1967_Referendum

The 1967 Referendum is often hailed as a great victory for Aboriginal rights. The campaign for the “yes” vote was part of a strong community movement involving both Aboriginal and non – Aboriginal Australians. A fundamental moral problem which arose from the European settlement of Australia was foreshadowed long before Cook sailed along the east coast of the continent. For generations indigenous Australians were not regarded as Australian citizens and were unable to reap benefits the colonial governments, and later the Commonwealth Parliament, established. For the first time in almost two hundred years of colonization Aboriginal people would be included in the census. One key moment which Australians seemed united in their interest in Indigenous equality was in the popular support for the 1967 Referendum. The 1967 Referendum was the beginning of the Indigenous rights movement and the long road on the search for equality under the Australian legal system. Inclusion through equal access to education, employment and the economy were seen as key ways of improving the situation of Aboriginal people. This notion of access and opportunity underpinned the desire for “citizenship rights” and with the claim for land and the desire for self determination created the key platforms in the Indigenous political agenda. The 1967 Referendum celebrations fit with a liberal vision of blacks and whites working together for equal rights for all Australians. It was a reassuring idea of equality before the law for one people, one nation. It can be seen as the start of reconciliation. It is argued that the referendum results wereseen as the good deed that purged Australia’s wrongs; a comforting notion for white Australians. The referendum helps draw an artificial distinction between past and present, allowing people to acknowledge the unfortunate past but only in the context of its being over – in the past. It can be used as the benchmark of goodwill towards Aborigines and many refer back to it and make comparisons. Most were using the past as a way of discussing the present. The notion of including Indigenous people in the census was more than just a body counting exercise; it was thought that the inclusion of Indigenous people in this way would create an image of a united community and as such it would be a nation building exercise, symbolically coming together. The referendum, to this day, is significant rather than any other event because of the implications that have come about from it. The referendum is reassuring because it seemingly represents Australian principles such as equality before the law as well as the ideal of one people, one nation. The referendum had a redemptive role, represented as the triumphant “yes” vote as it stands as living proof of the assumptions about Australians’ humanity, tolerance and their faith. The 1967 referendum helped bring about major change in Aboriginal affairs, culminating from the struggle for Aborigines to be accorded the status and rights of Australians. “There have been two great themes to (Aboriginal) struggle: citizenship rights, the right to be treated the same as other Australians; to receive the same benefits, to be provided with the same level of services; and indigenous rights, the collective rights that are owed to (them) as distinct peoples and as the original occupiers of this land.” Aborigines were citizens without rights for the first fifty years of the Commonwealth and in some states, even longer. Situations varied in the different states with a range of policies and even definitions of Aboriginality. The question of constitutional reform has been on Aborigines’ agenda for decades and is believed to be the central issue of the rights of indigenous people in Australia as well as the process of national reconciliation. In 1911 the Commonwealth Government became involved in Aboriginal affairs when it took over from the State of South Australia responsibilities for the Northern Territory however the pressure for greater Commonwealth involvement continued to grow in the 1950s and the desirability of such involvement was recognized on both sides of politics. In the early 1960s interest in Aboriginal affairs grew rapidly. As the interest in the subject grew, so too did the number of voices drawing attention to the meager achievements of the assimilation policy, the denial of civil rights which it entailed and the poor international image it gave Australia. These voices were both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. Throughout 1957, preparations were underway to form a national approach to equal wages, access to social service benedicts, housing and education and the franchise for Aboriginal Australians. In 1958 the first national organization was established, The Federal Council for Aboriginal Advancement (FCAA, later FCAATSI). This included Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal leaders who aligned with church groups throughout Australia in 1958 to petition for constitutional change. The constitutional change was to attain equal citizenship and for the commonwealth power to legislate for Aborigines as for other citizens. The FCAATSI also pushed for better standard of living that was not less than other Australians, equal pay for equal work and the same industrial protections as other workers, access to free and compulsory education and land rights for Aboriginal reserves. The emphasis however was clearly on equal rights. Through