# data[].attributes.body
Explore the materials and try the immigration test.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why a 'white Australia'?

In the 1800s the majority of the white population of the Australian colonies shared attitudes towards people of different races that by today's standards were openly racist.

Criticisms of non-white groups were based on the idea that they were less advanced than white people in all ways, especially morally and intellectually.

In Australia, this idea focused particularly on people of Asian descent but applied to all non-whites, including Indigenous Australians, who were considered a 'dying race'.

Ironically, Australia saw itself as a utopia and a working man's paradise, a forward-thinking country that promoted equal rights and opportunities, for 'desirable' citizens at least. The nation aimed to attract a well-paid, male, white and skilled labour force to uphold this image.

Non-whites, and even sometimes working women, were seen as a threat to this ideal. Their perceived inferiority meant they were often paid less, and it was believed they could steal employment opportunities, undermining the stability of the white population.

Prior to 1901 the Australian colonies had seen a growth in non-white migration, especially during the gold rushes as many migrants arrived to seek their fortune. Reactions of white Australians to this trend were overwhelmingly negative.

The fact that many migrants had begun to relocate from the gold fields to cities, accepting work at lower rates of pay and selling goods cheaply in competition with white business-owners caused tensions.

This tension was aggravated by the introduction of indentured Pacific Island (known as 'Kanaka') labour in the north of Australia. Many people opposed the use of Pacific Island labour because it was a cheap alternative to paying 'proper' wages to white employees.

These attitudes led to each colony establishing its own economic and migration policies, some going so far as to exclude anyone of non-British descent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1901: White Australia policy enshrined in law

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
I know that it was a policy the government had to bread the colour out of society.                                       

# data[].attributes.body
Extract from novel by Richard Broome -
Aboriginal Australians Fifth edition. page 198 ...
the major threat to the White Australian Policy was an increasing mixed-decent population in the Territory, despite the declining number of 'full bloods'. Cook believed this was a 'position of incalculable future menace to the purity of race in tropical Australia.' He promoted segregation, authorizing racially separate swimming pools and a segregated out-patient's clinic, and prohibited 'the mating of aboriginals with any person other than an aboriginal', especially 'alien-colored races'. He also removed mixed-decent children from their mothers where possible, stating: 'every endeavor is being made to breed out the colour by elevating female half-castes to white standard with a view to their absorption by mating into the white population. Cook believed that this controlled absorption process would take five generations and there would be no atavism; that is, no reappearance of Aboriginal physical features. Those of mixed race would be uplifted and Aboriginality would be eradicated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teaching languages with technology: tools that help students become fluent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Advertisement feature: From Padlets to Popplets, languages consultant Joe Dale shares the tools modern foreign languages teachers are turning to in their classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supporting the teaching of parliamentary education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2023 will see the first referendum held in Australia in nearly a quarter of a century. It will also be the first referendum for most Australians. To help support teachers understand, explain and teach about referendums, the PEO has developed 2 FREE new programs; a teacher professional learning program and a video conferencing lesson for primary and high school students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article references antiquated language when referring to First Nations people. It also mentions names and has images of people who may have passed away.
Before the end of this year, Australians will vote on enshrining an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the nation's constitution. Referendums are famously fraught, and both advocates and detractors of the Voice have drawn comparisons to the 1967 referendum, the nation's most successful to date.

Then, 90.77% of Australians endorsed two constitutional amendments. One removed Section 127, whereby "Aboriginal natives" were not counted when "reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth". The second altered Section 51 (xxvi) - the race power - to allow the Commonwealth to make "special laws" concerning Aboriginal people.

Why was this campaign so successful? Today commentators largely put it down to unanimity: there wasn't a "no" campaign in 1967. This is one of the reasons, no doubt, but as historians often say: "it's complicated". Deconstructing the mythology that surrounds the vote provides a fuller answer.

Read more: The history of referendums in Australia is riddled with failure. Albanese has much at risk - and much to gain

The road to referendum

Indigenous and settler scholars have long questioned the accepted narrative around 1967. The Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, founded in 1958 with the purpose of fighting for constitutional change, had a big role in shaping the referendum's meaning. The council first fought a petition campaign in 1962-3, and the vote itself, on the basis that a "yes" victory would grant citizenship rights for Indigenous people.

This was only ever partly true. The same activists who led the council's campaign, including feminist Jessie Street, communist and scientist Shirley Andrews, Quandamooka poet Oodgeroo Noonuccal (Kath Walker) and Faith Bandler, an activist of South Sea Island and Scottish-Indian heritage, had already fought for and won many of the trappings of citizenship.

Voting rights, for instance, were secured federally in 1962, and in every state by 1965. And while various state acts continued to limit movement and alcohol consumption for the people under their so-called "protection", constitutional alteration in itself would do little to change this. By giving the federal government powers to override state laws, it was hoped, pressure from within and without would lead to the end of official discrimination.

The 'wind of change'

The long, conservative government of Robert Menzies had stone-walled moves to hold a referendum, at least partly owing to a desire to maintain Section 51 unamended. That the Commonwealth would make "special laws" for Indigenous people ran counter to the goal of assimilation. Menzies' successor, Harold Holt, was more amenable.

Holt's progressive agenda - as well as supporting the referendum, he removed discriminatory provisions from the Migration Act - signalled his difference from Menzies to a changing electorate. But he and his ministers were also looking internationally. British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan's 1960 declaration that a " wind of change " was sweeping away racial discrimination and colonial domination had an Australian echo.

