNTTA 12 _Photo supplied by Gomeroi Elder, Polly Cutmore_ ## Abstract _This article is presented as a two-part series examining the structural limitations of Australia’s native title system and its entanglement with colonial legal authority, extractive capitalism, and the denial of Indigenous sovereignty._ **Part 1 -** _Native Title and the Afterlife of Terra Nullius: Law as Containment_, Not Recognition - _examines the structural logic of native title as a continuation of settler-colonial domination rather than a pathway to Indigenous sovereignty. Through a critical reading of*Mabo v Commonwealth* (No. 2) [1992] HCA 23, native title jurisprudence, and the doctrinal legacy of *terra nullius_, it argues that native title is not recognition but containment, a legal fiction that converts sovereignty into usufruct rights, enforced by state prerogative power. Drawing on thinkers like Carl Schmitt, Frantz Fanon, Edward Said, Patrick Wolfe, and Aileen Moreton-Robinson, it explores how Indigenous law is disfigured into cultural myth, and how recognition operates as a tool of regulation, not justice. Native title is exposed as the afterlife of _terra nullius_ , the Crown’s fallback position that cloaks sovereign denial in the language of inclusion. **Part 2 -** _Gomeroi v Santos: Recognition Without Power, Law Without Sovereignty_ - applies the theoretical framework developed in Part 1 to the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) determination in _Santos NSW Pty Ltd and Another v Gomeroi People and Another [2025] NNTTA 12_(19 May 2025). The determination reveals how native title operates as a legal mechanism of containment, not empowerment. Despite the Gomeroi people’s overwhelming opposition to Santos’ Narrabri Gas Project, the National Native Title Tribunal authorised the licenses, demonstrating how cultural rights are acknowledged only to be overridden. The case exemplifies what scholars like Carl Schmitt, Giorgio Agamben, and Glen Coulthard describe: a legal system that recognises Indigenous presence while structurally excluding Indigenous power. Through concepts like prerogative sovereignty, the ‘state of exception,’ and the colonial logic of _terra nullius_ , Part 2 shows that native title remains bound to a legal architecture designed to neutralise Indigenous law and uphold settler supremacy, even when cloaked in consultation and ‘public interest.’ * * * ## **Part 2 -**_Gomeroi v Santos_ _: Recognition Without Power, Law Without Sovereignty_ ### 2.1: _background - the decision and its implications_ The Santos $3.6 billion Narrabri Gas Project starkly exposes the limitations of Australia’s native title system. Despite a near-unanimous vote by the Gomeroi people - 162 against, only 2 in favor - to reject the proposal, the National Native Title Tribunal authorised the granting of four petroleum production licenses for coal seam gas mining in the culturally significant Pilliga Forest. The project will extract gas from coal seams between 300 and 1,200 metres below ground, using up to 850 wells, along with refining facilities, gas and water processing, and associated infrastructure. The leases for such cover 95,000ha (368 square miles) (Maxwell and Kirby, SBS, NITV, 2025). This decision highlights that native title does not confer a right to veto mining projects on Indigenous lands; rather, it offers a right to negotiate, which can be unilaterally overridden by the state if an agreement cannot be reached. Crucially, it confirms that ‘user rights’ under native title, such as maintaining cultural practices or caring for Country , cannot override extractive rights sanctioned by the settler state. Even when profound cultural significance is at stake, economic imperatives prevail. Native title, far from empowering traditional owners, often functions as a legal instrument of dispossession, masked by consultation but stripped of veto. ### 2.2: s _tructural dispossession – dismantling the pilliga_ The Gomeroi done everything settler law demands: they submitted detailed affidavits, mapped cultural information and impacts, bush food and medicine, recorded water knowledge and spiritual values, affirmed spiritual obligations to land and water, and explained complex cosmologies (judgement 19/05/2025 in _passim_). They have translated their sacred responsibilities into the procedural language of the _Native Title Act_. They even addressed scientific domains; greenhouse gases, agriculture, Waste Management, bushfire risk, and climate change impacts. They engaged in good faith (section 31 (1) (b) of Native Title Act 1993), within a system not designed to hear them as lawful authorities, but merely as cultural informants; users of the land, not owners. The so-called ‘right to negotiate’ (section 31 (1) Native Title Act 1993) functions not as a safeguard, but as a means of pacification, giving the appearance of dialogue while ensuring the ultimate authority remains with the state. Thus: Aboriginal law can be acknowledged but not enforced; Spiritual harm can be measured but not prohibited; Indigenous sovereignty can be spoken but not acted upon. This is exactly what Agamben describes: the production o _f bare jurisdiction,_ where law is reduced to participation without power (Agamben, 1998, pp. 71-74). ### 2.3: t _heoretical frameworks in action_ Here, Carl Schmitt’s theory of sovereignty becomes painfully clear. _Sovereign is he who decides the exception_ (Schmitt cited in Antaki, 2004, pp.323, 325, 327). The Gomeroi have no capacity to enforce their law; their law is not allowed to decide. It is recognised, but only within a structure where recognition is not power. The Tribunal, backed by the state, holds the sovereign prerogative to decide when Aboriginal law matters, and more importantly, when it doesn’t. In this framework, Gomeroi law is permitted to speak, but never to compel. Every time Indigenous people get closer to touching that power, they move the goalposts. How many amendments have there been to the _Native Title Act_ …hundreds? The Tribunal acknowledges the magnitude and integrity of the Gomeroi’s evidence. It affirms the complexity and sincerity of their cultural law - ancestral creation, gendered ceremony, intergenerational responsibility. But this affirmation is procedural, not juridical. Culture enters the record, but it does not shape the outcome. Giorgio Agamben described this exact condition: the Indigenous subject is placed in a ‘state of exception’, recognised by the law but excluded from its protection and power (Agamben, 2005). The Gomeroi are made visible, but only so their law can be neutralised. As Irene Watson articulates, Aboriginal law is not incomplete; rather, it is rendered invisible by the settler state, which ‘recognises only what it can dominate’ (Watson, 2015, pp. 56–57). Their evidence is heard, but its force is stripped away. Indigenous law is included only as a cultural presence, not as a legitimate legal authority. Similarly, Audra Simpson asserts that recognition without the right to refuse is not justice; it is a performative act of inclusion that ‘requires Indigenous people to consent to their own dispossession’ (Simpson, 2014, pp. 1-36). The Tribunal’s procedures do not genuinely listen to Indigenous law; instead, they operate to nullify it through recognition devoid of meaningful consequence. This is the design of the system, not its failure. Under section 39(1)(a) of the _Native Title Act 1993_* (nor any other section)_, the Tribunal cannot uphold Gomeroi law. It cannot enforce it. It can only assess harm and weigh it against the perceived public interest - an interest defined by extractive