1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals)

The second question of the 1967 Australian referendum of 27 May 1967, called by the Holt Government, related to Indigenous Australians. The question was in two parts: whether to give the Commonwealth the power to make laws for Indigenous Australians in states; and whether to count all Indigenous Australians in determining constitutional population calculations.[1][2][3][4] The term "the Aboriginal Race" was used in the question.[Note 1]

This article is about the second part of the 1967 referendum, regarding certain matters on Indigenous Australians. For the first part, increasing the number of Members in the House of Representatives, see 1967 Australian referendum (Parliament).

1967 Australian referendum
27 May 1967
[Question 2] Do you approve the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled— "An Act to alter the Constitution so as to omit certain words relating to the People of the Aboriginal Race in any State and so that Aboriginals are to be counted in reckoning the Population"?
Results
Votes %
Yes 5,183,113 90.77%
No 527,007 9.23%
Valid votes 5,710,120 98.42%
Invalid or blank votes 91,464 1.58%
Total votes 5,801,584 100.00%
Registered voters/turnout 6,182,585 93.84%
Results by state
  Yes     No
Note: Darkness of colour denotes strength of vote

Technically the referendum question was a vote on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) Bill 1967 that would amend section 51(xxvi) and repeal section 127.[6]

The amendments to the Constitution were overwhelmingly endorsed, winning 90.77% of votes cast and having majority support in all six states.[7] The Bill became an Act of Parliament on 10 August 1967.[6]

Background

There was a separate count of Aboriginal people in the Australian Census, and a specific annual census of Aboriginal people from 1925 to 1949. A change to these practices required a change to the Australian constitution.

A proposed change to the Australian Constitution begins as a Bill that is presented to the Federal Parliament. If the Bill is passed by both Houses of Parliament, case committees are developed, a writ for a referendum is issued by the Governor-General of Australia, and a referendum is then presented to Australian voters, where it is passed if approved by a majority of people and majority of states.[8][9]

Strong activism by individuals and both Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups greatly aided the success of the 1967 referendum in the years leading up to the vote. Calls for Aboriginal issues to be dealt with at the Federal level began as early as 1910.[10] Despite a failed attempt in the 1944 Referendum, minimal changes were instigated for Aboriginal rights until the 1960s, where the Bark Petition in 1963 and the ensuing Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd and Commonwealth of Australia (Gove Land Rights Case),[11][12] and Gurindji Strike highlighted the negative treatment of Indigenous workers in the Northern Territory.[13] From here, the overall plight of Aboriginal Australians became a fundamental political issue.[10]

Gordon Bryant (left), Prime Minister Harold Holt (centre), and Bill Wentworth (right) meeting with FCAATSI representatives – from left to right, Faith Bandler, Douglas Nicholls, Burnum Burnum, and Winnie Branson.

On 7 April 1965, the Menzies Cabinet decided that it would seek to repeal Section 127 of the Constitution at the same time as it sought to amend the nexus provision, but made no firm plans or timetable for such action. In August 1965, Attorney-General Billy Snedden proposed to Cabinet that abolition of Section 127 was inappropriate unless Section 51(xxvi) was simultaneously amended to remove the words "other than the aboriginal race in any state". He was rebuffed, but gained agreement when he made a similar submission to the Holt Cabinet in 1966. In the meantime, his Liberal colleague Billy Wentworth had introduced a private member's bill proposing inter alia to amend Section 51(xxvi).[14]

In 1964, the Leader of the Opposition, Arthur Calwell, had proposed such a change and pledged that his party, the Australian Labor Party, would back any referendum to that effect.[15]

In 1967 the Australian Parliament was unanimous in voting for the proposed law.

The Australian Board of Missions, the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science, the Australian Aborigines League, the Australian Council of Churches, the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (FCAATSI), and spokespeople such as Ruby Hammond, Bill Onus and Faith Bandler are just some of the many groups and individuals who effectively utilised the media and their influential platforms to generate the momentum needed to achieve a landslide "Yes" vote.[16][10]

Amendments to the Constitution

Voters were asked to approve, together, changes to two provisions in the Constitution section 51(xxvi) and section 127.

