From Endorsement to Implementation: Advancing UNDRIP in Australia

Zyarna Leefe, Freya Phillips National Scholar, 2025 Y20 Fellow

I would like to disclaim that I am a Māori (Rongomaiwahine, Te Aitanga-a-Māhaki, Ngāpuhi) migrant to Australia and do not speak on behalf of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples. I share this recommendation as part of a broader commitment to supporting Indigenous self-determination and inclusive global governance.

Executive Summary

Australia endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2009, yet more than fifteen years later it remains largely unimplemented in domestic law and policy (Davis, 2012). This gap between endorsement and implementation undermines Indigenous self-determination, weakens Australia’s human rights standing and contributes to persistent social, economic and political inequities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Wood, 2020). Unlike comparable settler states such as Canada, which has enacted UNDRIP through legislation supported by action plans and reporting obligations (Lightfoot, 2023), Australia continues to treat UNDRIP as aspirational rather than operational (Hobbs, 2025). As a result, core UNDRIP principles are applied inconsistently, leaving Indigenous communities without meaningful authority over decisions affecting their lands, cultures and governance (Davis, 2007).

This paper recommends that the Australian Government introduce legislation to establish a Commonwealth UNDRIP Implementation Act, requiring alignment of federal laws and policies with UNDRIP, the development of a National UNDRIP Action Plan and annual public reporting to Parliament. The policy would be led by the Attorney-General’s Department in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representative bodies. Initial costs are estimated at $45-60 million over four years, covering legislative review, co-design processes, staffing and reporting mechanisms. Evidence from Canada demonstrates that legislation is the most effective driver of UNDRIP implementation, creating accountability, institutional momentum and legal clarity (Lightfoot, 2016; Mainville & Joynt, 2025). While political, legal and cultural risks exist, particularly resistance to perceived power-sharing, these risks are outweighed by long-term benefits including improved policy outcomes, reduced litigation, strengthened Indigenous governance and enhanced national and international credibility. Without decisive legislative action, UNDRIP in Australia will continue to stagnate, reinforcing symbolic recognition without structural change.

Problem Identification

Australia’s failure to implement UNDRIP represents a significant structural policy gap with long-term consequences for Indigenous self-determination and national governance. Although Australia formally endorsedUNDRIP in 2009, it has not enacted enabling legislation or established a national framework for implementation (Davis, 2012). As a result, UNDRIP has no binding force in domestic law, no mandated action plan and no accountability mechanisms. Indigenous rights therefore remain dependent on discretionary government action rather than enforceable standards, producing fragmented and inconsistent outcomes across jurisdictions (Smith, 2023). In practice, Indigenous participation is frequently limited to consultation. Decision-making power remains firmly with the state and consent is often sought but not obtained (Bruyneel, 2007; Brigg et al., 2022).

This policy failure directly affects Australian interests. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples comprise approximately 3.8 per cent of the population yet continue to experience disproportionately high rates of incarceration, child removal, preventable illness, suicide and economic exclusion (Wellauer & Boltje, 2024). In 2024, only 5 of 19 Closing the Gap targets were on track, with outcomes worsening in areas such as imprisonment and mental health (Wellauer & Boltje, 2024). These failures impose significant fiscal costs through justice, health and child protection systems while undermining public confidence in Indigenous policy more broadly. Internationally, Australia’s inability to operationalise UNDRIP weakens its credibility as a human rights advocate and limits its influence in global Indigenous and environmental governance forums (Lightfoot & MacDonald, 2020). Without a binding implementation framework, Indigenous policy will remain reactive and vulnerable to political change.

Context

Background

UNDRIP, adopted on 13 September 2007, represents the culmination of over two decades of sustained Indigenous advocacy through the United Nations. It establishes a comprehensive framework of 46 articles protecting Indigenous peoples’ rights. Key provisions include self-determination, autonomy and self-government, land and resource rights, cultural and linguistic preservation and participation in decision-making (UNGA, 2007). UNDRIP also addresses historical injustices, requiring states to provide remedies and redress for dispossession, forced assimilation and cultural loss. Principles such as free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) are central to Indigenous self-determination while the overall framework affirms Indigenous peoples as legitimate political actors whose governance, culture and relational worldviews are integral to their autonomy (Anaya, 2004; Morgan, 2011).