The 1965 " Freedom Rides " had done much to highlight continued apartheid-style practices in rural Australia. And during the Cold War, Australia's overseas perception carried substantial weight.

Indigenous rights activists had long warned that Australia needed to act on issues of discrimination, with anti-colonial sentiment widespread in Asia, and the quickly growing United Nations watching. Liberal parliamentarian Billy Snedden hoped that removing mention of "Aborigines" from the constitution would also "remove a possible source of misconstruction in the international field".

Right wrongs, write yes!

While reflective of international sensitivities, the 1967 referendum was hardly a rejection of assimilation policy. Indeed, the Federal Council's slogan of " black and white together " can be read as a reflection of integrationist ideology: the goal of "Aboriginal advancement" was to live on white terms.

The campaign materials used in support of the referendum, much of which was produced by the Federal Council and distributed via trade unions and community organisations, reflected a simple message of unity and national absolution. Perhaps the most famous leaflet of the campaign - "Right Wrongs, Write Yes!" in large lettering, alongside an image of an Indigenous child - elevated the message above politics. The wrongs of the past could be done away with at the stroke of a pen.

The resounding victory was indeed read as a vindication of the decency of Australians. As one commentator put it:

The politicians were proud, the priests popular, the promoters propitiated, the public pleased. Being party to the most overwhelming referendum victory in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia demanded self-congratulation and the bestowal of bouquets upon all.

Current Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was channelling similar sentiments earlier this month, declaring the Voice referendum offered a chance for Australians to show their "best qualities". It would, he said, "be a national achievement in which every Australian can share".

1967 shows us the power that such unifying language can have, but also that unanimity can conceal inertia.

'Advocated by all thinking people'

This sense of national duty and righting wrongs at least partly explains why opposition to the proposed changes in 1967 was muted. Adelaide's Victor Harbour Times captured the tenor: "a Yes vote is advocated by all thinking people". But this opinion, much like today, was not unanimous.

Despite the lack of a formal campaign, the West Australian newspaper ran a particularly hard "no" line. Fears of creeping Commonwealth power over " state rights" were propounded, as was the referendum's lack of detail. "It was a pity that this issue was not worked out in advance", one article bemoaned, for then "the people could have been presented with a firm, rational policy".

Western Australia registered the highest "no" vote of any state at the referendum, at close to 22%. This reflects at least in part this editorialising. Post-referendum analysis also indicated that racist attitudes shaped voting patterns. The greater the proximity to an Aboriginal reserve or mission, the more likely a person was to vote "no".

That the referendum was, in the language of the West Australian, "double-barrelled" - paired with another, defeated, proposal to expand membership in the House of Representatives - does not seem to have affected the result. Even hard-right Democratic Labor Party Senator Vince Gair's " No More Politicians Committee " advocated for a "yes" vote on "Aboriginal rights". Left and right understood, if for sharply differing reasons, that formal discrimination needed to end.

After the referendum

Today's "no" campaign's key talking point, that the Voice "lacks detail", was made in 1967, but failed to sway many voters. A writer for the Bulletin magazine commented that while the West Australian was

right when it says there should be a policy [...] the time for it is after the referendum.

What mattered wasn't the specifics, but that policy could be developed at all.

The referendum's aftermath also illuminates another point of difference between then and now: a lack of Indigenous opposition. Indigenous scholar Larissa Behrendt argues that an "unintended consequence" of the 1967 referendum, and the hopes it raised and subsequently dashed for many Indigenous peoples, was a "more radical rights movement" led by those "disillusioned by the lack of changes that followed". The Commonwealth was slow to use its new powers, and reticent to override powerful premiers like Queensland's Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

The land rights and sovereignty movements of today have their origins in this moment of radicalisation. The Referendum Council, whose 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart reads "in 1967, we were counted, [now] we seek to be heard", represent the unifying spirit of that earlier referendum. Indigenous critics of the Voice such as Lidia Thorpe and Gary Foley, on the other hand, inherit the radical tradition it inadvertently birthed. In Foley's words, a Voice to Parliament would be akin to putting "lipstick on a pig".

Does all this mean the vote will fall differently in 2023? Something Voice advocates have in their favour is that "no" supporters, while loud, appear to be in a minority. State, territory and federal leaders have unanimously pledged to support the "yes" case, leaving the federal opposition isolated, while 80% of Indigenous peoples support it.

One thing though is certain. If the 2023 referendum fails, it will at least in part be due to the shortcomings and spoiled hopes of 1967.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 1967 referendum was the most successful in Australia's history. But what it can tell us about 2023 is complicated

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article references antiquated language when referring to First Nations people. It also mentions names and has images of people who may have passed away. Before the end of this year, Australians will vote on enshrining an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the nation's constitution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The biggest review of Australia's migration system in decades is due to be delivered to the federal government.

Commissioned by the Albanese government last September, its task is to identify reforms that will increase economic productivity, address challenges such as an ageing population, and make Australia a more desirable destination for highly skilled migrants.

But perhaps its thorniest job is how to provide temporary migrants with clear pathways to permanent residency and citizenship. This won't be easy, given how much the number of temporary migrants in Australia now outstrips the permanent visas on offer.

It's impossible to run an uncapped temporary migration program with a capped permanent program and offer all long-term temporary visa holders a road to permanent residency.

Something has to give.

Simple arithmetic: demand exceeds supply

About 1.9 million people - 7% of the population - are living in Australia on temporary visas with work rights.