Section 51 begins:

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:[17]

And the extraordinary clauses that follow (ordinarily referred to as "heads of power") list most of the legislative powers of the federal parliament. The amendment deleted the text in bold from Clause xxvi (known as the "race" or "races" power):

The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;[17]

The amendment gave the Commonwealth parliament power to legislate with respect to Aborigines living in a state; the parliament has unfettered power in regard to territories under section 122 of the Constitution. The intent was that this new power for the Commonwealth would be used only beneficially, though the High Court decision in Kartinyeri v Commonwealth,[18] was that the 1967 amendment did not impose such a restriction and the power could be used to the detriment of an identified race.[19] The Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy,[14][18] and the Northern Territory Intervention are two circumstances where the post-1967 race power has arguably been used in this way.[20]

Section 127 was wholly removed. Headed "Aborigines not to be counted in reckoning population", it had read:

In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted.[21]

This section should be read in conjunction with Section 24 and Section 51(xi).

At this time voters in the territories, while able and required to vote in elections for the House of Representatives, were not permitted to vote in referendums.[14] That was not established until 1977.[22]

What the referendum did not do

Give voting rights

It is frequently stated that the 1967 referendum gave Aboriginal people Australian citizenship and that it gave them the right to vote in federal elections; however this is not the case.[14][23][24]

From 1944 until 1967 Aboriginal people in Western Australia had to apply to become citizens, and this citizenship was conditional on denouncing their heritage and could be taken away at any time. This situation continued until 1971.[23][24] Most Indigenous Australians continued to be denied the right to vote in elections for the Australian Parliament even after 1949.[14] The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1949 gave Aboriginal people the right to vote in federal elections only if they were able to vote in their state elections (they were disqualified from voting altogether in Queensland, while in Western Australia and the Northern Territory the right was conditional), or if they had served in the defence force.[25]

The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1962 gave all Aboriginal people the option of enrolling to vote in federal elections.[26] It was not until the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Act 1983 that voting became compulsory for Aboriginal people, as it was for other Australians.[27][28]

Aboriginal people living in the Northern Territory were not allowed to vote in the referendum, which remained the case for both the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory until the Constitutional amendment to Section 128 after a referendum in 1977.[21]

Supersede a "Flora and fauna Act"

It is also sometimes mistakenly stated that the 1967 referendum overturned a "Flora and Fauna Act". This is believed to have come from the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, which controlled Aboriginal heritage, land, and culture. The other states had equivalent Acts, which were managed by various departments, including those relating to agriculture and fishing.[24]

Question

DO YOU APPROVE the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled— 'An Act to alter the Constitution so as to omit certain words relating to the People of the Aboriginal Race in any State and so that Aboriginals are to be counted in reckoning the Population'?[29]

Results
Result [30]
StateOn
rolls		 Ballots
issued		 For Against Invalid Result
Votes% Votes%
New South Wales 2,315,828 2,166,507 1,949,036 91.46 182,010 8.54 35,461 Yes
Victoria 1,734,476 1,630,594 1,525,026 94.68 85,611 5.32 19,957 Yes
Queensland 904,808 848,728 748,612 89.21 90,587 10.79 9,529 Yes
South Australia 590,275 560,844 473,440 86.26 75,383 13.74 12,021 Yes
Western Australia 437,609 405,666 319,823 80.95 75,282 19.05 10,561 Yes
Tasmania 199,589 189,245 167,176 90.21 18,134 9.79 3,935 Yes
Australian total 6,182,585 5,801,584 5,183,113 90.77 527,007 9.2391,464 Yes
Obtained majority in all six states and an overall majority of 4,656,106 votes.[30]
Carried

Legacy

Ninety percent of voters voted yes, and the overwhelming support gave the Federal Government a clear mandate to implement policies to benefit Aboriginal people. A lot of misconceptions have arisen as to the outcomes of the referendum, some as a result of it taking on a symbolic meaning during a period of increasing Aboriginal self-confidence. It was some five years before any real change occurred as a result of the referendum,[14] but federal legislation has since been enacted covering land rights,[31][32] discriminatory practices,[33] financial assistance,[34][35] and preservation of cultural heritage.[36]