UNDRIP was adopted with 143 states voting in favour, 11 abstaining and four settler-colonial states, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, voting against (UNGA, 2007). Opposition reflected concerns over constitutional arrangements, territorial integrity and recognition of collective rights. Australia, Canada and New Zealand initially proposed weakening references to self-determination with alternatives like “self-management” to avoid secession concerns (Cabinet Submission JH03/0212, 2003). While UNDRIP is non-binding, it calls on states to implement its principles through domestic laws, policies and consultation with Indigenous peoples, with guidance from international bodies such as the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) and the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) (United Nations Human Rights Council, 2017; UNGA, 2014). Its impact depends on national adaptation, making it a normative and practical framework for Indigenous authority, participation and cultural survival (Davis, 2007; Charters & Stavenhagen, 2009).

Current Policy Landscape

Although Australia was the first state to reverse its opposition to UNDRIP, it has made less progress than comparable settler states in implementing its principles domestically (Lightfoot, 2023). International Indigenous rights norms circulate in public debate but lack a constitutional or legislative anchor, unlike Section 35 of Canada’s Constitution Act or Te Tiriti o Waitangi in Aotearoa New Zealand (Hobbs, 2025). Since endorsing UNDRIP in 2009, successive governments have generally treated it as aspirational rather than legally binding. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s endorsement reversed John Howard’s opposition but clarified that UNDRIP created no new legal obligations (Macklin, 2009). This approach has persisted under succeeding governments, shaping an implementation process focused on guidance, consultation and advisory measures rather than formal and permanent legal reform. This aspirational framing is problematic because it leaves the recognition and protection of Indigenous rights contingent on political will rather than enforceable legal standards, resulting in uneven implementation and limited accountability when UNDRIP principles are ignored or overridden.

Efforts to translate UNDRIP principles into policy have highlighted structural and procedural constraints. The Gillard Government’s Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition (2010-2012) and the Joint Select Committee (2013-2015) undertook extensive consultations and proposed reforms, including removing racially discriminatory provisions and recognising Indigenous languages, but their recommendations were advisory. The Abbott and Turnbull governments’ Referendum Council (2015) facilitated national consultations and Indigenous dialogues, reflecting UNDRIP principles of participation and FPIC, but governments retained ultimate decision-making authority (Davis & Williams, 2021). The Uluru Statement from the Heart (2017) called for a constitutionally-enshrined Voice to Parliament, a Makarrata Commission for treaty-making and truth-telling, yet subsequent governments prioritised statutory advisory models. The 2023 Voice referendum, defeated with 60 per cent voting No, illustrated the challenges of translating UNDRIP principles into constitutional reform and the importance of institutional safeguards alongside public consultation (Davis, 2023).

Despite these constraints, UNDRIP has influenced policy and legislation. Minister Jenny Macklin linked UNDRIP to Closing the Gap, emphasising Indigenous self-determination and rights-based frameworks (Macklin, 2009). The Australian Human Rights Commission has also adopted UNDRIP as a benchmark for monitoring Indigenous rights, and UN Special Rapporteurs have commended Australia’s health and social programs for aligning with its principles (Australian Government Department of Health, 2013). The National Agreement on Closing the Gap (2020) was co-designed with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peak bodies, embedding partnership and shared decision-making. However, only 5 of 19 targets are currently on track (Wellauer & Boltje, 2024). Attempts to legislate UNDRIP at the federal level, such as Senator Lidia Thorpe’s UNDRIP Bill, have not passed (Thorpe, 2023). This demonstrates that UNDRIP influences policy and governance, but without legislative or constitutional support, implementation is limited.

Policy alignment with UNDRIP principles has progressed largely through consultation, advisory frameworks and co-designed programs. Reliance on consultation and advisory frameworks has hindered progress by entrenching Indigenous participation as discretionary and state-managed rather than enabling Indigenous peoples to exercise self-determination through legally guaranteed authority and control. This highlights the need for stronger legislative or constitutional mechanisms to ensure long-term implementation.

