1967 Referendum
What is the significance of the 1967 Referendum?
On 27 May 1967 a Federal referendum was held. The first question, referred to as the ‘nexus question' was an attempt to alter the balance of numbers in the Senate and the House of Representatives. The second question was to determine whether two references in the Australian Constitution, which discriminated against Aboriginal people, should be removed. This fact sheet addresses the second question. The sections of the Constitution under scrutiny were: 51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:‐ (xxvi) The people of any race, other than the aboriginal people in any State, for whom it is necessary to make special laws. 127. In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives should not be counted.
Above, 1967 referendum poster urging Australians to vote YES.
41st Anniversary of the 1967 Referendum
Sunday 27 May 2008 marks the 41st anniversary of Australia’s most successful referendum and a defining event in our nation’s history. The 1967 referendum saw more than 90% of eligible Australians vote YES to count Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in the national census of the population and to give the Commonwealth Government power to make specific laws in respect of Indigenous people. This event is often referred to as the first stage of the Reconciliation movement in Australia. The anniversary provides a rare and significant opportunity to further encourage the Australian community’s interest in Reconciliation.
The removal of the words ‘… other than the aboriginal people in any State…' in section 51(xxvi) and the whole of section 127 were considered by many to be representative of the prevailing movement for political change within Indigenous affairs. As a result of the political climate, this referendum saw the highest YES vote ever recorded in a Federal referendum, with 90.77% voting for change. It is interesting to note that because the majority of parliamentarians supported the proposed amendment, a NO case was never formulated for presentation as part of the referendum campaign. Copies of the YES case can be located on files identified below. The 1967 referendum did not give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples the right to vote. This right had been legislated for Commonwealth elections in 1962, with the last State to provide Indigenous enfranchisement being Queensland in 1965.
If Indigenous and non‐Indigenous Australians working side by side in the Above, 1967 referendum poster urging Australians to vote YES. lead‐up to the referendum could achieve such a resounding result, References /more information imagine what Australians can do to www.reconciliation.org.au progress today’s Reconciliation agenda!
www.nma.gov.au/indigenousrights
What rights did Aboriginal people have prior to 1967?
First denial of citizenship rights was the declaration of terra nullius as this negated all existing Indigenous Australians legal rights such as native title and customary law. Legally, Aboriginal people, like other Australians, were British subjects from the beginning of European occupation. In practice, however, they were treated quite differently. Some notable colonial legislation that targeted Aboriginal peoples included: ‐ 1816 Martial Law (NSW). This proclamation declared Indigenous Australians could be shot on sight if armed with spears, or even unarmed, if they were within a certain distance of houses or settlements ‐ 1824 (Tas). Settlers are authorised to shoot Aboriginal peoples ‐ 1869 (Vic). The Governor can order the removal of any child to a reformatory or industrial school 1890 (NSW). In a denial of human rights the Aborigines Protection Board could forcibly take children off reserves and "resocialise" them. Control over Indigenous affairs was state controlled and each state’s conditions and regulations varied. Colonial governments, aware of the effects of violence, of introduced diseases and of dispossession, believed that Aboriginal people were doomed to extinction and deserved protection during their remaining years. The colonies passed laws, usually called Aboriginal Protection Acts, which set up authorities to place Indigenous Australians on reserves to look after them. Colonial and State Protection Acts were instituted in Australian states between 1886 and 1911. Protection laws reduced the legal status of those on reserves from British subjects to wards of the state, with members of the Protection Boards as their legal guardians. The aim of the Acts may have been protection, but in practice they gave the Boards complete power and control over the lives of the Aboriginal people under their care. At the time of Federation (1901) Indigenous Australians remained excluded from the rights of Australian citizenship, including the right to vote, the right to be counted in a census and the right to be counted as part of an electorate. In Western Australia and Queensland the right to vote was tied to the ownership of property and therefore precluded Indigenous people who had not been allowed to own property under the Aboriginal Protection Acts. Under various legislation Indigenous Australians had no rights in relation to wages and social security benefits including maternity allowances and old age pensions. At State level, discriminatory laws or practices were introduced which excluded many Aboriginal children from public schools. After World War I only white returned serviceman were entitled to allotments of land under the Returned Servicemen's Settlement Scheme. When state governments closed Aboriginal reserves and resumed land for white farmers to settle on they evicted Indigenous people with no compensation for cultivated lands they had been living on or giving resources to re‐establish themselves. Indigenous people were removed from reserves to live on the fringes in makeshift housing with no access to education or employment. This is often referred to as the ‘second dispossession’. Governments renewed Protection Acts ‘for the protection of Indigenous people’ resulting in limited freedom of movement, freedom of association, the right to control property and earnings, the right to drink alcohol and the right to vote. Protection Boards had the power to determine who was Aboriginal and could force them onto reserves. They could also evict "troublemakers" and there was no right of appeal. In line with the assimilation policies of the day, the removal of Aboriginal children was intensified. These children were denied contact with their families, forbidden to speak their language and deprived of their culture. Outlines of the policies and the stories of many of those who were removed are recorded in the National Inquiry Report, Bringing Them Home (1997). From the 1940s State governments decided to give citizenship rights to some Aboriginal people under certain conditions. They had to promise to give up their traditional ways, to keep away from other Aboriginal people, to live a European lifestyle and to keep out of trouble. Certificates were then issued which allowed them to vote, to go into hotels, allowed their children to go to school, and removed them from the restrictions of State protection laws. Legally these certificates meant that the people who had them were no longer Aboriginal. These certificates could be suspended or cancelled by a magistrate and there was no right of appeal. Many Aboriginal people resented these certificates and called them "dog licences" or "dog tags". Today Aboriginal people have the same citizenship rights as other Australians. Technically they are equal. Despite this, the life expectancy for Indigenous Australians is almost twenty years less than that of other Australians and their infant mortality rate is more than double the mortality rate of non‐indigenous Australians. School retention and graduation rates are lower and rates of unemployment are higher. Indigenous Australians are ten times more likely to be imprisoned than non‐indigenous Australians. There has been only one Aboriginal judge and one Aboriginal magistrate in the justice system and only two Aboriginal senators in the Commonwealth parliament. Inequities such as these suggest that it requires more than legal, structural and economic changes to guarantee full citizenship rights. The following statement by Pat Dodson (1993) sums up the social justice gap that exists between rights and reality. Social Justice must always be considered from the perspective which is grounded in the daily lives of Indigenous Australians. Social Justice is what faces you in the morning. It is awakening in a house with an adequate water supply, cooking facilities and sanitation. It is the ability to nourish your children and send them to school where their education not only equips them for employment but reinforces their knowledge and appreciation of their cultural inheritance. It is the prospect of genuine employment and good health: a life of choices and opportunity, free from discrimination.
(Annual Report of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, 1993)
Reference: www.abc.net.au/civics/democracy/struggle.htm