About 680,000 are New Zealanders, who can get a visa automatically as part of a reciprocal agreement between Australia and New Zealand. The other 1.2 million migrants comprise international students, temporary skilled workers and working holiday-makers, among others. There is no cap on the number of these temporary visas granted. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government was issuing about half a million each year.

This is far in excess of the cap on permanent visas offered. In 2019, the Morrison government reduced the cap from 190,000 to 160,000 places a year. The Albanese government raised it to 195,000 for the 2022-23 financial year. It remains to be seen what will happen in future years.

The queue is getting longer

Not all temporary visa-holders want to stay in Australia, but many do. Most migrants are already in Australia on a temporary visa when they receive their permanent visa.

But with a greater number of temporary residents vying for permanent residency, the wait times are rising, and migrants' prospects of success are declining.

About 42% of migrants granted a temporary skilled visa in 2008 got a permanent visa within four years. Of those who arrived in 2014, just 36% secured permanent residency within four years.

The decline was worse for those on student visas. About 25% of international students who arrived in Australia in 2007 had become permanent residents six years later. For those who arrived in 2012, just 12% were permanent residents six years later.

Unclear, uncertain and longer pathways to permanent residency exact both personal and social costs. They disrupt migrants' lives and careers, making migrants less productive. For example, a temporary skilled visa holder might want to switch to a job that better suits their skills, but can only qualify for permanent residency if they stay put. We're depriving society of the migrant's full potential.

Many employers are reluctant to hire international graduates on temporary visas, instead hiring applicants who already have permanent residency. This helps explain why a quarter of recent graduates (on temporary graduate visas) are either unemployed or not looking for work. Most that do work earn no more than working holiday-makers, despite being more qualified.

Read more: Australia's borders are open, so where are all the backpackers?

What to do about it?

Offering a permanent visa to every long-term temporary migrant who wants one would require an enormous, and unpopular, increase in Australia's permanent intake.

Even a smaller, more realistic, increase in the permanent intake would come with costs - notably more expensive housing.

Capping temporary visas would reduce pressure on already-rising rents. But it would also make it harder for some employers and mean fewer international students paying fees to universities.

So what should we do?

We should continue to give priority to younger, skilled migrants for permanent visas. Pathways to permanent residency should not be automatic nor based on how long temporary migrants have been in Australia. A guaranteed pathway to permanent residency in Australia will only encourage more people to come here on temporary visas, and those already here to stay even longer.

We should also avoid creating new temporary visa programs for less skilled workers in areas such as agriculture or the care economy, because they only add to demand for more permanent visas down the track.

We must acknowledge that not all temporary migrants can stay in Australia, even if they want to.

Change the selection criteria

The best permanent visa system is one that selects migrants most likely to contribute to the nation's long-term success.

The current policy grants permanent skilled work visas on the basis of occupation. This should change to whether migrants can earn a good wage - demonstrated by a sponsoring employer being willing to pay them at least A$85,000 a year.

This would mean temporary migrants are no longer at the mercy of official occupation lists, which can change at any time. A sponsored worker and their employer could be confident they qualify for permanent residency. Employers will be more confident about hiring graduating international students if they know they can sponsor that employee for permanent residency within a couple of years.

Read more: It's time Australia dumped its bureaucratic list-based approach to temporary work visas

Another reform would be to allow temporary skilled migrants to work in any occupation, provided they earn more than A$70,000 a year, so they can build their skills and careers in Australia before securing permanent residency.

Creating a better system for points-tested visas - which is how many students secure permanent residency - would also help. The current system encourages migrants to gain points through spending thousands of dollars on low-value courses, or by moving to regional areas where there are fewer job opportunities.

Instead, there should be a single points-tested visa, where points are only allocated for characteristics that point to a migrants' future success in Australia.

The aim of the migration system should be to create clearer pathways to permanent residency in Australia. But that doesn't mean that everyone who wants to stay can do so.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to improve the migration system for the good of temporary migrants - and Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The biggest review of Australia's migration system in decades is due to be delivered to the federal government. Commissioned by the Albanese government last September, its task is to identify reforms that will increase economic productivity, address challenges such as an ageing population, and make Australia a more desirable destination for highly skilled migrants.

# data[].attributes.body
Resource booklet to prepare applicants for their Citizenship test.

# data[].attributes.body
I would have students use technology to undertake research of the White Australia Policy and to investigate when it was implemented, how long it was govt policy and why it was abolished. I would use picture books to support literacy for example, Mem Fox's Book I'm Australian Too to show the changes in Australian society since the policy was abolished. To support numeracy, I would have students consider Australia's migration numbers by country or continent and to graph the changes since the White Australia Policy was abolished

# data[].attributes.headline
The impacts of the White Australia Policy on the First Nations people.

# data[].attributes.subject
The impacts of the White Australia Policy on the First Nations people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Impacted both Australia's Indigenous population and people who are immigrants or whose family are immigrants

# data[].attributes.body
This resource would assist students in accessing reliable information from the National Museum in relation to the White Australia Policy. You could create a QR code for students to access through the use of an iPad. There are comprehension questions at the end of the resource. Another way to connect may be to look at a timeline of events and have students research and place findings on a physical timeline created on the classroom wall. Images, information and dates associated to the timeline of events, could be sourced and referenced. This large scale timeline would help students be active and social in their learning activities, communicating with one another respectfully sharing information and also discussing placement and its relevance in time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
End of the White Australia policy | Australia's Defining Moments Digital Classroom | National Museum of Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1966 the Australian Government introduced new laws that applied the same rules to all people migrating to Australia. This was an enormous change from the White Australia policy, introduced in 1901, which had been designed to allow only white migrants from Britain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Michael Hing takes a look at how generations of migrants have settled in Australia while having to confront negative stereotypes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Immigration Restriction Act (1901) This act was specifically designed to limit non-British migration to Australia and marked the initial establishment of the White Australia policy.