Case Studies

Canada serves as a key case study that has translated UNDRIP’s principles into law, policy, and judicial practice. At the federal level, Canada passed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act 2021 (UNDRIP Act) in 2021. This requires reviews of existing laws and policies, the creation of UNDRIP Action Plans and annual reporting. Meanwhile, British Columbia implemented provincial legislation in 2019 with similar accountability measures. Ministerial mandate letters since 2016 have reinforced this focus, ensuring governments prioritise UNDRIP implementation (Lightfoot, 2023). Judicial mechanisms have also operationalised UNDRIP principles. Canadian courts have incorporated Indigenous perspectives into treaty and Aboriginal rights cases, recognised the equal standing of oral and written evidence and evaluated infringements on Indigenous rights, although the international standard of FPIC has not yet been fully realised. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action 43 explicitly urged governments to adopt UNDRIP as the framework for reconciliation, embedding its principles into national governance (Lightfoot, 2023).

In conjunction with legislative and judicial incorporation, Canada’s experience demonstrates how UNDRIP implementation is reinforced through structured engagement and policy mechanisms anchored in law. National Action Plans are mandated under federal and provincial legislation. They provide a framework for consultation, negotiation and policy development with Indigenous peoples. Their scope and pace, however, remain politically contested. This contrasts with Australia, where engagement with the EMRIP has proceeded in the absence of comparable legislative foundations (Lightfoot, 2023). This engagement has included the establishment of Terms of Reference for potential Country Engagement missions. These missions followed requests from Indigenous bodies such as the Noongar Child Protection Council (United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2024). Such procedural initiatives support incremental advances in areas including Indigenous control over land. They also support the integration of traditional knowledge and alignment with international frameworks such as the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals. However, the Canadian case illustrates that these outcomes are more likely to be sustained where UNDRIP principles are embedded in binding legal and institutional structures. Advisory processes alone provide a less secure foundation for long-term implementation.

Policy Options

To address the gap between Australia’s endorsement of UNDRIP and its practical implementation, the government must adopt a policy that strengthens Indigenous self-determination, ensures accountability and embeds UNDRIP into domestic law. The following policy options address this issue:

Option 1: Constitutional reform to recognise UNDRIP rights

This option would amend the Constitution to recognise Indigenous peoples and their rights under UNDRIP, offering strong legal protection that would be difficult to reverse and affirmation of self-determination. Based on the 2023 referendum, the initial costs are estimated at  $364 million over four years (Australian Electoral Commission, 2023). In practical terms, constitutional recognition would require Australian laws, policies, and administrative decision-making to be interpreted consistently with recognised UNDRIP rights. It could also enable courts to invalidate or read down legislation that unjustifiably infringes those rights. It would also reshape legislative practice by embedding Indigenous rights considerations into law-making, shifting UNDRIP from a discretionary policy guide to a binding constitutional standard. Other settler-colonial states, such as Aotearoa New Zealand with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, provide constitutional or foundational recognition of Indigenous rights, showing the benefits of such an approach. However, this option is unlikely in Australia, as a referendum would be required and public support is uncertain following the 2023 Voice defeat.

Option 2: Executive National UNDRIP Action Plan (Cabinet-Endorsed)

This option would establish a Commonwealth-led National UNDRIP Action Plan through Cabinet submission and executive decision rather than legislation, making it a whole-of-government policy strategy rather than a statutory mandate. Based on Canada’s UNDRIP Action Plan, the initial cost would be $37 million over five years (Government of Canada, 2023). It would set priorities and coordination mechanisms to align federal laws and policies with UNDRIP, with consultation and co-design framed as policy commitments rather than legal obligations and reporting occurring through public updates rather than statutory tabling. Unlike Canada’s model under the UNDRIP Act, this approach would operate without an implementation statute, meaning its authority would derive from the executive rather than Parliament. The advantage is speed, flexibility and greater short-term political feasibility. The limitation is that it would not create binding obligations, enforceable rights or durable accountability and could be amended or abandoned by a future government.