The referendum result had two main outcomes:

  • The first was to alter the legal boundaries within which the Federal Government could act. The Federal Parliament was given a constitutional head-of-power under which it could make special laws "for" Aboriginal people (for their benefit or, as has the High Court has made clear,[18] their detriment) in addition to other "races".[37] The Australian Constitution states that federal law prevails over state law, where they are inconsistent, so that the Federal Parliament could, if it so chose, enact legislation that would end discrimination against Aboriginal people by state governments.[38] However, during the first five years following the referendum the Federal Government did not use this new power.[14][39]
  • The other key outcome of the referendum was to provide Aboriginal people with a symbol of their political and moral rights. The referendum occurred at a time when Aboriginal activism was accelerating, and it was used as a kind of "historical shorthand" for all the relevant political events of the time, such as the demands for land rights by the Gurindji people, the equal-pay case for pastoral workers, and the "Freedom Rides" to end segregation in New South Wales. This use as a symbol for a period of activism and change has contributed to the misconceptions about the effects of the constitutional changes themselves.[14]

Symbolic effect

The 1967 referendum has acquired a symbolic meaning in relation to a period of rapid social change during the 1960s. As a result, it has been credited with initiating political and social change that was the result of other factors. The real legislative and political impact of the 1967 referendum has been to enable, and thereby compel, the federal government to take action in the area of Aboriginal Affairs. Federal governments with a broader national and international agenda have attempted to end the discriminatory practices of state governments such as Queensland and to introduce policies that encourage self-determination and financial security for Aboriginal people. However, the effectiveness of these policies has been tempered by an unwillingness of most federal governments to deal with the difficult issues involved in tackling recalcitrant state governments.[40]

Land rights
Further information: Indigenous land rights in Australia

The benefits of the referendum began to flow to Aboriginal people in 1972. On 26 January 1972, Aboriginal peoples erected the Aboriginal Tent Embassy on the lawns of the Federal Parliament building in Canberra to express their frustration at the lack of progress on land rights and racial discrimination issues. This became a major confrontation that raised Aboriginal affairs high on the political agenda in the federal election later that year. One week after gaining office, the Whitlam Government (1972–1975) established a Royal Commission into land rights for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory under Justice Woodward.[41] Its principal recommendations, delivered in May 1974, were: that Aboriginal people should have inalienable title to reserve lands; that regional land councils should be established; to establish a fund to purchase land with which Aboriginal people had a traditional connection, or that would provide economic or other benefits; prospecting and mineral exploration on Aboriginal land should only occur with their consent (or that of the Federal Government if the national interest required it); entry onto Aboriginal land should require a permit issued by the regional land council. The recommendations were framed in terms to enable application outside the Northern Territory. The Federal Government agreed to implement the principal recommendations and in 1975 the House of Representatives passed the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill and the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill, but the Senate had not considered them by the time parliament was dissolved in 1975.[42]

The following year, the Fraser government (1975–1983) amended the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill by introducing the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill. The new bill made a number of significant changes such as limitation on the operations and boundaries of land councils; giving Northern Territory law effect on Aboriginal land, thereby enabling land rights to be eroded; removing the power of land councils to issue permits to non-Aboriginal people; and allowing public roads to be built on Aboriginal land without consent. This bill was passed as the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976.[43] It is significant however that this legislation was implemented at all, given the political allegiances of the Fraser Government, and shows the level of community support for social justice for Aboriginal people at the time.[44]

Use of "race power" in legislation

The Whitlam Government used its constitutional powers to overrule racially discriminatory state legislation. On reserves in Queensland, they were forbidden to gamble, use foul language, undertake traditional cultural practices, indulge in adultery, or drink alcohol. They were also required to work without payment.[45] In the Aboriginal Courts in Queensland the same official acted as judge as well as the prosecuting counsel.[46] Defendants almost invariably pleaded "guilty" as pleas of "not guilty" were more than likely to lead to a longer sentence.[47] The Whitlam Government, using the "race power", enacted the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act 1975 to override the state laws and eliminate racial discrimination against Aboriginal people.[38] No federal government ever enforced this Act.[48]