logic and settler capital. There is no veto for spiritual desecration. No mechanism to say no, even when Gomeroi law has already said *Gamil – no_ (Maxwell, 2024). There is only a checklist of considerations, Gomeroi ‘user’ interests among them, balanced against commercial interests and State-sanctioned development, where Aboriginal law is heard only so that the settler state can reaffirm its right to override it. ### 2.4: _sacred law and bureaucratic management -** ontological and methodological conflicts_ This legal architecture gives rise to a fundamental absurdity: in Gomeroi law, Country is indivisible, alive, ancestral. In settler law, it is fragmented and alienable, with lease areas, exploration corridors and buffer zones. Where the Gomeroi sees a single cosmological entity, the settler state sees a map of impacts to be managed. As Achille Mbembe argues, modern sovereignty often operates through necropolitics; the power to decide whose life is grievable, whose harm is calculable, and whose sacred obligations can be disregarded (Mbembe pp.11-40). Here, Gomeroi law is not just excluded; it is nullified through bureaucratic deference to extractive logic. Country is treated not as a living being, but as collateral - managed, mitigated, and mourned after the fact. Here again, Agamben’s insight is essential: the sacred is reduced to _bare life,_ stripped of its lawfulness and treated as an object of bureaucratic administration. The _Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan_ (ACHMP) (see judgement at paragraphs 231, 232, 236, 237, 413, 419) becomes the system’s answer to spiritual harm; an administrative spreadsheet applied to a cosmological wound that cannot be measured. The result is a collision of worldviews. Two fundamental problems follow: 1. Ontological conflict - The law of the Gomeroi is Country: spiritual, indivisible and alive; Settler law demands its spatial and functional fragmentation, surveyed and assessed for risk. It demands abstraction, division, and quantification. 2. Methodological failure - The legal system cannot ‘see’ what the Gomeroi see; it does not have the epistemic tools to comprehend, let alone protect, what it has already dissected, reducing stories, spirits, and responsibilities into ‘cultural considerations’ - items to be weighed, not upheld. The ‘upside-down river’ metaphor judgement at 81 and 208] offered by the Gomeroi is not poetic embellishment, it is legal theory, and it is jurisprudence. It describes a world where water is not merely ecological, but sacred and juridical; where law flows not from the Crown, but from the land itself. The Gomeroi explained that these stories are not myths or beliefs - they are law. They encode ethical, legal, and territorial responsibilities. They mark restricted areas, gendered knowledge (judgement at 205), and ancestral presence (to name a few). Yet the Tribunal treats this material as symbolic, not juridical ([judgement at 398 - 419). It is heard, but not authoritative. Sacred connections are acknowledged as culturally significant, but not as lawful limits on what the State or a developer may do. This is the colonial mechanism at work: to listen, but not yield; to include, but only in ways that disempower. This is the pattern native title was designed to follow. Even when Gomeroi law is articulated clearly, and cultural harm is deeply evidenced, the process privileges settler priorities. Decision makers absorb Indigenous knowledge into frameworks that are structurally incapable of acting on it. The Tribunal weighs spiritual desecration against extractive benefit and ‘public interest’ and finds a way for the project to proceed - generally with ‘conditions’ or ‘offsets’ that do nothing to protect what has already been spiritually breached. Recognition becomes the mechanism of erasure. ### 2.5: _recognition as erasure: the pattern of native title_ In short, the Gomeroi did everything the law asked of them; they met every burden imposed by the settler system. But the law was never built to protect what they offered. It was built to validate extraction. The Futures Act regime does not function as a space of justice, rather, it functions as a filter, allowing culture to be heard while ensuring that development proceeds. The result is a systemic pattern: sing the song, show the map, speak the law - and lose anyway. This is not a flaw in implementation; it is a feature of design. The Gomeroi evidence does not simply call for better outcomes within the existing system. It calls the system itself into question. It exposes a legal architecture that acknowledges without protecting, that hears without yielding, and that absorbs without transforming. It is a denial of sovereignty, and the lawful authority and obligations associated with it. What is required is not more consultation, more conditions, or more cultural heritage plans, but a rejection of the colonial logic that extraction is normal, and law is only what the Crown says it is. Until Aboriginal law can govern Country again, until it is not just heard but obeyed, there will be no justice. Only recognition without power and sovereignty deferred in perpetuity. ### 2.6: _the high cost of energy: what law sacrifices for ‘public interest’_ Climate change was discussed in detail as was the ‘public interest’ in all issues associated with the matter (judgement paragraphs 85, 86, 167-170, 338-445). Regarding climate change and the known and potential impacts, the Tribunal made it clear: > It is not controversial that there is more than one source of greenhouse gas emissions, and more than one cause of global warming, and it would be an error for the tribunal to attribute every consequence of global warming to the proposed Narrabri project] [[judgement paragraph 170]. This exemplifies capitalism at its most basic, dispersing responsibility while centralising power. Its language sanitises extraction, externalises harm, and erases moral and ecological accountability by reducing the world to mere data points. It embodies the logic of the market: everyone is responsible, yet ultimately, no one is. This mindset stands in stark opposition to Indigenous stewardship and law, which is grounded in obligation, care, and a sacred interdependence with Country. Moreover, the National Native Title Tribunal declared that: > the project is necessarily in the ‘public interest’, as all the gas recovered is for state domestic supply only.’ (judgment paragraph 357) Here the state declares that it must act outside of normative legal regimes like native title or environmental protection because the situation demands it (e.g. energy crisis/economic need), and in doing so, renders Indigenous law and life exceptional, and outside the protection of rights (Agamben, 1998, Parts 2 and 3 in passim). For this to occur, Indigenous rights must be made invisible, so that something ‘lawful’ can happen. This isn’t just a legal failing, it is modern day colonialism dressed up in bureaucratic language like ‘public interest’ or ‘energy security.’ This erasure is wrapped in the language of ‘balance,’ ‘consultation,’ and ‘public interest’, but the real interest being served is profit. The claim that mining in places like the Pilliga forest is in the ‘public interest’ is a farce. Imagine drilling beneath the Vatican or the Sistine Chapel for economic gain. It would be unthinkable. Yet sacred Aboriginal sites, repositories of thousands of years of spiritual and ecological knowledge, are treated as obstacles to be overcome, not sanctuaries to be protected. This is modern-day colonialism, cloaked in bureaucracy. What’s really happening is that the law continues to function as a tool of dispossession and degradation, cloaked in the neutrality of ‘balancing interests,’ when in truth, Indigenous rights and beliefs are treated as subordinate and expendable. The so-called balance always tips in favour of extraction, profit, and settler priorities - a façade of justice masking what is, in effect, a sanctioned regime of _legalised lawlessness_ , as Bruce McIvor describes it. ### 2.7: _the source - an act of supremacy_ The Tribunal’s decision is more than just a legal ruling - it is a manifestation of the prerogative powers of the state. These are not neutral administrative powers; they are colonial remnants of the Royal prerogative - vestiges of Crown authority imported into Australia through the assertions of _res nullius_ (pre-emptive non-justiciable sovereignty) and later _terra nullius_ (mode of acquisition/containment) and later again, the Constitution. Prerogative powers, an exercise of divine rights, flow from the _Act of Supremacy_ (1534) when Henry VIII declared himself supreme authority. Similarly, the ‘ _act of state_ ’ doctrine relied on in _Mabo v Queensland_ (No 2) (1992) is a modern-day reiteration of an ‘ _act of supremacy_ ’, a non-justiciable prerogative power. With regards to resources, this legal lineage can be traced back to the *Case of Mines *(1568), a foundational English case that confirmed the monarch’s ownership of gold and silver and laid the groundwork for state control over sub-surface resources such as gas. This assumed pre-emptive prerogative sovereign right to minerals and land was never agreed to, never negotiated, and never subject to any form of treaty or consent. It arrived by force, embedded in the colonial constitutional framework, which itself was constructed on the fabricated legal fictions of _res nullius_ and _terra nullius._ The sovereign’s claim to land and subsoil wealth derives from the Royal prerogatives entrenched in the 1568 _Case of Mines_ were imported wholesale to these shores, alongside _terra nullius._ These powers remain untouched by any true public reckoning, shielded from scrutiny by a veneer of legality, unquestionable - non-justiciable. The state still draws on that inherited power when it extinguishes or overrides Indigenous rights in the ‘public and national interest.’ A unilateral imposition - a system built on erasure, not inclusion. As Glen Coulthard argues, settler recognition often functions not to include Indigenous peoples as sovereign equals, but to reinscribe their subordination within a legal-political framework that leaves the foundations of colonial authority untouched (Coulthard, 2014, Chapters 1, 4 and 5 in _passim_). ## _Conclusion_ So, what did the 19 May Tribunal decision prove? That native title cannot stop extraction. It cannot protect Country. It cannot uphold Indigenous sovereignty. Because it was never meant to. Native title is not a step toward freedom; it is a cage of containment, constructed from law, dressed as justice, and maintained by the Crown. It is simply a modern extension of the same imperial logic embedded in the 1534 _Act of Supremacy_ , which transferred spiritual and temporal domination from the Pope to the English Crown. The Tribunal’s ruling is not a break from that tradition - it is a continuation. Just another _act of supremacy_ , reissued under new legal terms and its mask of engineered consultation, to assert control over Indigenous lands and deny Indigenous law. Whilst the names may have changed, the structure of domination remains intact. ## **Bibliography** * Antaki, M. (2004), _Carl Schmitt’s Nomos of the Earth_. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 42.2: pp. 317-334 at http://scribd.com/document/847372113/Carl-Schmitt-The-Nomos-of-the-Earth-Telos-Press-Publishing-2006 * Agamben, G. (1998) Translated by Daniel Heller Roazen, Homo Sacer, Sovereign Power and Bare Life, Stanford University Press at https://www.noinputbooks.com/endless/cc_06-27-11_07-23-11/Stanford%20University%20Press/1998/Agamben/agamben-giorgio_homo-sacer_1998.pdf * Agamben, G. (2005) Translated by Kevin Attell, State of Exception, University of Chicago Press at http://pdf-objects.com/files/US-English-PDF-Object.pdf * Alfred, T. Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto (2009). * Blackstone (1765–1769), Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume 2, Ch.1 @ https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk2ch1.asp * Coulthard, G. S. (2014). Red skin, white masks: Rejecting the colonial politics of recognition. University of Minnesota Press at https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctt9qh3cv * Cox, Noel (2002, 2010) The Influence of the Common Law and the Decline of the Ecclesiastical Courts of the Church of England” 2002] ALRS 1; (2001-2002) 3(1) Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion 1-4 at [http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ALRS/2002/1.html#fnB102 * d’Errico, P. P. (2022) Federal Anti-Indian Law, the Legal Entrapment of Indigenous Peoples, Bloomsbury. * d’Errico, P.P. (2025) Apache Oak Flat: Land is the Real Issue, Substack Article, at https://peterderrico.substack.com/p/apache-oak-flat-land-is-the-real?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1314065&post_id=165290424&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1oz0tj&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email * Fanon, F. (1963) The Wretched of the Earth, translated by Constance Farrington, Penguin Books, 1963 (originally published 1961), p. 54 at https://monoskop.org/images/6/6b/Fanon_Frantz_The_Wretched_of_the_Earth_1963.pdf * Fanon, F. (2004) The Wretched of the Earth, translated by Richard Philcox, Penguin Books, 2004 (originally published 1961) at pp. 71 and 313 at https://dn790007.ca.archive.org/0/items/the-wretched-of-the-earth/The%20Wretched%20Of%20The%20Earth.pdf * Maxwell, R. 2024 Gamil means no: Gomeroi call on Santos to leave Pilliga, the Canberra Times at https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8549106/gamil-means-no-gomeroi-call-on-santos-to-leave-pilliga/ * Mbembe, Achille. “Necropolitics.” Public Culture, vol. 15, no. 1, 2003, at pp. 11–40 at https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-15-1-11 * Moreton-Robinson, A. (2015) The white possessive: Property, power, and Indigenous sovereignty. University of Minnesota Press, United States of America. * Said, Edward W. (1978) Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books, at https://monoskop.org/images/4/4e/Said_Edward_Orientalism_1979.pdf * Simpson, A. (2014) Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life Across the Borders of Settler States, Duke University Press at https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1198w8z . * Watson, I. (2007) ‘Aboriginal Women’s Laws and Lives: How Might We Keep Growing the Law’, The Australian Feminist Law Journal, vol. 26, pp. 95 - 109 at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13200968.2007.10854380 * Watson, I. (2015) Aboriginal Peoples, Colonialism and International Law: Raw Law at https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/100961/9781317938378.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y * Wolfe, P. “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.” Journal of Genocide Research 8, no. 4 (2006): 387–409 at https://doi.org/10.1080/14623520601056240 * Maxwell, R and Kirby, R (2025) Gomeroi people devastated by decision to allow Santos to mine coal seam gas in the Pilliga, SBS, NITV at https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/gomeroi-gutted-by-decision-to-allow-santos-to-mine-coal-seam-gas-in-the-pilliga/4jew4d6b9?fbclid=IwQ0xDSwKb92xleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHq87ejrPldKob3YImVVgHQQV3J9XqyviLAxQem0qhOmS_C96y5G_HvXQ7oXX_aem_qixRSRwB4Zr4cPHAbi_WAA * Miller, R. (2006), Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis & Clark, and Manifest Destiny, Preager Publishers. * Newcomb, S. (2008). Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Discovery. Fulcrum Publishing. * Newcomb, S. (2016) Property as a Right of Despotic Domination at https://ictnews.org/archive/property-as-a-right-of-despotic-dominion/ * Newcomb, S. (2024) A View from the Shore, A Conversation with JoDe Goudy and editor Emily Sanna at https://issuu.com/ipjc/docs/a_view_from_the_shore_a_conversation_with_jode_go