Option 3: Statutory UNDRIP Implementation Act (Legislative Mandate)

This option would introduce federal legislation requiring all existing and future Commonwealth laws, regulations, programs and administrative decisions to be consistent with UNDRIP principles, creating a binding statutory mandate rather than an executive strategy. Based on costings prepared for the Australian Greens by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO), the initial costs are estimated at $45-60 million over four years (PBO, 2025). Unlike Option 2, which relies on Cabinet approval and political commitment, this model would derive authority from Parliament and impose enforceable legal obligations on government decision-makers. It would require a legally binding National UNDRIP Action Plan co-designed with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representative bodies and mandate annual reporting to Parliament, embedding accountability in statute rather than convention. Canada’s experience under the UNDRIP Act shows that legislative incorporation strengthens accountability and durability across electoral cycles. The advantage is enforceability and long-term stability. The limitation is greater political resistance, which could delay passage or expose the Act to amendment or repeal. 

Policy Recommendation

Option 3, to enact a Commonwealth UNDRIP Implementation Act, is recommended as the most effective pathway to ensure Australia’s formal and actionable adoption of UNDRIP. Drawing on the Canadian experience, where federal and provincial legislation, combined with UNDRIP Action Plans, have strengthened Indigenous self-determination, FPIC and policy alignment, this option offers a legally binding, accountable framework (Lightfoot, 2023).

The proposed Act would require the Australian Government to:

1. Review and Harmonise Federal Laws 

The Government should, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Australia are consistent with UNDRIP.

2. Develop a Co-Designed National UNDRIP Action Plan 

This plan would be developed collaboratively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representative bodies and would set out priority actions, timelines, responsible agencies, and measures for FPIC, treaty recognition, land rights and cultural protection.

3. Mandate Annual Reporting 

Progress on the Action Plan would be reported publicly to Parliament, ensuring accountability and transparency.

4. Support Capacity Building and Awareness 

Training and guidance for government staff, agencies and judicial officers to ensure consistent application of UNDRIP principles, FPIC and Indigenous legal systems.

The Attorney-General’s Department should lead legislative implementation, supported by the National Indigenous Australians Agency, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and the Department of Health and Aged Care.

Costs and Measures of Success

The Australian Greens similarly recommended federal legislation, co-designed implementation with Indigenous peoples, embedding FPIC in decision-making and annual reporting to Parliament. Based on the Australian Greens’ pre-election proposal and PBO costing, full UNDRIP implementation would decrease the fiscal balance by $40.8 million over four years (2026-2030) covering monitoring, enforcement and administration. The proposed Commonwealth UNDRIP Implementation Act builds on this by providing a legally binding framework with clear enforcement, capacity-building and integration of Indigenous knowledge into government decisions (PBO, 2025; Government of Canada, 2022).

Measures of success would include:

Risks

Political and Institutional Barriers

Australia has historically been cautious in fully implementing UNDRIP. Unlike Canada, which integrated UNDRIP into ministerial mandate letters and legislation, Australia has expressed only qualified support since 2009. Political change could slow implementation, competing policy priorities may constrain resourcing, and proposed reforms risk being voted down entirely or repealed by future governments. Even where legislation is enacted, a durable framework would require sustained cross-party commitment and effective inter-departmental coordination to avoid delays or reversal.

Social and Cultural Barriers

Implementing UNDRIP can be misunderstood as granting special rights to Indigenous peoples, particularly around land and resource use. This makes public communication and co-design essential to frame it as promoting equitable self-determination and reconciliation. UNDRIP also provides guidance on culturally appropriate inclusive consultation, as implemented in the Voice process, but the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nations means there is no single voice. Collective engagement risks privileging certain governance structures, and without careful co-design, processes may replicate centralised state-like structures that conflict with Indigenous relational diplomacy. 