The race power was also used by the Whitlam Government to positively discriminate in favour of Aboriginal people. It established schemes whereby Aboriginal people could obtain housing, loans, emergency accommodation and tertiary education allowances.[35] It also increased funding for the Aboriginal Legal Service enabling twenty-five offices to be established throughout Australia.[49]

The race power gained in the 1967 referendum has been used in several other pieces of significant Federal legislation. One of the pieces of legislation enacted to protect the Gordon River catchment used the race power but applied it to all people in Australia. The law prohibited anyone from damaging sites, relics and artefacts of Aboriginal settlement in the Gordon River catchment.[50] In the Tasmanian Dam Case,[51] the High Court held that even though this law applied to all people and not only to Aboriginal people, it still constituted a special law.[52]

In the 1992 Mabo judgement, the High Court of Australia established the existence of Native Title in Australian Common Law.[53] Using the race power, the Keating Government enacted the Native Title Act 1993 and successfully defended a High Court challenge from the Queensland Government.[54]

The First Nations National Constitutional Convention (leading to the Uluru Statement from the Heart – see below) in 2017 considered recommending an amendment to the race power, but this was decided against. Despite concerns about its potential to be used to discriminate adversely, it was concluded that the proposed amendment would not necessarily prevent this.[55]

Benefits of demographic count

One last impact of the referendum has been the benefits flowing from the removal of the prohibition on counting Aboriginal people in the population statistics. Without official statistics as to their number, age structure or distribution, it was not possible for government agencies to establish soundly-based policies for serving Aboriginal people, especially in the area of health. The availability of demographic data following the 1971 census (and onwards) relating to the Aboriginal population enabled the determination and monitoring of key health indicators such as infant mortality rates and life expectancy. Aboriginal life expectancy, especially for males, was significantly lower than the average population. Infant mortality rates in the early 1970s were among the highest in the world. Substantial improvements had occurred by the early 1990s[56] but Aboriginal health indicators still lag behind those of the total population, especially for those living in remote areas. The Close the Gap campaign highlighted these deficits, and the federal government developed its Closing the Gap strategy in order to address these and other issues.[57]

Negative application of "race power"

When John Howard's Coalition government came to power in 1996, it intervened in the Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy in South Australia with legislation that introduced an exception to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984,[58] in order to allow the bridge to proceed.[59] The Ngarrindjeri challenged the new legislation in the High Court on the basis that it was discriminatory to declare that the Heritage Protection Act applied to sites everywhere but Hindmarsh Island, and that such discrimination – essentially on the basis of race – had been disallowed since the Commonwealth was granted the power to make laws with respect to the "Aboriginal race" as a result of the 1967 Referendum. The High Court decided, by a majority, that the amended s.51(xxvi) of the Constitution still did not restrict the Commonwealth parliament to making laws solely for the benefit of any particular "race", but still empowered the parliament to make laws that were to the detriment of any race.[18][19][60] This decision effectively meant that those people who had believed that they were casting a vote against the discrimination of Indigenous people in 1967 had in fact allowed the Commonwealth to participate in the discrimination against Indigenous people which had been practised by the states.[14]

Proposed new referendum in the 2010s

In 2010 the federal government established an Expert Panel to inquire into changing the federal Constitution so that Australia's Indigenous peoples would be recognised in it. This would require a new referendum under section 128 of the Constitution of Australia. After wide-ranging consultation and receiving thousands of submissions, the panel delivered its report to Prime Minister Julia Gillard on 19 January 2012.[61][62][63] The report recommends the removal of Constitution sections 25 and 51(xxvi), and the insertion of new sections 51A, 116A and 127A:

Section 51A Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

Recognising that the continent and its islands now known as Australia were first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
Acknowledging the continuing relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with their traditional lands and waters;
Respecting the continuing cultures, languages and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
Acknowledging the need to secure the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
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 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Section 116A Prohibition of racial discrimination

(1) The Commonwealth, a State or a Territory shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic or national origin.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude the making of laws or measures for the purpose of overcoming disadvantage, ameliorating the effects of past discrimination, or protecting the cultures, languages or heritage of any group.