the decades leading up to the 1967 Referendum many Aboriginal organizations and individuals rejected the “assimilation policy” and preferred to the term integration. Integration was the term that suggested some cultural identity could be retained within the nation. In the early 1960’s FCAATSI increasingly attacked the assimilation policy and fought for land rights. From 1962 to 1964 more than fifty petitions were submitted to the government, all asking the same change: to alter section 51 and to repeal section 127 of the Constitution. Part of this wave of petitions was due to the work of the FCAA who in 1963 ensured that over a seven week period, every day began with the tabling of petitions. Instead of submitting one big petition presented only once and then filed, a new petition each day kept the issue alive. The FCAA managed to collect more than 100,000 signatures in favour of a constitutional change. By 1964 the constant tabling of petitions, the submission of Constitution Alterations Bills and Private Member's Bills seemed to have some effect on politicians' minds. In 1960 social benefits available to other Australians were paid to Aborigines. The increasingly embarrassing contradictions between Australia’s public face to the world and the treatment of Indigenous Australians led to the granting of the vote in 1962. While racial issues in South Africa and the USA had been in the news, Australia had its own version of apartheid and its own need for a civil rights movement as in the USA. Civil rights and land rights were the focus for Aboriginal activists. The 1967 Referendum wasn’t purely based on an Australian wide recognition of poor treatment towards the Aboriginals. The legislative changes were premised not upon a re-evaluation of the worth of Aboriginal culture but on a grudging acceptance of the view that a path to superior world of white Australia should be created for Aboriginal people willing to abandon their own way of life. The campaign for the 1967 Referendum was within this broad context. The referendum was about counting Aborigines in the census and explicitly allowing them to be legislated for by the Commonwealth government. The hope was that these changes would lead to practical changes the states were not ready to make and substantially improve the situation for Aborigines, The FCAATSI campaign spoke broadly of ‘righting wrongs’ and giving rights to Aborigines, but also referred to the finances the federal government could use to put in place a program of equal rights and equal opportunity. The campaign for the referendum was led by Aboriginal organizations under the national umbrella of FCAATSI. The state organizations like the Victorian Aboriginal Advancement League were comprised of Aborigines and their supporters working together. The referendum campaign effectively focused public attention on the fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians were second class citizens with all sorts of limitations, legislative and social, on their lives. This decade-long campaign to change the Constitution came to symbolize the broader struggle for justice being fought during these years. Aboriginal activists like Kath Walker, Doug Nicholls, Bruce McGuiness and Faith Bandler were prominent in the campaign alongside non – Aboriginal leaders like Gordon Bryant and Stan Davey. The campaign included petitions and public meetings with the involvement of church groups, academics, writers, trade unions, the media and politicians. The usual practice when a question is put at referendum is for the arguments for and against the change to be set out for voters. In this case, however, the changes were supported by all major parties so no opposing case was presented. Churches came out in favour of a YES vote. The Australian Council of Churches, the Methodist Commission on Aboriginal Affairs and the Society of Friends had developed policies in Aboriginal affairs which favoured greater Commonwealth power in formulating and implementing policy for Aboriginal advancement. Some journalists made dire predictions for the society if the NO vote was the stronger. A lively debate was conducted through the letters to the editor pages of the daily newspapers, and campaigners wrote directly to the Prime Minister, Harold Holt, urging him to publicly support a YES vote. Aboriginal spokespeople gained effective media coverage throughout the campaign. The government supported the passage of the referendum but it had no plans for change. The FCAATSI set up a national “vote yes” directorate headed by Gordon Bryant and Joe McGinness. State directors were also appointed to run the campaign in each state. The nature of the “yes” campaign had a considerable impact upon voters’ reception of the referendum as many voters were influence by FCAATSI’s representation of it in terms of equal rights and citizenship. One voter told a journalist, “I’ll be voting yes on the Aboriginal question. They’re real Australians;” many electors were reportedly saying, “the Aborigines are all right. I will give them a tick,” and others spoke in terms of “a referendum on aboriginal rights and its linkage to improving aborigines socio-economic conditions.” It was FCAATSI, rather than the government, which campaigned strongly for a YES vote. Their campaign was driven by the view that the vote for change needed to be overwhelming in order to persuade the federal government that it had a responsibility to use the power provided by the amendment. There was also an overwhelming amount of university students protesting for the change in attitude towards Aboriginals. Several developments made them keenly aware of overseas opposition to the “White Australia Policy.” Student organizers attending overseas conferences found Australia’s reputation as a racist society deeply embarrassing. By 1961 students carried placards reading ‘Ban the White Australia Policy’ and ‘Racial discrimination is immoral.’ Very slowly, student interest in Aboriginal issues did develop. Throughout the 1960s, states had been removing discriminatory laws and, by this time, discriminatory state legislation existed only in Western Australia and Queensland. With very minor exceptions the discriminatory clauses in Commonwealth legislation had been removed as well. Campaigners did not draw attention to this fact. The 'rights' rhetoric continued to be used as a strategy that they believed would be most likely to persuade voters. Across the country a political sophisticated campaign was waged which appealed to the electorates sense of fairness and justice. Images of black and white children hand in hand, cute Aboriginal babies and attractive young Aboriginal women talking to politicians filled the newspapers. Governments continued to feel the pressure for change in 1966. Aboriginal stockmen and women at Wave Hill in the Northern Territory walked off the job in protest for better working conditions and wages. They also established a camp at Wattie Creek and demanded the return of some of their traditional land. FCAATSI also continued to campaign for a range of rights and a referendum. In that same year the South Australian Parliament passed the Prohibition of Discrimination Act 1966 and the Commonwealth extended eligibility for social security benefits to all Indigenous Australians. The purpose of the referendum was to make amendments to the Commonwealth Constitution. It was to remove any ground for the belief that, as presently worded, the Constitution did not discriminate in any way against people of the Aboriginal race and at the same time making it possible for the Commonwealth Parliament to make special laws for the people of the aboriginal race. In an article published shortly after the referendum, Charles Dixon, Manager of the Foundation for Aboriginal Affairs explained the impact of the referendum on an Aboriginal. The referendum enabled the acceptance of indigenous, more funding, unified and special laws and a new establishment of an Aborigine’s Bureau staffed by Aboriginal people for Aboriginal Affairs. The removal of discriminatory clauses that had adversely affected Aboriginal people in the Australian Constitution as a result of the public Referendum in 1967 was a significant landmark in Australian history. The 1967 Referendum was quite significant as it created an avenue for access to justice and to ensure Aboriginal communities are able to access justice and social systems applicable to most Australians. It was significant because it squarely placed the issue of Aboriginal disadvantage on the Australian Government’s policy agenda, as well as in the public consciousness. The events of 1967 acted as a significant impetus for the formation of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement in South Australia. It also exemplified a message; message of hope that change can happen and will happen when all Australians listen. The referendum results were overwhelmingly in favour for changes regarding Aborigines. Approximately 90.77 per cent of Australians formally voted “yes” recording the largest ever ‘yes’ vote in a referendum to alter the Australian constitution. This referendum finally enabled Aboriginal people to be counted in the national census and to be subject to Commonwealth laws, rather than just state laws. However, there was some variation in voting with almost 20 per cent voting “no” in Western Australia while rural electorates with large Aboriginal populations were least in favour of the changes. This suggests that although no arguments were put forward in public debate, the attitudes of racial discrimination were still common in the country. Many Aboriginal people considered that changing sections of the Federal Constitution was essential in gaining formal recognition of their existence as people of their own country. Only four referenda prior to 1967 had been passed. The size of the “yes” vote was vitally important. During the ten years of the campaign many laws had changed: discriminatory clauses had been removed from Commonwealth laws and by 1967 Aboriginal people living in all states but Western Australia and Queensland no longer had their civil rights as Australian citizens curtailed by state laws. The huge “yes” vote would make it difficult for the government to ignore its new power. While understanding the symbolic value of the passage of the referendum after a decade of work, FCAATSI president Joe McGinness cautioned supporters “Winning the referendum is an important step forward - but it is only a first step”. He reminded people that “the government was showing no hurry to legislate on education, housing, wages, trade training, land grants and many other things we need.” The final legacy of the 1967 Referendum is the new era of radical rights movements it has shaped. The 1967 Referendum was part of a complex process of change in Australia in the 1960’s. This process was rooted in Australian history and built on the endeavors of earlier