## Part 1 ### **Gomeroi Native Title - Living in the Shadow of _Terra Nullius_** Santos NSW Pty Ltd and Another v Gomeroi People and Another [2025] NNTTA 12 ## Abstract ### _Examining the Colonial Foundations of Australia’s Native Title System_ _This article is presented as a two-part series examining the structural limitations of Australia’s native title system and its entanglement with colonial legal authority, extractive capitalism, and the denial of Indigenous sovereignty._ **Part 1 -** _Native Title and the Afterlife of Terra Nullius: Law as Containment_ , Not Recognition - _examines the structural logic of native title as a continuation of settler-colonial domination rather than a pathway to Indigenous sovereignty. Through a critical reading of*Mabo v Commonwealth* (No. 2) [1992] HCA 23, native title jurisprudence, and the doctrinal legacy of *terra nullius_, it argues that native title is not recognition but containment, a legal fiction that converts sovereignty into usufruct rights, enforced by state prerogative power. Drawing on thinkers like Carl Schmitt, Frantz Fanon, Edward Said, Patrick Wolfe, and Aileen Moreton-Robinson, it explores how Indigenous law is disfigured into cultural myth, and how recognition operates as a tool of regulation, not justice. Native title is exposed as the afterlife of _terra nullius_ , the Crown’s fallback position that cloaks sovereign denial in the language of inclusion. **Part 2 -** _Gomeroi v Santos: Recognition Without Power, Law Without Sovereignty_ - applies the theoretical framework developed in Part 1 to the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) determination in _Santos NSW Pty Ltd and Another v Gomeroi People and Another [2025] NNTTA 12_(19 May 2025). The determination reveals how native title operates as a legal mechanism of containment, not empowerment. Despite the Gomeroi people’s overwhelming opposition to Santos’ Narrabri Gas Project, the National Native Title Tribunal authorised the licenses, demonstrating how cultural rights are acknowledged only to be overridden. The case exemplifies what scholars like Carl Schmitt, Giorgio Agamben, and Glen Coulthard describe: a legal system that recognises Indigenous presence while structurally excluding Indigenous power. Through concepts like prerogative sovereignty, the ‘state of exception,’ and the colonial logic of _terra nullius_ , Part 2 shows that native title remains bound to a legal architecture designed to neutralise Indigenous law and uphold settler supremacy, even when cloaked in consultation and ‘public interest.’ ## _Context_ As Shawnee/Lenape legal scholar Steven T. Newcombe puts it, this article is a view from the shores, not the view from the ship - contrasting Indigenous perspectives with the colonisers’ vantage point from the vessel (Newcomb, 2024, p.1). In this sense, this series challenges the idea that native title is a progressive legal instrument, arguing instead that it is the continuation of _terra nullius_ , hidden behind a façade of procedural recognition. _Photo supplied by Gomeroi Elder, Polly Cutmore_ ## Part 1: Native Title and the Afterlife of Terra Nullius: Law as Containment, Not Recognition ### 1.1: _the illusion of recognition_ The 19th of May 2025 decision by the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) to approve Santos’ Narrabri Gas Project, despite persistent objections from the Gomeroi people is not a mere bureaucratic rubber-stamp. It is a clear reminder that native title has never been about sovereignty. Instead, native title, like its counterpart in the US - ‘occupancy’ - remains a strategic element of the Doctrine of Discovery and its overarching framework of domination. Both are calculated forms of ‘legal’ containment; constitutional inclusion is yet another. That is, they are mechanisms designed not only to spatially restrict Indigenous presence and authority, but also to psychologically and politically confine Indigenous sovereignty within the narrow boundaries of recognition defined by settler law. ### 1.2: _historical foundations: from terra nullius to native title_ > “ _Land-appropriation is] the primeval act of founding law …the source of all further concrete order and all further law, …the reproductive root in the normative order of history”_ ([Schmitt, 1950, cited in d’Errico, 2025, para. 2). Carl Schmitt’s insight is critical for understanding the architecture of settler-colonial law. Law, in this context, does not begin with justice, but with seizure, with the violent act of claiming space as the foundation of order (Schmitt cited in Antaki, 2004, p.323). To understand the structural nature of this legal containment, we need to examine its historical origins. This framework of legalised subjugation (the Doctrine of Discovery) has its foundations not only in Catholic papal bulls but was later reinforced and secularised through the Protestant _Act of Supremacy_* i*n 1534, which declared the English Crown as the supreme legal and spiritual authority (Cox, 2002, para. 5). By replacing the Pope with the Monarch, the Act ensured that the imperial logic of domination was no longer just ecclesiastical but now fully embedded in state power - a logic that still underpins settler legal systems like native title and/or constitutional inclusion today. What we see is the continuity of domination (superior over inferior) repackaged through state prerogative powers, and applied by courts and tribunal decisions, inevitably favoring extractive interests. This architecture of legal containment, founded in imperial theology and perpetuated by state-sanctioned legal fictions, finds its most enduring expression in the doctrine that continues to cast its long shadow over native title: _terra nullius_. ### 1.3: _native title as a colonial fiction – native title theory_ Native title is a manufactured, inferior form of land tenure; essentially the Crown’s fallback position from _terra nullius_. This common law colonial gift - native title - suddenly emerged from the shadow of _terra nullius,_ mirroring what Frantz Fanon describes in _The Wretched of the Earth_ as the coloniser’s ‘false generosity’: an offering not meant to liberate but to pacify, to restructure colonial domination in more palatable forms. Native title functions essentially as Fanon’s ‘compromise solution,’ where the colonised are permitted symbolic rights in exchange for structural obedience (Fanon, 1963, pp. 53 - 55). This strategy can be understood as a modern extension of colonial diversion, symbolic concessions that serve to distract, divide, and delay genuine resistance. Originating from the so-called ‘law of nature,’ native title was rebranded in _Mabo v Cth_ (No. 2) (1992) as a form of gift, suddenly ‘discovered’ in the common law, a ‘bundle of rights’ conferred on Indigenous peoples (Toohey J, para. 100) and codified in sections 211 and 223 of the _Native Title Act_ 