Economic Risks

Embedding FPIC and UNDRIP principles into decision-making could result in procedural delays for various projects related to infrastructure, natural resources or the environment. These short-term economic costs are likely to arise because additional time and resources will be required for consultation and agreement‑making with Indigenous communities before projects can proceed. While these delays are necessary to respect Indigenous rights, they may impose short-term economic costs. While such delays may impose short-term economic costs, dedicated funding for oversight and consultation, as included in the PBO estimate, can mitigate these risks by supporting additional staffing, training and engagement processes.

References

Anaya, S. J. (2004). Indigenous peoples in international law. Oxford University Press.

Australian Electoral Commission. (2023). 2023 Federal referendum. https://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/referendums/2023.htm

Bruyneel, K. (2007). The third space of sovereignty: The postcolonial politics of US-Indigenous relations. University of Minnesota Press.

Brigg, M., Graham, M., & Weber, M. (2022). Relational Indigenous systems: Aboriginal Australian political ordering and reconfiguring IR. Review of International Studies, 48(5), 891-909.

Cabinet Submission JH03/0212 - Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples; Cabinet Decision JH03/0212/CAB. (2003, June 10). National Archives of Australia, Series A14370, JH2003/212.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2025). Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2025. Commonwealth of Australia.

Davis, M. (2007). The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Australian Indigenous Law Review, 11(3), 55-63.

Davis, M. (2012). To bind or not to bind: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples five years on. Australian International Law Journal, 17, 20-24.

Davis, M. (2023). Truth after the Voice. The Monthly.

Davis, M., & Williams, G. (2021). The journey to recognition. In Everything you need to know about the Uluru Statement from the Heart. New South Publishing.

Government of Canada. (2022). Budget 2022: A Plan to Grow Our Economy and Make Life More Affordable. Government of Canada website. 

Government of Canada. (2023). Year in recap: Action Plan. Government of Canada. 

Hobbs, H. (2025). The role of parliament in Indigenous-state agreement making. UNSW Law Research, 25(20), 1-32.

Lightfoot, S. (2016). Global Indigenous politics: A subtle revolution. Routledge.

Lightfoot, S. (2023). Inquiry into the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in Australia Submission 43. 

Lightfoot, S., & MacDonald, D. B. (2020). The United Nations as both foe and friend to Indigenous peoples and self-determination. In J. R. Avgustin (Ed.), The United Nations: Friend or foe of self-determination? E-International Relations.

Macklin, J. (2009, April 3). Statement on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Government of Australia.

Mainville, S., & Joynt, C. (2025). Empowering Indigenous peoples as the architects of their law and jurisdiction: A critical analysis of UNDRIP implementation and legislative reconciliation in Canada. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 129-153.

Morgan, R. (2011). Transforming law and institution: Indigenous peoples, the United Nations and human rights. Ashgate.

Parliamentary Budget Office. (2025). ECR‑2025‑3085: Full Implementation of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Election Commitments Report). Australian Government.https://www.pbo.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-05/PBO-ECR-2025-3085-Full%20Implementation%20of%20United%20Nations%20Declaration%20on%20the%20Rights%20of%20Indigenous%20Peoples.pdf  

Smith, D. (2023). From little things, big things grow: Exercising incremental self-governance in Australia. In W. Nikolakis, S. Cornell, & H. Nelson (Eds.), Reclaiming Indigenous governance: Reflections and insights from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. University of Arizona Press.

Thorpe, L. (2023, December 6). UNDRIP Bill fails to pass. Senator Lidia Thorpe.

United Nations General Assembly. (2007, September 13). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 61/295.

United Nations General Assembly. (2014, September 25). Outcome document of the High-Level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples. A/RES/69/2.

United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (2024, April). Country engagement mission Australia: Advisory note. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Wellauer, K., & Boltje, S. (2024, March 6). Latest Close the Gap data shows only five out 19 targets for Indigenous Australians are 'on track'. ABC News.

Wood, C. (2020). Protecting Indigenous rights at home: A comparative analysis of the way forward for domestic implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Australian International Law Journal, 27, 77-101.

The views and opinions expressed by Global Voices Fellows do not necessarily reflect those of the organisation or its staff.