Talk:1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals)

message: The article says that "Aboriginal people became Australian citizens in 1947" - just wondering why then it is said that Albert Namatjira became Australia's first Aboriginal citizen in 1957.  Cfitzart 09:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He was allowed to purchase alcohol after this time, that was one of the restrictions. Also here: "This meant they could vote, enter a hotel and build a house anywhere they chose."   Most biographies of Namatjira mention that he was the first citizen but I cant find what the official law or whatever was that made this so Cfitzart 09:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I hate it when vandalism is blatantly obvious

message: Should the heading be Aboriginals or Australian Aborigines? Technically Aboriginal is an adjective, although it is used as a noun for the Australian people. These days it is probably preferable to use Indigenous People BUT we should probably use the terminology more appropriate to the time and I think 'Aboriginals' was not the preferred way to describe them. Sterry2607 08:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading 

message: I read first two sections and was quite confused. I think it needs rewriting, eg reordering some information, beginning with constitutional excerpts 
220.240.110.221 (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite for clarity 

message: While I am all for Reconciliation, I must admit I find the language of this section inflammatory and incredibly biased, not to mention the author's claims are unverified. I am not disputing whether or not it is wrong, just the language used and the verifiability of what's said. -LichYoshi (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's bs and POV - particularly the last sentence. The constitutional amendment was purely to include Indigenous Australians in census figures and allow the Commonwealth to legislate on Aboriginal issues. FYI Abo is considered derogatory when used in reference to Aboriginal people. Hack (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't see how it is exceptional and objectionable that Aboriginal heritage items have been dealt with under the National Parks Act in NSW when these items are in national parks.  This seems to be a circular argument.  If there was something like a "Flora and Fauna Act" that governed Aborigines, then the National Parks Act could be a survival of this.  But this rests on the assumption that there was something like the "Flora and Fauna Act", which is false.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV of Sovereignty section 

message: I browsed through this page with a person of Indigenous Australian descent who commented that although technically Aboriginals were permitted the right to vote before the 1967 referendum, it was only under the condition that they [as my colleague stated] "signed a piece of paper that said that they denied their Aboriginal decent and then they were permitted to vote". I think this is an important quantification that should be commented on by an authority closer to subject than I, and perhaps addressed in the article. Jabrody24 (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please provide a reference for the suggestion that Aboriginals were not allowed to vote? Incidentally if this was the case, the 1967 referendum would not have changed itRoyalcourtier (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the section explains this ok.  There were always some Aborigines who could vote;  the issue was to establish voting status equal with everyone else.  I've added another Blackshield & Williams ref.  Wikiain (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: PS - can anyone find a citation (to confirm or deny) for the suggestion by Jabrody24 (talk) that Aborigines had to make such a declaration? Wikiain (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

text: The "1901 Constitution", as you term it, unfortunately says nothing about citizenship.  It assumes that all who are legally resident in Australia are "British subjects" and good luck with the changing terminology. Aborigines who joined the military in WW1 or WW2 would presumably have done so as British subjects.  If you have documentation, I expect that it would be welcomed by the National Museum of Australia, which (last time I was there) displays a collection of such documents. Wikiain (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right to Vote 

message: On 29 March 2011, user 121.221.193.45 naughtily changed the two references to "1967" in the first para to, respectively, "1962" and "2011". On 4 April, user 122.148.82.204 rightly changed "2011" back to "1967".  Today I have changed "1962" back to "1967".  Before doing this, I noticed that WP was attributing the change to "1962" to me, but I hadn't done that.  --Wikiain (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution of changes 

message: I have removed the following:
:[This statement is not correct,] though it does reflect aspects of the way Aboriginal hunting, land use and heritage rights were managed.... A number of Australian states did indeed often manage Aboriginal cultural affairs through departments also concerned with flora, fauna, and wildlife. Such legislation did exist, though not uniformly or federally. In New South Wales, for instance, Indigenous Australian hunting and land use rights, as well as their material culture, were managed under a wider National Parks portfolio; this practice only gained attention in 2009 and a process for its reversal was initiated the following year.
It is an attempt to justify the misinformation through weasel words.  There was no Flora and Fauna Act.  Aborigines were not counted as fauna.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And, if Aborigines had been treated as flora and fauna, they wouldn't have been subject to the criminal law.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