Section 127A Recognition of languages

(1) The national language of the Commonwealth of Australia is English.
(2) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages are the original Australian languages, a part of our national heritage.[61]:p xviii

The panel recommended that there be a single referendum, in which removal of s 51(xxvi) and insertion of the new s 51A would be proposed together, so that the validity of legislation that depends upon s 51(xxvi), such as the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), would switch immediately from s 51(xxvi) to s 51A.[61]:p xviii The panel sought a referendum process that will be nationally unifying and not divisive, with an eventual level of public support similar to that in 1967.[61]:pp xvii & xix To that end, it proposed that the referendum be preceded by "a properly resourced public education and awareness program" and "should only proceed when it is likely to be supported by all major political parties, and a majority of State governments". If the federal government were to prefer different changes, the panel advised, it should return to consultation with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.[61]:p xix

Responses to the 2010s recognition campaign
Party positions
Position Political parties Ref
Support Australian Labor Party [64]
Liberal/National Coalition [65]
Australian Greens [66]
Oppose Pauline Hanson's One Nation [67]

On 12 March 2013, with all-party support, the federal parliament passed the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act 2013, which recognised the Indigenous peoples of Australia and required the establishment of a committee to advise on a suitable date for a referendum on these proposals.[68] The process was to have been completed within two years, with a sunset provision ending the force of the Act on 28 March 2015, but provision was made to make it self-repealing 28 Mar 2018.[69]

Referendum Council and Uluru Statement
Main article: Uluru Statement from the Heart

On 7 December 2015 the Referendum Council, with 16 Indigenous and non-Indigenous members, was jointly appointed by the Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, to advise them on progress toward a referendum. It built on extensive work by the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians and the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.[70] It conducted national consultations which continued through the second half of 2016,[71] and published a discussion paper about five key proposals in October 2016.[72] The Recognition Council used a deliberative process, including six months of regional dialogues which resulted in a collective report of what constitutional recognition meant to Aboriginal people.[73]

The Uluru Statement from the Heart was the culmination of a national Indigenous public consultation process and proposed constitutional reform on three points: voice, truth, and treaty.[74] It was a deeply considered statement recommending deliberate structural reform, setting out three steps to achieve this, in a way that recognises First Nations sovereignty and overcomes their current powerlessness.[55] The main proposals of the Uluru Statement were:[74]

  • a national representative body with the power to advise parliament on laws that affect Indigenous peoples (Voice); and
  • a "Makarrata Commission" to supervise a process of agreement-making (Treaty) between governments and First Nations and undertake a public truth-telling process (Truth) about Australia's history.

The final report released on 30 June 2017 by the Referendum Council was largely supportive of the Uluru Statement. The majority of the council recommended that a referendum be held to change the Constitution to establish an "Indigenous voice to parliament". The council commented but did not recommend the establishment of a Makarrata Commission, which was outside its terms of reference.[75]

There was little debate in the media after the release of the Referendum Council's report. On 26 October 2017 a joint press release by the Turnbull government largely rejected the major proposals. It said that a Indigenous national representative body would "inevitably become seen as a third chamber of Parliament" and would not be supported by the majority of Australians. The next step would be a Joint Select Committee to consider the recommendations of the existing bodies of work developed over the previous decade to develop a different set of constitutional amendments which would be acceptable to all.[76]

The Indigenous voice to government was announced by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, on 30 October 2019. Prime Minister Scott Morrison rejected the proposal in the Uluru Statement for a voice to parliament to be put into the Australian constitution; instead, the voice will be enshrined in legislation. The government said it would run a referendum during its present term about recognising Indigenous people in the constitution "should a consensus be reached and should it be likely to succeed".[77]

