Legislating truth: Comparative lessons from Canada's national truth-telling architecture for Australia

Truth-telling has become a prominent component of reconciliation agendas in settler-colonial states, although the extent to which such processes are embedded within enduring political, legal, and institutional frameworks varies significantly.This article presents a comparative analysis of Canada's national truth-telling architecture and Australia's more fragmented approach to truthtelling and reconciliation.Drawing on engagements with Indigenous leaders, Elders, Survivors, and research institutions in Canada, the article examines how truth-telling has been institutionalised through legislation, permanent national institutions, and practices of civic commemoration.In contrast, it demonstrates that Australia's truth-telling initiatives remain uneven across jurisdictions, highly contingent on political context, and insufficiently anchored in national law.The article identifies key implications for the Australian context, including the importance of Indigenous-governed national truth-telling infrastructure, legislative implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and mechanisms to ensure continuity and accountability in reconciliation processes.It concludes that without durable national frameworks, truth-telling is unlikely to achieve its transformative potential.