text: There is also quite a good blogpost by Professor Helen Irving at the University of Sydney which deals with myths surrounding the referendum. I think her post would count as a reliable source, even if it was published on self-proclaimed "blog", given her academic standing. IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on Helen Irving's academic standing.  Nonetheless, this is only a blog. Has she or anyone else stated this view in a scholarly publication?  I think we're on the same wavelength:  why would a scholar bother to give oxygen to a myth?  However:  what do others think about citing a blog, on a blogsite of a front-rank university, by a well reputed scholar of Australian law and history? Wikiain (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flora and Fauna Act 

message: The "Legacy" section seems rather long and remote in comparison to the actual topic of this article. I suggest that anything not directly relevant to the Constitutional amendment be removed to a more relevant article. For example, I cannot quite see how there is any firm connection between this amendment and the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. --Pete (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance 

message: It is inaccurate to claim that "activists" were behind the changes in attitudes. If people want to stop "activists" from achieving something they can - look at the failure of the Communist Party of Australia to challenge the established order or spark a socialist revolution. Or, in more modern times, the failure of the Australian Greens to achieve much of their agenda in the face of Labor and the Liberals routinely combining against them.
"indigenous Australians" was a term not in use in the 1960s and only came into wide use in the 1990s, less than 20 years ago. Not only is it an anachronism, for 1967, is it very left-wing POV to treat it as an eternal always-correct term.
the notion of what is "rights" is malleable and changes over time so, again, treating them as eternal and always-correct is an anachronism and POV.
Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the term "activists" is not limited by whether or not they suceeded.  do you have any authorities for your statements? The reason I ask is that references to indigenous people date to at least the 1957 ILO Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Populations while Les Johnson referred to "Indigenous Australians" in the Australian Parliament on 16 October 1962. Similarly Neville Bonner spoke of the "indigenous people of Australia" in his maiden speech to the Senate on 8 September 1971. You are correct that the notion of rights changes over time, but it is not clear to me how the article treats them as "eternal and always correct". Find bruce (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edits 

message: moved the article 1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals) to Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967 Act with the edit summary "The actual name of the act". I have reverted this move because every referendum in Australia has a consistent name: "YEAR Australian referendum (SUBJECT)". Find bruce (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. ThanksBacondrum (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: Do we know if the term used in the amendment, "aboriginal", refers to just Aboriginal Australians, or to broader Indigenous Australians? I'm not particularly well-versed in constitutional interpretation, so it'd be great if there is a source (High Court? ComLaw? PEO?) that gives a definitives reference. ItsPugle (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I had missed your comment previously. I don't think you will find a definitive source because prior to 1967 there was no Commonwealth legislation nor High Court case on who was or wasn't an aboriginal person - there is a good briefing paper on the issue published by parliament. It would seem that Torres Strait Islanders were treated as falling within the description of Aboriginal - in 1899 the report of the Northern Protector of Aborigines in Queensland shows that Torres Strait Islanders were within his "protection" - see for example page 12. The colour of their skin was sufficient grounds for racism in the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902  Torres Strait Islanders were covered by separate legislation in Qld from 1939 (Torres Strait Islander Act 1939). In 1962 a parliamentary committee recommended that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people be given the right to vote in Commonwealth elections  but the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1962 lumped them together by the description "aboriginal native of Australia". Importantly I am not aware of a reliable source that deals with the question. --Find bruce (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great, thanks for doing that research! I think going forward we can interpret "Aboriginal" as meaning "Indigenous" (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians) in a modern context. ItsPugle (please use  on reply) 08:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aboriginal Australians vs Indigenous Australians 

message: I propose that sections Proposed new referendum in the 2010s and Referendum Council and Uluru Statement from 1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals) be split into a separate article titled Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians. The two sections are moving off-topic discussing holding another referendum in relation to other Constitution sections and not the effect of amending section 51(xxvi) and repealing section 127 by the 1967 referendum. The new article could also incorporate the Indigenous recognition and voice section from the Constitution of Australia article. The sections from the two articles should be large enough to make their own article. There are related articles Uluru Statement from the Heart and Indigenous voice to government, and Australian Aboriginal sovereignty briefly mentions the subject, but no article specifically on Constitutional Recognition. Melbguy05 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the proposal. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  New article created Constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians with split sections.--Melbguy05 (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting recognition sections into new article proposal