1993 (Cth). But these gifts are not sovereign rights; they are usufruct rights, entitlements to the fruits of land owned by someone else, in this case, land ‘owned’ by the Crown. Though often subject to restrictions by Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) (Part 2. Division 3, Subdivision B of _Native Title Act_ 1993), these native ‘usufruct’ rights generally include a right to hunt and fish, to collect food or medicines, to conduct ceremonies, rituals and cultural practices, visit and protect sites of significance, teach law and customs, and access resources such as water, wood, and ochres. These rights must be exercised in accordance with traditional laws and customs. The _Native Title Act 1993_ section 31 (1)also grants a right to ‘negotiate’ or ‘consult’ on issues that may affect these user rights. It does not include a right to live, build, or own land outright. Even compensation is limited to the loss of this usufruct right, not for the loss of sovereignty, land, or resources, saving the Crown billions in the process (see *Commonwealth of Australia v Yunupingu *[2025] HCA 6). Native title continues to serve the Crown: providing free land, unlimited resources, and complete domination and power to make decisions such as these. Much like the historic gift of _terra nullius,_ native title is merely another subtle form of sovereign denial that lives in its shadow as an illusion of recognition that diverts attention from the ongoing colonial dispossession and the structural inequalities embedded in the system. This symbolic gift functions as a diversionary tactic, redirecting Indigenous agency into limited legal recognition while the underlying colonial power relations remain unchallenged, thus delaying the possibility of genuine liberation. ### _1.4: outdated legal theories_ Grounded in outdated legal theories from the 1760s and beyond - most notably Blackstone’s legal framework - imagined Indigenous peoples as ‘occupants,’ not ‘owners’. Indigenous peoples could use the land but could never hold it against the sovereign’s claim _**._ _*As Aileen Moreton-Robinson argues, native title is ‘predicated on the denial of Indigenous sovereignty and the continual reassertion of white possession’ - a possession that masquerades as law while obscuring its colonial foundations (Moreton-Robinson, 2015, passim). The shadow of Blackstone, like that of *terra nullius_ , continues to obscure any meaningful recognition of Indigenous land sovereignty. Blackstone described property as: > ” _that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe_ ” (Blackstone (1765–1769), Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume 2, Ch.1: Newcomb, 2016, para.3). This absolutist conception of ownership was not just legal, but theological - drawn directly from Genesis 1:28, where man is commanded to: > “ _subdue the earth and have dominion over every living thing._ ” Blackstone envisaged this as divine authorisation for human dominion over the earth, which underpins legal justification for private property. This dominion is not stewardship, but control and exclusion - a justification for colonial ideas of land ownership. From this fusion of divine authority and English common law emerged a racialised legal architecture: a god-sanctioned right to dominate, under which Indigenous people could be written out of the story entirely (Newcomb, 2016, para.4 and in _passim_). In the United States, this logic hardened into precedent in _Johnson v. McIntosh_ (1823) 21 US (8 Wheat), where the Supreme Court famously asserted that Native peoples had only a right of ‘occupancy’ that could be extinguished by the federal government, effectively denying their sovereignty and land title altogether. Crucially, these legal assertions were pre-emptive, establishing sovereignty long before any ship sailed, conflict erupted, or exploration occurred - decisions made within the realm of law to preempt Indigenous sovereignty from the outset. Cooks’ instructions (1768) and Cabot’s charters (1497) reveal this truth: lands were claimed in advance, before departure. The notion of pre-emptive claims is also embedded in the ideal of ‘just wars’ (Miller, 2006, pp. 16-17, 64-65). In Australia, some 167 years after _Johnson v McIntosh_ , Blackstone’s legal scaffolding - built on sovereign containment and occupancy - was reanimated in _Mabo_ as ‘native title.’ Like constitutional inclusion, native title functions as a mechanism that subtly embeds state control through a progressive narrative that ‘embodies and emboldens Crown sovereignty’, cloaked in ‘inclusive narratives’ that obscure the persistence of underlying domination (d’Errico, 2025, email). Rather than dismantling the foundational framework, Indigenous sovereignty is merely dressed up in the language of rights - an attempt to legitimise and contain it within the very structures that denied it from the start. The underlying architecture remains intact: the Crown as the superior proprietary title, and Indigenous rights as an inferior proprietary title - an ongoing legacy of colonial sovereignty disguised as progress. This 18th-century Blackstonian muse of racial inequality, dressed up as rights for ‘users,’ was rebranded as equality and sold as an advancement of Indigenous peoples’ human rights in _Mabo_. Yet beneath the veneer of progress lies the same fundamental framework, one that continues to subordinate Indigenous sovereignty to colonial authority. It is a position confined within the Crown’s hierarchical menagerie of humanity - its zoo of human hierarchy - where Indigenous peoples are perpetually positioned as lesser beings within their ideals of a ‘civilised’ world. ### 1.5: _the ‘civilised’ cage_ This racialised enclosure echoes Fanon’s ‘zoological’ gaze, where the colonised subject is not seen as a full human, but as a specimen (Fanon, 1967, p.71 and p.313). Native title, in this light, becomes not an instrument of recognition but a legal exhibit, displaying Indigenous presence only to regulate and contain it within the settler state’s civilising schema. This legal fiction of native title and user rights creates an incremental, racialised ladder of humanity. At the bottom: the _terra nullius_ subject – unrecognised, invisible. With _Mabo_ , Indigenous people were invited a rung higher: partially visible, partially human - users, not owners; occupants, not sovereigns. Captured somewhere between the settler’s imagined barbaric ‘heathen’ and their idealised civilised self, we are frozen on their racialised scale of worth. This is not human rights. It is human wrongs masquerading as progress. The same principle that kept us out of the Constitution keeps us locked into native title: prerogative powers (to assert _terra nullius_), an _act of supremacy_. In this sense, native title is the Crown’s fallback position after _terra nullius_ collapsed under its own lie. It is a safety net - not for us, but for the state. A system that appears to offer reconciliation, while legally reinforcing dispossession. This case, the _Gomeroi People v Santos_ _,_ like the plethora of other native title cases, exemplifies how native title functions exactly as designed: not as a recognition of human rights, but as a manifestation of human injustice. It is a legal mechanism of limitation, operating within the very framework of human wrongs, serving to perpetuate dispossession rather than challenge it. This structural logic is concisely what Patrick Wolfe described as the enduring mechanism of settler colonialism, a system premised not on event but on structure, where invasion is a continuing project and elimination is not