The United Nations is not advocating for a separate Indigenous nation within Australia

^{By Renee Davidson}

Former Liberal MP Nicolle Flint has broadcast false information on her regular Sky News Australia segment about the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Rights, saying it could lead to a separate Indigenous nation within Australia.

The claim feeds into an existing conspiracy theory that there is a “hidden agenda” behind the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

Ms Flint claims that articles within the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which was endorsed by Australia in 2009, suggest there should be a separate Indigenous nation within Australia and that Indigenous people could opt in or out of federal and state governance. But her claims are wrong.

What is the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007 and supported by Australia two years later. It is a non-legally binding international instrument that provides global standards on how governments should engage and protect the rights of Indigenous people.

The declaration’s 46 articles emphasise the principles of self-determination, participation in decision-making, respect for and protection of culture, and equality and non-discrimination. 

Its application in Australia is currently being considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (JSCATSIA). 

Ms Flint's claims appear to be in regard to Article 5, which states: “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.”

What did Nicolle Flint claim?

The Sky News segment on the UN declaration was shared on the news channel’s Facebook page on May 21, with the title “UN Indigenous rights proposal could have ‘serious ramifications’ for democracy”. 

In the segment, viewed almost 18,000 times on social media, Ms Flint opens the discussion with Sky News host Cory Bernardi by saying: “We called this segment the hidden agenda for a reason.” 

“This is the stuff the government doesn't want viewers at home – normal Australians working hard for the families and communities – to know about,” Ms Flint said in the segment.

She claimed that “everyone at home should be concerned about” the articles in the UN declaration, which “suggest there should be a separate Indigenous nation, separate Indigenous government, separate Indigenous economy, rules, law, and institutions”.

“And it essentially says that Indigenous Australians could choose whether they want to opt in or out of Australian society under the federal government or state government,” Ms Flint said.  

She went on to say: “So this [the declaration] is worse than the Voice.”

The segment is brought to an end with a remark from Mr Bernadi: “Hopefully it’ll [the declaration] get some more attention now because if it gets through the parliament we are a nation divided. It’s terrible.”

But Ms Flint’s claims that articles in the UN declaration suggest there should be a separate Indigenous nation in Australia and that Indigenous people can opt in or out of federal and state governance are false, according to legal and international law experts consulted by RMIT FactLab. 

What do the experts say? 

Dr Amy Maguire, an associate professor in international law and human rights at the University of Newcastle’s Law School, dismissed the claim that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples would establish a separate Indigenous nation in Australia. 

“This is an absolute nonsense claim,” Dr Maguire told RMIT FactLab in an email. “There is nothing in the UN declaration that could be said to propose such an outcome.” 

She said the claim that Indigenous people could choose to opt in or out of Australian society was a misrepresentation of Article 5 of the declaration. 

All people in Australia have a right to participate fully in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the state, however, they can also choose their level of participation, she said. 

“For example, some people choose to cast invalid votes on election day – this is a choice that could be said to represent less than full participation in the political life of the state," she said.

“What Article 5 is getting to is the idea that First Nations peoples never ceded sovereignty or the right to their distinct political systems, laws or ways of life,” she said. “They are entitled to maintain engagement in both their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural structures and practices, AND in Australian political and social life.”

Dr Kate Galloway, an associate professor at Griffith University’s Law School, rejected the claims as “manifestly false”. 

“The intent of [the UN declaration], and its well established principles, is to allow for the expression of existing rights of self-determination held by Indigenous people,” Dr Galloway told FactLab in an email. “First Nations may, should they choose, express themselves as communities but they may do so within the framework of the existing nation state.”

Indigenous people cannot opt out of governance by the nation state, which the declaration confirms, she said.

“The UNDRIP affirms state sovereignty and territorial integrity in Article 46 (1), and affirms that UNDRIP rights must be read subject to this overriding principle and the UN Charter,” she said.

It should be acknowledged that Indigenous communities around Australia already live with their own laws, which are recognised by Australian law, she said.  

“That these laws continue, and are recognised by the Australian state, signals that it is possible for these systems to co-exist,” she said.

The 1992 Mabo decision was an example of this, she said.

The Mabo Case (1992) is a landmark legal case in which the High Court of Australia “recognised that Indigenous peoples had lived in Australia for thousands of years and enjoyed rights to their land according to their own laws and customs”.

Why are Facebook users sharing the Sky News segment on the UN declaration?

In the lead up to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament referendum, Telegram channels and fringe online communities have been pushing baseless theories alleging that the UN is seeking to use the Voice to upend Australian sovereignty as part of its “New World Order” (NWO) agenda. 

The NWO conspiracy has been around for decades. According to the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, proponents of the theory believe that a secretive group of elites is trying to implement a totalitarian one-world government, with the UN seen as a vehicle through which the group operates. 

Facebook users have shared the Sky News segment as evidence of this alleged UN plan taking grip in Australia in order to promote the No campaign against the Voice referendum. “We need to drop anything to do with the UN, WEF, and WHO ... Don't be fooled by their propaganda and vote no,” one user commented.

Another Facebook account similarly claims, “This is the hidden agenda behind the Voice that Mr. Albanese has not mentioned … Australia must vote no to ‘the Voice’ … The U.N. wants one world government and they are intent on wearing every country down until they achieve their goals.”

But there is no evidence that the UN plans to establish a New World Order. 

Conspiracists latched onto the theory at the height of the COVID pandemic, circulating a doctored image online that purported to be an official UN agenda outlining plans to create a one-world government. These claims were debunked at the time as false by fact-checking units around the world, including AAP, Fullfact, USA Today, PolitiFact, AFP, and Reuters. 

The referendum is expected to be held between October and December this year. Australians will vote on whether to make an amendment to the constitution to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, which would advise the parliament and government on matters relating to Indigenous peoples. 

The legislation to establish the referendum passed through the lower house on May 31, and will be debated in the Senate when it next sits later in June.