# data[].attributes.subject
Immigration Restriction Act (1901) This act was specifically designed to limit non-British migration to Australia and marked the initial establishment of the White Australia policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TRUTH / YOORROOK

24 March 2025

Four Corners

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: On the banks of the mighty Murray River, this is Yorta Yorta country, the land of my ancestors. When the British arrived, my people were murdered here by settlers and even by police. These atrocities spread all over Australia. The violence and the seizure of land was how our country was formed, but we've only really heard one side of the story. For 65,000 years, hundreds of Indigenous tribes thrived here, living through an ice age and alongside megafauna. This is one of the oldest continuous cultures in the world. When these lands were colonised, a violent invasion began. Tens of thousands of Aboriginal men, women and children were killed - they were shot, raped and poisoned across the frontier. Many more died of disease. Aboriginal people call it The Killing Times.

TRAVIS LOVETT, YOORROOK COMMISSIONER: This has been swept under the rug for so long. These things actually happened.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: For generations, Aboriginal people have called for non-Indigenous people to come to terms with the way Australia was settled.

PAUL BRIGGS: I think it's too horrific for people to take on board that their ancestors, non-Aboriginal ancestors, were a part of this.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Across the globe, truth and justice commissions have uncovered atrocities in divided nations.

DESMOND TUTU: We all stand in need of healing...

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Now, for the first time, it's Australia's turn.

BILL PASCOE: Some of the things I have encountered in this research are the worst things I have ever heard of anyone ever doing to anyone in human history.

JACINTA ALLAN, VICTORIAN PREMIER: I did not know of the massacres, I'm ashamed to say.

LILY D'AMBROSIO, VICTORIAN ENVIRONMENT MINISTER: It is absolutely wrong. We all have to take responsibility for it.

ELEANOR BOURKE: Some people were shocked they didn't know about it. "Why didn't we know about it? Why didn't we learn it at school?"

SUE-ANNE HUNTER: This is the stuff that continues to cause harm today.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: This four-year Victorian royal commission is undertaking the most extensive investigation ever held into our dark past, even examining the legacy of a former prime minister. The unique thing about it is it's led by Aboriginal people. It's called Yoorrook.

ELEANOR BOURKE: Yoorrook means telling the truth, truth telling. It's the Wamba Wamba word. We need to tell our story, because they don't really know the true story of what happened to us.

TITLE: TRUTH/ YOORROOK

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: For Aboriginal elders like Yorta Yorta leader Paul Briggs, the violence of the past is ever present. In recent years, Uncle Paul says an elderly non-Indigenous man approached him to divulge a long-held family secret.

PAUL BRIGGS: He said his grandfather would sit him down on his knee and talk to him about the hunting that happened. You know, they'd go out on the weekends hunting. And he said, "Paul, you know, they were out hunting your people." He grew up in the same region I grew up. But he needed to talk about it. He felt the need to talk about it and tell somebody.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Uncle Paul told this chilling story to the Yoorrook truth telling commission.

PAUL BRIGGS: I think the truth telling lies with non-Aboriginal people. It's quite well documented what happened and what's happening, to First Nations peoples right around the country. But it's not clear what non-Aboriginal people feel and do about it, about their part of it, their ownership of it.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: For Uncle Paul, reconciliation remains elusive, because of what he says is a denial of history.

PAUL BRIGGS: I think it's rooted in this lack of understanding, this lack of respect and value and this sense of belief that it was a peaceful colonial acquisition of country that was allowed to happen, and Aboriginal people sort of peacefully let 'em have it.

TRAVIS LOVETT: I would say, 6-700 hours driving around, since I've been at the Commission, just hours and hours on the road.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: We're with Commissioner Travis Lovett on the way to his ancestors' land at Portland, south-west of Melbourne. He's met with hundreds of people, investigating the impact the loss of land and resources has had on his people.

TRAVIS LOVETT: I've had cups of teas in people's front yards and backyards and at their dining table, but also sat in, I guess formal spaces. Because not everything happens in the big city of Melbourne as well.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: As an Aboriginal commissioner, this has been gruelling and deeply personal work.

TRAVIS LOVETT: It does take its toll. You know, there's days where you just go like, 'Am I doing enough? Have I done enough?' Because it's not only our people that have hope for us getting this right, it's also important for non-Aboriginal people as well that we get this right.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Every day, he sees the link between the historic decimation of his people and the challenges of today.

TRAVIS LOVETT: Our people are 10 times more likely to engage in homelessness services, which is just incredibly sad to hear that.

BRIDGET BRENNAN: Yeah. That's just shocking.

TRAVIS LOVETT: 15 times more likely to be incarcerated in a Victorian jail system. 22 times more likely to come in contact with child protection. So this is, you know, incredibly important truths that we're uncovering, but also why the system needs to change.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Travis' mob were the first to experience colonisation in what's now Victoria - they're often known as the fighting Gunditjmara.

TRAVIS LOVETT: You walk this land, you feel a different spirit here. You feel our ancestors walking around. You feel how they were treated. We are here and that's why we're called the fighting Gunditjmara. We resisted, and we'll continue to resist.

TRAVIS LOVETT: Hey, how you going?

