Megan Davis’s Voice of Reason makes a significant contribution to the intensifying debate about the forthcoming referendum. It is a rational and persuasive account of the process of national consultation which culminated in the Uluṟu Statement from the Heart in May 2017. It provides a cogent account of the legal and political framework against which the 250 delegates negotiated their three-part program of Voice, truth-telling and treaty.

But, like in practically all the literature produced by either side of the debate, there is little about the international context. The debate is both contentious and notably parochial, even though for sixty years global opinion and international law have played major roles in the evolution of Australian politics and law. Some brief background may be necessary.

The Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 (No. 107) was the first international document which dealt specifically with the rights of indigenous people. Surprisingly, it had an almost immediate influence in Australia. Copies were distributed at the inaugural meeting of the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines in Adelaide in 1958 and it was formally adopted a year later. Although assimilationist in tone, it strongly supported land rights. It was here that both Gough Whitlam and Don Dunstan received their inspiration for their pioneer land rights legislation in the Northern Territory and South Australia. The Murray Island land rights claim survived Queensland’s challenge in Mabo v Queensland no. 1 due to the anti-discrimination legislation of 1975, which drew on the UN’s Convention of 1966. In his leading judgment in 1992, Justice Brennan declared that Australian courts had to keep the common law in step with international law and “neither be nor be seen to be frozen in an age of racial discrimination.” He referred to both UN conventions and judgments of the International Court of Justice.

The political and constitutional rights of indigenous people were further developed in ILO Convention 169 of 1989, which both recognised and supported “the aspirations of these peoples to exercise control over their own institutions, ways of life and economic development and to maintain and develop their identities, languages and religions, within the framework of the States in which they live.”

By then negotiations were underway at the UN, which eventually resulted in 2007 in the vote of a massive majority in the General Assembly in favour of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People, to which Australia gave its formal support in 2009. The Declaration recognised and reaffirmed that indigenous peoples “possess collective rights which are indispensable for their existence, well-being and integral development as peoples.” They also have the right of self-determination and “by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” As well, they have the right to “autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs.”

The relevance of these international principles and standards for our current debate scarcely needs emphasising. It is surely strange that they are so rarely referred to. It suggests the advocates for the Yes case decided it was better not to mention the UN, international law or global opinion. Whether that was a prudent decision remains to be seen.

Henry Reynolds is the author of many groundbreaking works of history, including The Other Side of the Frontier, This Whispering in Our Hearts, Why Weren’t We Told?, The Law of the Land and recently Truth Telling: History, sovereignty and the Uluru Statement.