See also

Notes
  1. "Aboriginal race" was used in the wording of section 51 (xxvi) relevant to the power to make laws. The term was not defined in the Constitution definitions. The ballot paper did not clarify the term and also used the term "Aboriginal people".[1] Justice Deane in the High Court in the 1983 case of Commonwealth v. Tasmania interpreted "Aboriginal race" in section 51 (xxvi) "..to refer to all Australian Aboriginals collectively." ... "By "Australian Aboriginal" I mean, in accordance with what I understand to be the conventional meaning of that term, a person of Aboriginal descent, albeit mixed, who identifies himself as such and who is recognized by the Aboriginal community as an Aboriginal."[5]

Citations
  1. "Constitution Alteration (Parliament) 1967 and Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967 Referendums: The Arguments For and Against the Proposed Alterations Together with a Statement Showing the Proposed Alterations". Commonwealth of Australia. 1967. Retrieved 15 August 2020 – via Austlii.
  2. Sawer 1966, p. 25-26,30.
  3. Arcioni 2012, p. 300-301.
  4. "50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum". Australian Bureau of Statistics. 12 April 2018. Retrieved 6 August 2020. ..constitutional change meant that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were fully included in Census results..
  5. "Commonwealth v Tasmania". High Court of Australia. 1 July 1983. [1983] HCA 21. Retrieved 5 August 2020.
  6. "Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) Act 1967". The Federal Register of Legislation. Retrieved 15 August 2020.
  7. Lewis, Balderstone & Bowan 2006, p. 224-228.
  8. "Referendums and Plebiscites". Parliamentary Education Office. Retrieved 12 April 2016.
  9. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth) s 128
  10. Williams, Brennan & Lynch 2014, p. 987-988.
  11. Van Krieken 2000, p. 63.
  12. Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd and Commonwealth of Australia (1971) 17 FLR 141.
  13. Williams, Brennan & Lynch 2014, p. 987-8.
  14. Gardiner-Garden, John (2 May 2007). "The 1967 Referendum—history and myths" (PDF). Research Brief no 11. Parliamentary Library of Australia. ISSN 1832-2883. Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 January 2012. Retrieved 23 May 2017.
  15. Juddery, Bruce (27 May 1997). "Unsung hero of blacks' progress". The Canberra Times.
  16. "Campaigning for a YES vote". National Museum Australia. Retrieved 30 July 2016.
  17. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth) s 51
  18. Kartinyeri v Commonwealth [1998] HCA 22, (1998) 195 CLR 337.
  19. Williams, George (2012). Race and the Australian Constitution (PDF). Australasian Study of Parliament Group Conference. Darwin, Australia. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 February 2017. Retrieved 9 November 2016.
  20. Stuart Rintoul (22 December 2011). "Race power opens Pandora's box". The Australian.
  21. "Amendment to Section 127". Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. p. 24. Retrieved 9 November 2016 – via Documenting a Democracy Museum of Australian Democracy.
  22. Constitution Alteration (Referendums) 1977 (Cth).
  23. "Aboriginal rights". Western Australian Museum. Retrieved 20 April 2019.
  24. "Dispelling myths". Western Australian Museum. Retrieved 20 April 2019.
  25. Commonwealth Electoral Act 1949 (Cth)
  26. Commonwealth Electoral Act 1962 (Cth)
  27. Voters and the Franchise: the Federal Story (PDF), Department of the Parliamentary Library, Commonwealth of Australia, 2002, ISSN 1328-7478, retrieved 16 May 2015
  28. Williams, Brennan & Lynch 2014, p. 135-136.
  29. Image of ballot paper: National Archives of Australia, item barcode 1843611, p 54.
  30. Handbook of the 44th Parliament (2014) "Part 5 – Referendums and Plebiscites – Referendum results". Parliamentary Library of Australia. Archived from the original on 29 September 2017..
  31. Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth).
  32. Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).
  33. Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).
  34. States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Act 1972 (Cth).
  35. Aboriginal Loans Commission Act 1974 (Cth).
  36. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act 1984 (Cth).
  37. 'Wik Bill challenged following Hindmarsh decision', ABC Radio News, 1 April 1998
  38. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act 1975 (Cth).