always genocidal, but administrative, epistemic, and legal (Wolfe, 2006, p.388). Native title operates within this structure as a mode of elimination-by-inclusion: Indigenous presence is acknowledged only to be controlled. It legalises a form of containment by converting sovereignty into user rights, spiritual law into cultural heritage, and ancestral obligation into land management. The settler legal regime thus maintains its authority not by denying Indigenous existence outright, but by redefining it in terms that safeguard settler jurisdiction. In Wolfe’s terms, this is not recognition, but regulation, a transformation of living law into a ‘permissible presence’ under settler governance (Wolfe, 2006. pp.387- 409). Native title doesn’t escape the logic of _terra nullius_ ; it is its afterlife that lives in its shadow. ### 1.6: _legal theory_ This is not simply a legal issue; it is an epistemological project. The settler legal system does not just dominate through force; it dominates through knowledge. It defines what law is, what counts as evidence, and who is allowed to speak with authority. Here, native title becomes the site where Indigenous law is not just constrained, it is converted, translated, and disfigured. This flattening of law into ‘cultural expression’ reflects what Edward Said identified in _Orientalism_ as the colonial authority’s ability to define and domesticate the Other through knowledge (Said, 1978, p.243 and p.262). The Tribunal does not hear Gomeroi law as law; it interprets it through a settler epistemology that disfigures it into myth or sentiment, a discursive containment that renders sovereignty unintelligible. Carl Schmitt’s theory of sovereignty reveals what is really at play: the sovereign is ‘ _he who decides the exception_ ’ (Schmitt cited in Antaki, 2004, pp.323, 325, 327). In the 2024/5 Santos case, it is not the Gomeroi who decides the future of their land, water, culture, law, or stories. It is the Tribunal, backed by the state and corporate interests - sovereign power thinly veiled as procedural fairness and masked as a ‘public or state/national interest’. When the state determines when your rights apply, and, more importantly, when they do not, those rights are not true rights at all; they are permissions. A permission can be revoked, suspended, or redefined at will, its existence depends not on your inherent status, but on the sovereign’s tolerance. You are ‘engaged’ just enough to legitimise their theft. Similarly, native title law places Indigenous peoples into what is called the ‘state of exception’, inside the law but excluded from its full protections (Agamben in _passim_). You are recognised legally, but only insofar as that recognition does not interfere with the _sovereign’s goals_. Your culture is acknowledged, but only if it remains frozen in pre-contact form. Your land is recognised, but only to the extent it is not needed. As Irene Watson reminds us, Aboriginal law is not merely culture but a system of governance in its own right - yet under settler law, it is ‘rendered invisible’ unless it conforms to colonial parameters (Watson, 2015, pp.56 - 63). This invisibility is reflected in how Aboriginal women’s laws and stories are often marginalised or dismissed within the dominant legal framework (Watson, 2007, pp.97 - 103). Aboriginal law’s sovereignty and authority are often ignored unless they are reshaped to fit the narrow recognition granted by colonial institutions. Recognising Aboriginal law as a legitimate governance system challenges the colonial narrative that seeks to confine Indigenous sovereignty within the limited boundaries of recognition and control. It calls for a rethinking of how law is understood, not as a set of cultural practices but as a powerful, governing force that sustains communities, relationships, and sovereignty on their own terms (Watson, 2007, pp.95 - 107). You are not truly sovereign; you are merely the exception … _recognised as a people, but only within the limits imposed by the sovereign, effectively excluding your sovereignty from the full rights of citizenship_ (Schmitt cited in Antaki, 2004, in _passim_ _;_ and Agamben, 1998, in _passim_).

## Abstract On June 15, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in _Haaland v. Brackeen_ , withholding the constitutionality of the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The ICWA was enacted to protect Indigenous sovereignty, but the Brackeens argued that its preference to Native American families in the fostering and adoption of Native American children amounts to racial discrimination, an argument the court did not substantively address because it judged the Brackeens lacked standing. Viewing indigeneity in terms of race rather than sovereignty follows a logic of discovery, promoted in fifteenth-century papal bulls and read into U.S. law in the nineteenth century by Chief Justice John Marshall. A secularized version of the doctrine of discovery has supported the U.S. government’s assimilation policies, including the forced removal of Indigenous children from their homes and into boarding schools, land allotment, and the Indian adoption project. While the _Brackeen_ case was decided in favor of the Indigenous respondents, the decision’s reasoning is too narrow to inspire confidence that Indigenous sovereignty will withstand future challenges.

## Abstract The Doctrine of Christian Discovery is a series of fifteenth-century papal bulls that served as the theological and legal justification for the colonization of the world and the enslavement of the Original Free Nations, starting first on the African continent before spreading across the globe. In the 1800s, these bulls and other documents like The Requerimiento and colonial charters would be codified and enshrined together in U.S. law as the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, becoming the foundation of property law and international law. Also, considering what Peter d’Errico calls Federal Anti-Indian Law, we will trace and document how this framework of domination began with the Catholic crowns of Europe and transformed into the dominion theology found within Christian nationalist theologies today. Our research highlights how the Doctrine became enshrined and encoded within Protestantism and the imagined “secular” of the U.S. and Canada, countries who rhetorically espouse separation of church and state while justifying land theft, treaty violations, and the abuse of Indigenous nations and peoples through the Doctrine. We craft a genealogy of Christian domination by carefully analyzing primary sources, especially the colonial charters. We will conclude by juxtaposing the domination framework and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy’s principles of the Gayanashagowa (Great Law of Peace). ## Citation Brett, Adam DJ, and Betty Hill (Lyons). 2024. “Documenting Domination: From the Doctrine of Christian Discovery to Dominion Theology” _Religions_ 15, no. 12: 1493. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15121493 ## Download bibtex RIS

The Haudenosaunee are embarking on an historic project about the 500-year history of the Haudenosaunee, their relationship with Europe and America and their prophesies that, if heard, can help us navigate the oncoming changes due to climate change. This series of short films creates the space for the Haudenosaunee to tell their story as they strive to uphold the traditions and the legacy of their people while also protecting the central tenents of their people and their relationship and care for the Earth. The series will continue to grow over the year.