KEICHA DAY: I'm so good, how are you?

TRAVIS LOVETT: Yeah, good.

KEICHA DAY: It's so good to see you.

TRAVIS LOVETT: Yeah, you too!

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Travis has come to Portland to meet with Gunditjmara woman, Keicha Day.

KEICHA DAY: I reckon I read more about you than I see you. Ain't that right?

TRAVIS LOVETT: Yeah, probably (laughs)

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Keicha is one of more than 1200 Aboriginal people who've given evidence to Yoorrook.

KEICHA DAY: We talk a lot about Portland being 'Victoria's birthplace', but in order for there to be a birthplace, there has to be a death place. And there's a lot of death places that exist here.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Today, Keicha's bringing us to the Convincing Ground, ten minutes from her home in Portland. Yoorrook has heard it was the site of Victoria's first recorded massacre, that happened sometime between mid-1833 and mid-1834.

KEICHA DAY: It's a really peaceful place that tells a really non-peaceful history...

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: It's here that a group of Gunditjmara people were killed by whalers. It's said there were only 2 survivors from a whole clan. That's a mass loss of life for tribes along this coastline.

KEICHA DAY: Yep. Absolutely. And it's the reason why we stand here, and we tell this story over and over again, because those fellas that died deserve to have their truth told, and they deserve to have that peace as well.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Soon after, in November 1834, one family led by two brothers, the Hentys, sailed into Gunditjmara country at Portland Bay. Squatters quickly seized land, water and resources from the Gunditjmara people. They realised they could defy the orders of the Crown and occupy land to make a profit.

KEICHA DAY: So when you talk about the reign of terror of the Henty brothers, you only have to look at George Augustus Robinson's diaries, who was a self-appointed historian of the time. And he talks a lot about the terror campaign of the Hentys and their fellow colonisers.

DIARY QUOTE: "The prejudices against the natives at Portland Bay by Messrs Henty and Blair and Tyers is very considerable... they went so far as to say they thought they were hardly human."

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: As the so-called 'Chief Protector of Aborigines' for the region, Robinson's field journals span over a decade... and detail some of the early settlers' brutality.

DIARY QUOTE: "These poor creatures are worse treated than slaves. They are made use of and are destroyed with impunity."

"The settlers at the bay spoke of the settlers up the country dropping the natives as coolly as if they were speaking of dropping crows..."

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: For generations, the colonial history of south-west Victoria was celebrated.

TOWNSPEOPLE: (singing) "Happy birthday, dear Portland..."

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Back in 1984, the town marked the 150th anniversary of European settlement... with colonial costumes, cannons and cake. Forty years later, the Henty name is still everywhere in Portland... from the pub to a highway, to monuments dedicated to the family. Keicha told the Yoorrook commissioners she wants the monuments taken down, and more recognition of Gunditjmara people.

KEICHA DAY: These colonisers continue to be celebrated through monuments on lands that they stole. And the people that they stole it from still have to bear witness to them. We have been waiting for something like Yoorrook since colonisation. Truth telling is something that this colony known as Australia needs. We need the truth, we need to speak on what the colony costs for First Nations people.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Do you often come across Australians who tell you they don't know about this history?

TRAVIS LOVETT: Every day I hear people say, 'I didn't know about this. Why didn't I learn?' And again, I understand that because I went through the Australian schooling system as well. We're not asking people to say sorry, but we're asking people to open their minds, to open their hearts to the full story.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: As settlers moved across the country, so did the massacres. Historical records are incomplete, and we will never know the true number of people who were killed. But University of Newcastle researchers have found the most massacres occurred during the 1840s. The commission heard that many killings were covered up. Yoorrook is now investigating whether this 'code of silence' has shaped Australia's treatment and understanding of First Nations people today.

ELIZABETH BALDERSTONE: Not many Australians have been willing to think of what happened at sites like Warrigal Creek and many others throughout Australia.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Some unmarked massacre sites lie on farms now owned by non-Indigenous families.

ELIZABETH BALDERSTONE: Farming is challenging alone, and it takes a passion and a real determination to keep going.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Elizabeth Balderstone's life changed forever when she came to this property in Gippsland as an 18-year-old in 1974. It's where she met and fell in love with her husband Alistair whose family had farmed here since 1910. They married and had two daughters.

ELIZABETH BALDERSTONE: We were all very happily living here and I'd become quite involved in the operation of the family partnership and the farming side of things. And then tragically in 1987 when the girls were just four and two, Alistair who was a very competent rider, had a fall from a horse and never regained consciousness. So in those moments and days, life just changed immeasurably for me.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Elizabeth made the decision to stay on the farm and carry on the family's legacy.

ELIZABETH BALDERSTONE: It became very much home and despite the sort of sad, huge sadness I'd had, at least felt a real purpose and sense of place here.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Alongside the beauty, there is a sense of heartache embedded in this place, too. That's because the family has always known this stately property was built overlooking a massacre site.

ELIZABETH BALDERSTONE: There's many historians who've written a lot on this and researched in depth the story of what happened here. There were clearly issues and skirmishes between the traditional owners and the settlers and culminated in mid-1843 the murder of a fellow, Ronald Macalister, who was the nephew of a very wealthy pastoralist from New South Wales. In retaliation for the murder of Ronald, it's understood that a group of settlers known now as the Highland Brigade got together and came upon a large group of Brataualung people camped at Warrigal Creek at the waterhole.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Historical records are patchy. University of Newcastle researchers now estimate that at least 125 men, women and children were shot dead in a five-day rampage in the area. In 1925, a Gippsland magazine published this anonymous account of the massacre.