activists but it was also influenced by international developments. With decolonization came a global awareness of the rights of indigenous people. The 1960’s saw the face of Aboriginal politics changed. It became a national movement with Aboriginal leadership and a strong emphasis on land rights. From the early 1960’s many Australians had embraced the notion of Indigenous rights, but racial calls for self-determination and sovereignty had yet to be met. The 1967 Referendum changes may seem rather inconsequential, yet it remains in the public imagination as an event which changed the position of Aboriginal people in modern Australian society. Support for the 1967 referendum may be seen as a part of the international effect of the Second World War that led to the declaration of human rights. Similarly changes that took place in the late 1960’s were influenced by international movements utilizing new methods of protest in opposition to capitalism, war, sexism and above all racism. Bibliography: Books: Attwood B, Markus A – The 1967 Referendum, or when Aborigines didn’t get the vote, Australian Print Group, Victoria, 1997 This book was very useful as it provided a general, broad base of information on the 1967 Referendum. I used this book to explore the FCAATSI role in campaigning for the referendum. Curthoys A – Freedom Ride, Allen and Unwin, NSW, 2002 This book didn’t elaborate on many other groups campaigning for the referendum besides the university students. This book was useful in exploring the university students influence and stance leading up to the referendum. Gare, Deborah and David Ritters – After the Referendum, in Making Australian History: Perspectives on the Past Since 1788, Thomson, South Melbourne 2008 This book had a brief overall account of the events leading up to and after the 1967 Referendum. I used the book to pinpoint the overall feeling that Australian citizens felt. Goot M and Rowse T – Make a Better Offer: Politics of Mabo, Pluto Press Limited, NSW, 1994 This book wasn’t as useful as many of the others and didn’t have a lot of direct references to the Referendum. I used it to reaffirm the emotions that majority of the Australian citizens felt towards the referendum however didn’t enable me to full y answer the question; about its legacy and history. Hasluck P - Shades of Darkness, Typeset, Victoria, 1988 Paul Hasluck’s book “Shades of Darkness” wasn’t a helpful source to provide information on the referendum to answer the topic question. It didn’t elaborate much on the history, legacy nor the campaigning undertaken. I used the book to provide what the referendum would entail if being passed b the majority. Horner J – Seeking Racial Justice, National Capital Printing, Australia, 2004 This book wasn’t helpful in establishing a wide knowledge base about the 1967 Referendum. It contained quite a bit of political jargon and wasn’t straight forward in how the referendum benefited the Aboriginal campaign, why it see as a legacy and the history behind the referendum. Mirams S – Imaging Australia, Typset, Victoria 2006 This book was extremely helpful and established key points and events. It contained simplistic language which made is easy to read and distinguish the points being made. I used this book as a general basis for my essay as it related to the topic very closely. I used this book as a resource predominately in the history and campaigning of the 1967 Referendum. Reynolds H - Aboriginal Sovereignty, Allen and Unwin, NSW, 1996 This book predominately focused on the history of the Aboriginals and the Referendum as a symbol for hope and the future. This book didn’t link closely to the topic, establishing a good basis to why the referendum was seen as a legacy. It was a starting point in determining the history behind the referendum. Rowse T - Nugget Coombs, Brown Prior Anderson, Australia, 2002 Tim Rowse’s book established what the changing of the Constitution would entail and the affects on the public and Aboriginal citizens. This book used a bit of political jargon and didn’t specifically relate to the 1967 Referendum. Seddon M – Reflections: 40 years on from the 1967 Referendum, Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement Inc, Adelaide, 2007 This book was constructive as it outlined the fundamental implications of the Referendum. It also explained the significance of the Referendum and what it entailed. It was useful as it provided perspectives from different historians and the view point of an Aboriginal who benefited from the passing of the 1967 Referendum. I used this book to build up a perspective of my own and a more in depth essay about the history and the referendum’s significance. Website: National Museum of Australia, http://www.indigenousrights.net.au/section.asp'sID=5, created 7th October 2007, accessed 6th September 2010 This website was extremely constructive as it explored all aspects of Australian life the Referendum affected and impacted. I used this website to reinforce points read elsewhere about the campaigning strategies. National Library of Australia, http://www.museum.wa.gov.au/exhibitions/online/referendum/, accessed 5th September 2010 This website didn’t have information about the referendum’s history however outlined how the referendum had barley any opposition and had an astounding pass rate. I used this website as a source to demonstrate the pass rate was 90.77 as majority books say, as some other books said there was a 90% pass rate.