Pros And Cons Of The Australian Referendum: Citizens Of Australia

A referendum is the only formal process that can be used to change the written words of the Constitution but it isn’t the only way Commonwealth Parliament can gain powers. States can refer or give their power to Commonwealth Parliament by passing an act.

The National Apology of 2008 is the latest addition to the key aspects of Australia’s reconciliation towards the Indigenous owners of our land. A part of this movement towards reconciliation is the recognition of Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders rights to their land. Upon arrival in Australia, Australia was deemed by the British as terra nullius, land belonging to no one. This subsequently meant that Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders were never recognised as the traditional owners. Eddie Mabo has made a highly significant contribution to the rights and freedoms of Indigenous Australians as he was the forefather of a long-lasting court case in 1982 fighting for the land rights of the

The 1967 referendum was the repeal of section 127 and section 51 in the Commonwealth Constitution. With the repeal of these two sections the “Federal Government were allowed to make laws for Aborigines and Aborigines were now counted in the national census”(About the 1967 Referendum). The 1967 referendum can be commonly considered the turning point in Australian history and culture for finally addressing discrimination towards the Indigenous people and taking responsibility for Aboriginal affairs. However, some do not have the same representation of the results of the 1967 referendum because of the little improvement it has done for the Indigenous people.

Each example given has also shown how self-determination was and continues to be a major struggle for Aboriginal people. Beginning with the Whitlam government, the Land Rights Act was going to be the national recognition that Aboriginal people had been waiting for, however the swift dismissal of the government and subsequent changes to the bill meant that an uninformed government would dictate claims of Aboriginal land rights. This was continued in the Heritage Protection Act for Western Australia in which no monitoring of abuses of power within the authoritative ministry was assessed; hence damage to heritage sites for the development of industries occurred. Finally the Racial Discrimination Act although making racial discrimination illegal has clearly been violated by the government in the Northern Territory interventions and hence is not valued by Australia despite the international commitments made to recognising Indigenous rights. Although legislation has been introduced to recognise Indigenous rights, there seems to always be a catch. A final reoccurring theme in the legislation discussed is the uninformed views of the non-Indigenous government as decisions are made on behalf of Aboriginal people; hence two major statements were discussed that precisely define Aboriginal self-determination by Aboriginal

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 symbolise the broader struggle for justice being fought during these years. Activists presented the case for a Commonwealth government

The Mabo decision of 1992 was hailed as a landmark case in the history of indigenous-white relations in Australia. Overturning centuries of injustice, as well as the myth of right by ‘terra nullius’, the case prompted the passing of the Native Title Act of 1993, which affirmed native title and asserted that native Australians possessed their land under common law, and in doing so ushered in a new era of equality in Australian society. However, though correctly lauded as a milestone in recognition of aboriginals as valid legal entities, the act was not without its problems, and in truth has had little impact on Australian society as a whole. As we shall see, the trend of positive reform existent in the act was not supported in practice, and aboriginal Australians remain at the mercy of Western courts when it comes to their land. Though the Mabo decision and the subsequent Native Title Act went some way to correcting past injustices, its actual impact on Australian society has been negligible.

On May 1967 the Australian people voted in a referendum that would mean that Aboriginal people would be counted the same way as Non-Aboriginal people. This referendum was to remove two clauses from the constitution that that were said to discriminate against Aboriginal people. It basically meant that Aboriginals would now be

Since European invasion in 1788, Indigenous Australians have fought to retain their rights and freedoms and to have governments recognise them. From 1788 and onwards the British created settlements on land that Aboriginal people previously used and controlled. Throughout the 19th century the government applied policies of ‘protection’ that have segregated Aborigines from Australian society by denying them equality and opportunity. They have achieved some significant changes in the brawl for acknowledgment (Anderson, 2014). Certain key developments that are significant in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders struggles for rights and freedoms are ; 1967 referendum, Mabo decision, bringing them home(stolen generations) and the apology. These four main key developments have been momentous developments for the Australian Indigenous population that are now allowed they’re human rights and freedoms.

The inherent malleability of section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution, also known as the ‘race power’, suggests the continuing historical and institutional racism against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. To overcome discriminatory laws to be passed against Indigenous Australians and to allow the advancement of their situation, it is necessary to amend the race power. This article will propose the amendment of s 51(xxvi) to only allow beneficial laws to be passed with regards to Indigenous Australians, the replacement of s 51(xxvi) with an anti-discrimination power and the replacement of s 51(xxvi) with a new head of power with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. These proposals will be analysed considering the judgements in Kartinyeri v Commonwealth and the recommendations made by the Referendum Council.

The Referendum has lastingly affected Indigenous strategies. It empowered the government to pass the (Northern Territory) Land Rights Act, which has profited numerous Indigenous Australians. In any case, regardless of the supposition that the power given to the national government by 1967 Referendum would be utilized just to profit Indigenous individuals, in a few cases, the progressions have been utilized institute laws that have disintegrated Indigenous rights.

Constitutional Recognition is about the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people wanting to be recognised in the Australian Constitution. As the first people in our nation, they should be recognised and treated as equals. The Constitution is the founding legal document of our nation. It sets out the rules of Parliament and how lawmakers, government and courts operate. The Constitution was approved at Referendum by the people in the Australian Colonies between 1898 and 1900 and came into effect on the 1st of January 1901.

On 27th May 1967, 90.77% of Australians voted in favour of changes to the Australian Constitution to improve the welfare of Indigenous signifying the end of racial discrimination . The 1967 Referendum was a practical and symbolic strategy which proposed to include Aboriginal people in the census and to allow the Commonwealth government to make laws for Indigenous Australians. The Referendum has had a significant impact on Indigenous policies as it

In the past, referendums have been used to make some of the biggest constitutional changes in modern times. By definition, a referendum ‘is a general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision’. The very name and use of 'referendums' is thought to have originated in the Swiss canton of Graubünden as early as the 16th century where, to this day, still use a form direct democracy to settle many issues. Traditionally, Referendums were rarely used in the UK but, in recent times, they have been gaining popularity by the public and have also been used more often to decide constitutional changes such as the 2016 EU Referendum and the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum. Since the end

In 1967 a referendum changed the way Aboriginals were treated, this was when Aboriginals were first given the right to vote and allowed to be counted in the census thereby allowing the Commonwealth to create laws for them. (Abc.net.au, 2015)

Behrendt was born in 1969, two years after the constitutional referendum was brought in as well as the end of the policy that allowed the removal of aboriginal children to be removed from their family (Behrendt, 2003). Behrendt provides a clearly articulated summary of what indigenous Australians want and need, how they feel and how it can all be achieved (Behrendt, 2003). Behrendt was one of the few fortunate children in her culture in the 70’s who was sent to school. Her schooling fuelled her frustration due to the lack of understanding to the extent of what her people, especially the stolen generation had to endure on their own land for so long (Behrendt, 2003). Behrendt desires to resolve the lack of knowledge and achieve change as she understood the impact of what indigenous people felt to do with dispossession, removal, and incarceration, so she became a lawyer (Behrendt, 2003). Behrendt argues why formal equality is not applicable when the laws