MASSACRE ACCOUNT: "Some escaped in the scrub, others jumped into the waterhole, and, as fast as they put their heads up for breath, they were shot, until the water was red with blood... I knew two blacks who, though wounded, came out of that hole alive. One was a boy at that time, about 12 or 14 years old. He was hit in the eye by a slug, captured by the whites, and made to lead the Brigade on from one camp to another."

ELIZABETH BALDERSTONE: I think any of us can imagine the scene of horror that was unfolding and the power of men on horseback and firearms. It's very hard for anyone to visit - Indigenous and non-Indigenous people - given the story and the understanding of what's happened.

RUSSELL MULLETT: It would've been a shocking, frightening experience for them. They were used to hand combat, face to face. This other method of killing was something quite foreign to us.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: In an unusual move, Elizabeth Balderstone has fenced off the site and invited traditional owners to come here as often as they like.

RUSSELL MULLETT: (calls out in GunaiKurnai language) Just saying hello to the spirits. They're there.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: When local GunaiKurnai elder Uncle Russell Mullett first visited the farm, he was wary.

RUSSELL MULLETT: My feeling at the time was a bit of trepidation and feeling like I just hope that I'm meeting people that understand a little bit about the history of the place.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Russell and Elizabeth now have a firm friendship and a shared connection to a tragic chapter in Australian history.

RUSSELL MULLETT: It may not be something you want to delve into, but it's about the truth. It's about digging into a history that has in the past been covered, and trying to find a common ground we can communicate on and talk respectfully to each other.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Why do you think there is perhaps a reluctance from other landholders to do what you've done?

ELIZABETH BALDERSTONE: I think a lot of landholders probably fear that talking up will mean there could be claims on their country, restrictions on how they farm. That veil of secrecy that we don't want these things to be talked about, but the flow on of not talking about them is awful.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: What happens if we don't talk about them?

ELIZABETH BALDERSTONE: Well, I don't think we can go forward as a nation.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: For Russell, looking on at this massacre site represents a catastrophic loss, but also the fight for life.

RUSSELL MULLETT: That's been the history, that we're fought. History of recognition, history of survival.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: The Commission has already heard a vast amount of evidence on what the violence of the past has done to Indigenous people today.

ELEANOR BOURKE: Victoria had so many massacres. It was brutal, absolutely brutal.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Professor Eleanor Bourke is the Chair of the Yoorrook Justice Commission. The 81-year-old made the decision to come out of retirement to give her people a chance to change the record.

ELEANOR BOURKE: I'm feeling very tired these days, but no, it's the most important thing I will have ever done in my life. The most important thing, there's no question about that.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Aunty Eleanor has an intimate understanding of Australia's history. As a child she saw these divides clearly in black and white.

ELEANOR BOURKE: I was the only Aboriginal person in a school of 40 students. And they reacted the racist way, you know, get beaten up and knocked off my bike and this sort of stuff until I got some bigger cousins come and they dealt with it. But it was only because I was Aboriginal.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: For most of her life, she's been on the frontline in every major fight for Indigenous rights.

JILL GALLAGHER: She died because she was poor...

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: At the Commission, Aunty Eleanor has spent almost four years listening to testimony from survivors of horrific abuses.

JILL GALLAGHER: We had five Aboriginal people die in custody in Victoria... I'm sorry.

ELEANOR BOURKE: You know, some of the most heartbreaking things at times. And you get thanked for listening. I mean, I find that uplifting, but tragic.

BRIDGET BRENNAN: Because no one has listened before?

ELEANOR BOURKE: That's right. That's right. The, the, the overwhelming relief sometimes. Even the most harrowing scenarios, and some of them are, are shocking. Some of them are shocking.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: On the first day Four Corners visits, the Commission is preparing for a significant moment - non-Indigenous Australians are coming forward with their own truths to tell. A nervous Elizabeth Balderstone is up first.

ELEANOR BOURKE: Are we good to go? How's my microphone?

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: It's an emotional morning as Elizabeth recounts the story of the Warrigal Creek massacre.

ELIZABETH BALDERSTONE: It's a burden I guess, for us as a family and for me living there, to know we're caring for this site.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: She makes a plea to other Australian farmers to connect with Aboriginal communities.

ELIZABETH BALDERSTONE: One of my hopes from today is that other landholders see that and let go that angst of worrying that land will be resumed or impacts on what they are wanting to do. I mean, it's a shared journey and I hope that others will see that.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Her evidence has a big impact on the commissioners.

ELEANOR BOURKE: These are things we feel deeply. I really appreciate your insights and your understanding to some extent about how we can feel because clearly you treasure what you've got, for the future, not just for now but for the future and so I thank you very much for your contribution today.

TRAVIS LOVETT: Thank you for showing leadership as well in the community. So, I just appreciate you coming here today and sharing the truth.

ELIZABETH BALDERSTONE: Thank you. Thank you.

TRAVIS LOVETT: There's the opportunity around transferring part of her property back to traditional owners. The traditional owners didn't ask for that to happen. That was derived purely from Elizabeth Balderstone and her family coming and going, what can we do to contribute to what has happened?

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: What would you say to Australians out there who might be watching this, who are grappling with their own families' histories and their ties to colonisation?