Essays from the Open Access Journal _Religions_ Specail Issue on Race, Religion, and Nationalism in the 21st Century are now being published.

> Sitting amid this background before a congressional hearing, Reagan’s secretary of the interior James G. Watt was asked if he would protect wildernesses for future generations. Watt replied, “I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns.” A normal American reaction. When I speak of the popular belief that we are living in the End Times, I hear either laughs in disbelief or, among those who grew up in that world, instant recognition. As a child, I doubt I knew many adults who didn’t believe the world was ending. But how many Americans believe there will be a future? How does that belief intersect with the climate and other crises? In 2010, Pew Research Center surveyed how many Americans believed Christ would return by 2050.[3] Forty-eight percent of Christians agreed (roughly four in ten Americans overall): Catholics (thirty-two percent), mainline Protestants (twenty-seven percent), and the religiously unaffiliated (20 percent) believed this with less frequency than white evangelicals (fifty-eight percent). Only a tenth of American Christians felt sure Christ would not return in this window. But Evangelicals are outliers. Only one in three Americans, while sixty-five percent of evangelicals, believe natural disasters are signs of the End Times.[4] Among those who expect Christ’s return, seventy-three percent of evangelicals say the world will turn against Israel as we approach the rapture, and seventy-nine percent say violence in the Middle East signals the end (compared to forty-three percent of non-evangelical Christians).[5] While Americans are more than twice as likely as the global average to believe the end of the world is near, white evangelicals are nearly twice as likely as the average American: two-thirds of white evangelicals believe the end is near.

# Indigenous Sovereignty and Colonial Frameworks: A Comparative Analysis of Aotearoa (New Zealand) and Australia Indigenous resistance to colonial frameworks in settler-colonial states like Aotearoa (New Zealand) and Australia reveals an enduring tension between the desire for self-determination and the constraints of colonial structures. Key Indigenous Members of Parliament like Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke in Aotearoa and Senator Lidia Thorpe in Australia serve as vocal symbols of this resistance, inspiring future generations to question and challenge the systems of governance that have historically marginalized them.1 This paper explores their actions, critiques the Voice to Parliament in Australia comparatively, and examines Indigenous parliamentary representation in Aotearoa, analysing how colonialism continues to shape Indigenous engagement with state structures.2 ## The Doctrine of Discovery and Its Legacy The Doctrine of Discovery was a legal and philosophical principle used by European colonial powers in the 15th century to justify the domination and dehumanization of non-European lands and peoples.3 Its application remains deeply embedded in contemporary legal systems in both Aotearoa and Australia, where Indigenous peoples continue to navigate state-sanctioned structures that undermine their sovereignty.4 In Aotearoa, Crown sovereignty asserted through the Treaty of Waitangi (English version) has often marginalized Māori self-determination, as seen in cases like _Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington_ (1877). In Australia, the doctrine underpinned _terra nullius_ for over 200 years, and later challenged by _Mabo v Queensland_ (1992)5 (hereafter Mabo), which recognized Native Title but upheld Crown sovereignty. Both Native Title and the Voice to Parliament demonstrate how colonial legacies (from the Doctrine) persist in modern frameworks, granting limited recognition but withholding true sovereignty. For example: ### a _. Native Title in Australia_ The Mabo decision (1992) provided a legal basis for Native Title by recognizing the pre-existing land rights of Indigenous peoples. However, this recognition is limited, as it operates within the colonial framework that insists on the Crown’s sovereignty.6 The doctrine’s continued influence on land rights laws reinforces Indigenous peoples’ status as subjects under settler rule, rather than as independent sovereign entities.7 ### _b. Voice to Parliament_ The Voice to Parliament proposal in Australia represents another example of colonial logic. Its purpose - to provide Indigenous people with an advisory role - frames Indigenous voices as subordinate to the existing colonial state.8 Critics, including Lidia Thorpe, argue that such measures perpetuate colonial inferior thinking, offering inclusion but no meaningful sovereignty. Instead of empowering self-determination, the Voice risks becoming a token gesture that reinforces the power of the Crown and the Australian Constitution, which were both shaped by colonial doctrines.9 State systems founded on colonial doctrines prioritize Western legal frameworks over Indigenous laws, limiting self-determination.10 Calls for change focus on recognizing Indigenous sovereignty, integrating Indigenous governance, and dismantling colonial structures. Indigenous peoples continue to face significant challenges as they engage with legal, political, and social systems that were historically designed to entrench colonial dominance.11 These systems often perpetuate unequal power dynamics by prioritizing the interests of the state and settler populations while simultaneously denying Indigenous communities meaningful self-determination, decision-making authority, and control over their lands, cultures, and futures. This dynamic forces Indigenous peoples to operate within frameworks that inherently limit their autonomy and reinforce systemic inequalities. ## Maipi-Clarke’s Protest: The Limits of Working Within Colonial Systems Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s protest in Aotearoa is a vivid expression of the limitationsIndigenous peoples face when attempting to engage with colonial frameworks.12 As the youngest member of Aotearoa’s Parliament, Maipi-Clarke symbolized hope for Māori political representation. Yet her powerful response, tearing up the Treaty Principles Bill and performing the haka (with others), was a rejection of a legislative proposal that, in her view, continued to undermine Māori sovereignty.13 The Treaty of Waitangi, originally intended as a covenant between Māori and the Crown, has been consistently undermined by the Crown’s actions.14 Despite its promises of partnership and respect for Māori autonomy, the Treaty has been manipulated to justify colonial control over Māori land, culture, and governance.15 Maipi-Clarke’s protest was not just a response to the specific bill but a broader critique of the entire colonial system that Māori continue to be subjected to within Aotearoa’s political structures. Her actions echo the resistance of Indigenous people globally, who also protest