  39. Whitlam 1985, p. 465.
  40. Evatt, Elizabeth, "Ch 5 Effective interaction with State and Territory laws", Review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (PDF) [1996] Indigenous Law Resources 1.
  41. Whitlam 1985, p. 467.
  42. Whitlam 1985, pp. 469–470.
  43. Whitlam 1985, p. 470.
  44. Broome 1982, pp. 189–190.
  45. Broome 1982, pp. 178–179.
  46. Lippmann 1994.
  47. Broome 1982, p. 179.
  48. Pilger 1990, p. 46.
  49. Whitlam 1985, pp. 473–474.
  50. World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth).
  51. Commonwealth v Tasmania [1983] HCA 21
  52. Bates, G.M. (1987). Environmental Law in Australia. Butterworths Pty Ltd, Sydney.
  53. Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23.
  54. Whitlam, E.G. (1997), Dragging the Chain 1897–1997: The Second Vincent Lingiari Memorial Lecture, archived from the original on 2 December 1998
  55. Appleby, Gabrielle (24 July 2020). "The Uluru statement is not a vague idea of 'being heard' but deliberate structural reform". The Conversation. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
  56. Lippmann 1994, p. 89.
  57. "Close the Gap: Indigenous Health Campaign | Australian Human Rights Commission". www.humanrights.gov.au. Retrieved 23 May 2017.
  58. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth)
  59. Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997 (Cth)
  60. "When have the discriminatory provisions in the Constitution been used?". Australian Human Rights Commission. Retrieved 8 January 2015.
  61. "Report of the Expert Panel on recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution". ANTaR. 19 January 2012. Retrieved 14 August 2020. Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution: Report of the Expert Panel (303 pages)
  62. "Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution: Report of the Expert Panel [Commentary and Recommendations only]" (PDF). Retrieved 14 August 2020 – via austlii. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  63. "Push to recognise indigenous Australians in constitution", The Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney, 19 January 2012, retrieved 2 April 2013
  64. "Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples". Australian Labor Party. Archived from the original on 19 February 2017.
  65. Ford, M; Blumer, C (20 May 2016). "Vote Compass: Most Australians back constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians". abc.net.au.
  66. "Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Peoples". Australian Greens. Archived from the original on 15 February 2017.
  67. "Our aims". Pauline Hanson's One Nation. Archived from the original on 6 July 2016.
  68. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act 2013 (Cth), retrieved 31 May 2013
  69. "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act 2013". Federal Register of Legislation. Australian Government. 27 March 2013. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
  70. "Get the facts". Referendum Council. 2 January 2019. Retrieved 6 August 2020. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. (See here.)
  71. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. "Referendum Council". Archived from the original on 19 October 2019. Retrieved 29 May 2016.
  72. "Discussion paper". Referendum Council. Archived from the original on 11 March 2017.
  73. "Communique – 25 November 2016". Department of the Prime Minister and Cobinet. Archived from the original on 8 June 2019. Retrieved 23 May 2017.
  74. "Uluru Statement from the Heart – Referendum Council" (PDF). Referendum Council. Retrieved 10 December 2017.
  75. "Response to Referendum Council report suggests a narrow path forward on Indigenous constitutional reform". The Conversation. Retrieved 10 December 2017.
  76. "Response to Referendum Council's report on Constitutional Recognition". Attorney General Dept. Archived from the original on 10 December 2017. Retrieved 10 December 2017.
  77. Grattan, Michelle (29 October 2019). "Proposed Indigenous 'voice' will be to government rather than to parliament". The Conversation. Retrieved 18 July 2020.

References

Further reading


Preceded by:
Social Services Amendment (1946)

Amendments to the
Constitution of Australia

Followed by:
Senate Vacancies Amendment
Referendum Amendment
Retirement of Judges Amendment
(1977)

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.