TRAVIS LOVETT: There's nothing to be scared of, nothing to be worried about. It also helps our people heal as well because this has been swept under the rug for so long about the injustices that our people have faced, because it is scary, it's frightening, it's confronting.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: The Commission is also investigating what happened after the massacres. From the mid-1800s, the government made another attempt to eliminate Aboriginal people, by absorbing them into white society. They were forced onto reserves known as missions, where their lives were controlled and cultural practices and languages were forbidden.

TRAVIS LOVETT: Yeah, it's had a significant impact on our people...

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Travis Lovett has taken us onto the old Lake Condah mission. What's the significance of this mission, Lake Condah mission, where we are now in southwest Victoria, to your own family?

TRAVIS LOVETT: Yeah, well. It's deep, deep personal connection first and foremost. Like, you know, I feel quite emotional every time I come home.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: After his family were rounded up here, some of Travis' relatives were stolen from this mission as children.

TRAVIS LOVETT: People were taken from here. You know, my dad wasn't taken from here, but his siblings were taken from this country, this land here. And you know, it's, it's, it's deeply troubling. You know, again, you know, this is the Stolen Generation.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: These are the remnants of the segregation era in Australia, aren't they?

TRAVIS LOVETT: They sure are. They are a continual reminder that that of the segregation around our people from non-Aboriginal people. We were never ever considered as equals. And again, treated, treated horrifically for just being born as an Aboriginal person. They'd done nothing wrong. So, and then they were treated horrifically, you know. And people don't get over that. This is government policy of the day, to remove us from our land and enable some of our people who had lighter skin to be able to move off, to basically wipe out our race, is what the intention of that was. It was to wipe out our people and that where there was lighter-skinned or not known as 'full bloods', we were able to at that point in time as Aboriginal people, be able to be moved off the missions and integrated into society.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Fourth-generation Victorian Peter Sharp long wondered why such a cruel policy existed.

PETER SHARP: Always in my mind was, where did this start? The last thing I ever expected was to find this, missing pieces of this puzzle that was in my mind, within my own family history.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: His great-grandfather, Alfred Deakin, was always a cherished figure in his family, as the so-called father of the Australian federation.

PETER SHARP: I was always aware from quite an early age that he had been an early prime minister of Australia. There was always a strong reference to federation and his involvement with that.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Seven years ago, Peter Sharp made a chilling discovery about his great-grandfather.

PETER SHARP: All of a sudden - bang, bang, bang - everything fell into place.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: He started to dig. He's now spent years painstakingly examining archives and public records.

PETER SHARP: He was the Chief Secretary. He passed the 'Half Caste Act', and that just sent just a shiver down my spine to realise, because I just knew at that moment, this just changed everything.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: In 1886, as Chief Secretary in Victoria, Alfred Deakin passed a notorious law: The Aborigines Protection Act. It's often known by the offensive term, the 'Half-Caste Act'. This law re-defined Aboriginality. It meant that people of mixed descent could then be forced off missions to assimilate into the white colonial world.

PETER SHARP: That an Indigenous population could just be merged into the general population.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Some historians characterise Deakin as a friend of Aboriginal people. But it's known that he introduced this racist law. And Peter Sharp believes his great-grandfather wanted to erase Aboriginal people.

PETER SHARP: He had an ideal that the continent is reserved for Anglo-Saxons only. He had this ideal to follow, and he wasn't gonna ever let go of it.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: He says his analysis suggests Deakin made calculated amendments to the bill and rushed it through parliament to get his way.

PETER SHARP: It's the oldest trick in the Parliament, surely, that if you want something to remain hidden, you pass it on the last day, the last few minutes of the session, the last minutes of the year. I thought, there's something hidden here. This isn't all it appears to be on the surface. And every inch of the way I've gone since then, I'm more and more convinced that that's what happened. It was very deliberate, meticulously planned.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: So, did your research confirm to you that your great-grandfather had an active or a pivotal role in the genocide of Aboriginal people?

PETER SHARP: I believe so. I have said that if there was one person, one single person, most responsible for the 'Half Caste Act', and the Stolen Generations, it could be Alfred Deakin.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: The 1886 Act in Victoria proved to be catastrophic, leading to the mass removal of children. Other states adopted similar laws. It was the architecture for the Stolen Generations. Several generations after the 1886 Act was passed, the repercussions are still felt acutely by First Nations people.

PETER SHARP: I do understand that it might seem that this is my family's story, but in a much bigger way, it's your family's story.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Yeah. I think I can't help but reflect on what happened to my people after this law was passed... sorry to get emotional, but it's pretty profound. And then when you think about the effect it had on all Aboriginal families I know, all across the country really. So even though it's just words on the page, it feels much bigger to me than just this. And I guess that's why it feels bigger to you, too.

PETER SHARP: It has to be read as it was, because it's what was said. It was what was done and was what was planned. And I think it has to shock in order for it to be for it to be -

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: To be fully absorbed.

PETER SHARP: To be fully absorbed. To tell the truth. If you say it in any other way, it's not telling the truth. And I'm sorry.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Thank you. Peter has made a bold decision to put this apology and his painful story on the public record, forever.

PETER SHARP: My name is Peter Sharp... I always believed, or guessed, that dispossession of First Peoples after the invasion must have involved massacres. It came as a shock that a member of my own family had enabled the attempted elimination to be put into law. I would've felt ashamed of myself if I didn't, because it's a story that needs to be told. It's the truth. To all those viewing who themselves, or whose families have been and still are being impacted by the introduction of laws and policies in which a member of my family played such a significant role, I say that I am personally profoundly sorry.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: This turns out to be one of the toughest days for commissioner Travis Lovett.