against agreements that ostensibly recognize their rights while maintaining systemic inequalities that favour dominant colonial powers. ## Lidia Thorpe’s Protest: Rejecting Colonial Sovereignty Lidia Thorpe’s protest against King Charles III during his visit to Australia in 2024 serves as a powerful symbolic act of resistance.16 Thorpe, a prominent advocate for the Blak Sovereign Movement, yelled at the King, declaring, “You are not our sovereign, it is not your land”, amongst other demands.17 This undaunting statement directly challenges the colonial authority of the British Crown, which remains a symbol of continued colonial domination in Australia.18 Thorpe’s actions underscore her rejection of the Voice to Parliament, which she sees as another form of colonial control.19 In her view, the Voice does not offer Indigenous peoples true self-determination; rather, it provides a platform for consultation without the power to enact change. Thorpe’s critique of the Voice, like the broader Indigenous push for sovereignty, reflects a demand for equality and autonomy that challenges colonial systems designed to maintain dominance.20 ### **Indigenous Parliamentary Representation: Aotearoa’s (New Zealand) Reserved Seats vs. Australia’s Voice** A significant point of comparison between Aotearoa and Australia lies in the political structures that represent Indigenous peoples. Aotearoa has long allowed Māori representation in Parliament through reserved Māori seats, which were first established in 1867.21 These seats provide Māori MPs with the full powers of parliamentary representation, including the ability to vote on and shape legislation. While the seats remain part of a colonial framework, they offer a tangible form of political power within the system, allowing Māori to directly influence laws that affect them.22 In contrast, the Voice to Parliament in Australia offers Indigenous peoples an advisory role but no legislative power.23 The proposal reflects a colonial mindset that views Indigenous peoples as subjects of consultation rather than as full participants in governance.24 Both situations illustrate how systems of governance built on colonial frameworks perpetuate inequality by denying Indigenous people’s full sovereignty and political agency. ## Indigenous Sovereignty Both Maipi-Clarke’s protest and Thorpe’s rejection of the Voice and denouncing of the King, reflect a broader movement calling for Indigenous sovereignty, the right of Indigenous peoples to govern themselves according to their own laws, traditions, and practices, free from colonial domination.25 Sovereignty is not just a path to self-determination; it is also a demand for sovereign recognition, challenging systems that grant symbolic recognition while maintaining structural inequalities. These actions highlight the ongoing resistance to the Doctrine of Discovery, which remains a cornerstone of colonial legal and political frameworks.26 True decolonization requires dismantling these structures and embracing Indigenous governance systems that respect and uphold Indigenous worldviews.27 By calling for sovereignty, leaders like Maipi-Clarke and Thorpe inspire future generations of Indigenous youth, to assert their rights and resist colonial power. The protests by Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke and Lidia Thorpe offer critical insights into the limitations of working within colonial frameworks. Both leaders challenge the idea that true justice for Indigenous peoples can be achieved by merely participating in or being consulted by colonial systems. Instead, they advocate for a complete rethinking of governance that centres Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination. The Voice to Parliament, like Native Title, offers inclusion without power, and as such, it risks perpetuating colonial dominance. By rejecting these systems, Maipi-Clarke and Thorpe call for a future where Indigenous peoples - and all those resisting colonial oppression - are free to govern their own lands and lives. ## Bibliography * Alfred, T. (2009). Peace, power, righteousness: An Indigenous manifesto (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. * Bargh, M. (2023). Aotearoa and Indigenous politics: Challenges and possibilities. Wellington: Huia Publishers. * Briskman, L., & McDonald, C. (2019). Colonial continuities: Indigenous governance and the limits of reconciliation. Social Alternatives, 38(1), 29-34. * Cocks, K. (2020). The enduring shadow of the Doctrine of Discovery in Australian law and politics. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 12(1), 15-19. * Fitzmaurice, A. (2010). Sovereignty, property, and empire, 1500–2000. Cambridge University Press. * McIvor, B. (2020). Stories of Indigenous sovereignty: Law, politics, and resistance. Vancouver: UBC Press. * Moreton-Robinson, A. (2021). The white possessive: Property, power, and Indigenous sovereignty. University of Minnesota Press. * Newcomb, Steven T, (2008), _Pagan in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery_ , Fulcrum Publishing. * Newcomb, Steven T (Sept 2018) Indigenous sovereignty and Political Subordination of our Nations, at https://ictnews.org/archive/white-supremacy-ascendancy-basis-us-federal-indian-law * Reynolds, H. (2021). Truth-telling: History, sovereignty, and the Uluru Statement. New South Publishing. * Shaw, J. (2023). Treaty justice: Māori resistance and the future of the Treaty of Waitangi. Auckland University Press. * Thorpe, L. (2023). Black sovereignty: A manifesto for change. Melbourne: Black Books Press. * Thorpe, L. (2024). Public protest during King Charles III’s visit to Australia. The Guardian Australia. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com * Tully, J. (2007). Public philosophy in a new key: Democracy and civic freedom. Cambridge University Press. * Watson, Irene (2015) Aboriginal Peoples, Colonialism, and International Law: Raw Law, Routledge. * Ward, A. (2012). A show of justice: Racial ‘amalgamation’ in nineteenth century New Zealand. Auckland University Press. * Webb, Jill (2002) Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Self-determination, Journal of Indigenous Policy – Issue 13 at https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlIndigP/2012/7.pdf * * * ## Works Cited 1. Tully, 2007. ↩ 2. Alfred, 2009; McIvor, 2020. ↩ 3. Newcomb 2008; Fitzmaurice, 2010. ↩ 4. Cocks, 2020. ↩ 5. Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23; (1992) 175 CLR 1. ↩ 6. Reynolds, 2021. ↩ 7. Watson 2015: Briskman & McDonald, 2019. ↩ 8. Thorpe, 2023. ↩ 9. Moreton-Robinson, 2021; Alfred, 2009. ↩ 10. Webb 2002. ↩ 11. Newcombe 2018. ↩ 12. Bargh, 2023. ↩ 13. Shaw, 2023. ↩ 14. Ward, 2012. ↩ 15. Shaw, 2023. ↩ 16. Thorpe, 2024. ↩ 17. Thorpe, 2024. ↩ 18. Alfred, 2009. ↩ 19. Moreton-Robinson, 2021. ↩ 20. Thorpe, 2023. ↩ 21. Ward, 2012. ↩ 22. Shaw, 2023. ↩ 23. Briskman & McDonald, 2019. ↩ 24. Moreton-Robinson, 2021. ↩ 25. Alfred, 2009; McIvor, 2020. ↩ 26. Fitzmaurice, 2010. ↩ 27. Alfred, 2009. ↩

⤓ Download a transcript of the Episode as a PDF // → Subscribe