Abstract: The New Zealand and Canadian Crowns are guided in their dealings with
Indigenous peoples by common law fiduciary duties. In both countries, these
duties have evolved into the constitutional principle of the ‘honour of the
Crown’, which requires governments to consult with Indigenous peoples when
contemplating legislative and executive action affecting their distinctive
interests, and to accommodate those interests where appropriate. To date, no
comparable common law duty has emerged in Australia. This article revisits
Toohey J’s remarkable, but under-analysed, judgment in Mabo v Queensland
(No 2) (‘Mabo (No 2)’), in which His Honour found that Australian Crowns
owe a general fiduciary duty to Indigenous peoples, arising by operation of law
from the ‘circumstances of the relationship’ (rather than from a treaty or
express undertaking). The judgment continues to influence contemporary
Australian courts and, in the absence of a High Court of Australia majority
finding to the contrary, the possibility remains that a general fiduciary duty may
yet emerge as a principle of Australian common law. The article argues that
fiduciary obligations of this kind are sorely needed in Australia, because the
High Court has not accepted that relational or consultative obligations to
Indigenous peoples attend the Crowns’ exercise of the ‘race power’, or that
these obligations are a precondition of the Crowns’ reliance on the ‘special
measures’ exception in the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). As it stands,
Australian law permits and enables a degree of governmental unilateralism that
is not compatible with the role of the Crown as a fiduciary. This article explores
the possibility, suggested by Toohey J’s judgment in Mabo (No 2), that the
common law of native title could yet be the wellspring of general fiduciary
principles that could guide the conduct of Australian Crowns in their dealings
with Indigenous peoples.





Exxcerpt: A couple of years ago, I got a call from my oldest grandson, Jeremy. He was beginning middle school and taking his first class devoted to American history. For their initial homework assignment the teacher asked the students to speak with an older relative about their view of the American past and report on what he or she said. When Jeremy mentioned that two of his grandfathers were history professors (a complete coincidence, by the way), the teacher asked him to interview both of us. “Here’s the question, grandpa,” Jeremy said. “What does the United States of America mean to you as a historian?”

“Wow,” I stammered, “that’s big. Can you give me a little more direction?” I was stalling. “I can tell you what Grandpa Lou said,” Jeremy offered. “That would help,” I replied, grateful for a few moments to gather my wits. “He thought about it for a while,” Jeremy said, “then told me that while America meant a lot of things to him, most important was the proclamation of human rights in the Declaration of Independence and the personal liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the other amendments to the Constitution.” Grandpa Lou had taken the high road. “He’s absolutely right about that,” I said. “Those are the guarantees of our enviable rights and freedoms.” Now it was my turn. “Since Lou emphasized the positive,” I offered, somewhat tentatively, “I’m going with the dark side. America is also about taking the land from hundreds of Indian nations and enslaving millions of Africans.”



Abstract: This dissertation project serves as an inquiry into Canadian representational practices and discourses surrounding colonialism, wilderness, nature and nationhood. The written thesis presented here is part of a multidisciplinary project that also comprised of an art exhibition held at Western’s McIntosh Gallery, from June 3rd to Junes 25th, 2016. This paper, alongside the drawing, sculpture, and videos created for my exhibition, examine depictions of nature and nation in Canada through an analysis of antimodernism, primitivism, and a seeking of the spiritual connected to constructions of “white wilderness” and the spatial imaginary of Canada’s colonial frontier. This paper also explores ways in which decolonial art and theory seeks to challenge those same configurations of identity and power, including the development of settler-based decolonizing strategies aimed at unsettling dominant political and cultural narratives.

Specifically in relation to my own art practice, this means challenging the enduring colonial legacies of Canada’s settler past and the contemporary representational practices that continue to privilege and empower colonial constructions of space and place. This
dissertation project proposes a collaborative-based research practice that operates in relation to issues of the local, domestic, and lived practices of people and their interaction with the environment. As such, this paper examines mainstream articulations of nature and nation in Canada through historicized interpretations of dominant Settler/First Nation narratives and demonstrates how an understanding of this history becomes vitally important when trying to achieve performative, transformative, and collaborative understandings of the colonial experience that continues to define life in Canada.


This piece discusses Jeremy Campbell’s Conjuring Property: Speculation and Environmental Futures in the Brazilian Amazon (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2015).