TRAVIS LOVETT: Can I just jump in here? Thanks for that Peter. I'd like to ask counsel for a 5-minute adjournment, if that's ok? Thank you. We'll come back in 5 minutes. I reflect on my grandparents who lived with the trauma of having their children taken from them in front of them basically and snapped up as well. My grandfather went to World War II, came back and had his children taken. I can't even fathom. I remember some of the yarns we had, and he hardly ever spoke. I'm not going to apologise for being emotional because this is our lived experience, you know.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Retired judge Anthony North is the only non-Indigenous commissioner, and this evidence has also shaken him.

COMMISSIONER ANTHONY NORTH: These laws were designed to assist the elimination of First Nations people. These are the facts we heard. These are the truths we heard. But for non-Indigenous people like me, there has been silence. We did not know of the horror of our history. We did not know the harm inflicted on First Nations people. And we did not know the ongoing damage that continues to this day. This truth commission was created with a vision of a better Victoria, a Victoria which has come to terms with its dark history. No longer can we in the non-Indigenous community say that we did not know.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: With the powers of a royal commission, this Aboriginal-led inquiry can subpoena documents and compel witnesses. The Commission has even called the Premier of Victoria, Jacinta Allan.

TRAVIS LOVETT: I hand this over, Premier, to you, to be able to hold with you today, to be able to come forward to be a part of this this process and establishing the true history of Victoria on the official public record forever as well.

PREMIER JACINTA ALLAN: I have learned much that I did not know. I did not know of the massacres, I am ashamed to say. And I was sitting there in my backyard, reading through the materials, and just felt so distressed that these were massacres that occurred not far from where I was sitting, and I didn't know about them. It brings me a sense of shame and distress personally that I did not know that, and it brings me a sense of shame and distress that this was done, this was done by people taking, all in the pursuit of taking land off First Peoples.

TONY McAVOY SC: And, indeed, the State of Victoria has received many, many times over the benefits of that process of dispossession, has it not?

PREMIER JACINTA ALLAN: Yes, it has.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Was that a surprise that the leader of Victoria didn't even know about the massacres that had occurred in her own backyard?

ELEANOR BOURKE: It was a shock, and it really immediately reinforces the point about our education. And it's just the reality of education in this country, really. We don't give priority. And from my point of view, it's disappointing. It should be foundational.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: The Commission's lawyers have grilled the government on why Aboriginal people have been locked out of vast amounts of wealth.

FIONA MCLEOD SC: The volume of gold extracted since 1851 from Victorian lands?

LILY D'AMBROSIO: About 287.4 billion dollars.

FIONA MCLEOD SC: There has never been an accounting for that wealth for First Nations people, has there?

LILY D'AMBROSIO: That's correct.

FIONA MCLEOD SC: It appears the total revenue received by the Victorian Government from water for the 13-year period is just over $83 billion. How much of the $83 billion revenue has been distributed directly to First Nations?

HARRIET SHING: The answer is zero, directly.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Yoorrook has confronted bureaucrats and ministers.

LILY D'AMBROSIO: It is wrong, what has happened is absolutely wrong. We all have to take responsibility for it and fix it.

VIC POLICE COMMISSIONER SHANE PATTON: On behalf of Victoria Police, I formally and unreservedly apologise for police actions that have caused or contributed to the trauma experienced by so many Aboriginal families in our jurisdiction.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: But for all the theatre in the room, the Yoorrook commissioners are tired of broken promises.

TRAVIS LOVETT: I want to be really clear here though, that government have known about all these injustices the whole time. You know, through this process, we have got at a minimum 10,000 documents from government. It was plain in black and white. The government knew already. The challenging thing that people don't understand is that there's never been accountability.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Yoorrook has amassed a vast body of evidence about the enduring effects of colonisation on First Nations people. It's already called for a major overhaul of the criminal justice and child protection systems. In June, it'll issue a final blueprint on redressing injustices in land and water, education, health and housing.

ELEANOR BOURKE: If our recommendations are implemented, they have to make a difference. They must make a difference.

TRAVIS LOVETT: Be brave, be bold, and do the right thing.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Do you feel the pressure, do you feel the stakes are high for this?

TRAVIS LOVETT: Oh, incredibly high. This is the most important work I'll probably ever do in my life. And so it's not a burden. I, I want to be really clear on that. It's not a burden, but it's something that weighs on my mind on a regular basis because we've got to get this right. We've got to get this right.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: It's now on the public record that Aboriginal people have suffered mass human rights abuses - and the Victorian government has agreed it's time to make amends. The next crucial step is agreeing on a deal, the country's first formal Treaty. This ceremony marks the beginning of negotiations.

RUEBEN BERG: We have resisted. We have survived. And now Treaty is about striking a fairer deal.

KEICHA DAY: There is no-one who can say that this isn't history unfolding. Because that is exactly what it is.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: Now a new generation of black leaders must take the pain of the past to fuel a modern fight for survival.

NGARRA MURRAY: The journey to get to this point has been a long one. The determination and activism of our people have kept those fires burning.

BRIDGET BRENNAN, REPORTER: But there is anxiety here too. After the failure of the Voice referendum, neither Anthony Albanese or Peter Dutton support a federal truth-telling inquiry. The Northern Territory and Queensland have also shelved their commitments to truth-telling and Treaty. And as political will on Indigenous affairs wanes, these Aboriginal leaders know this is a race against time. In many ways, uncovering the truth has been a simpler task than resolving the question of how we reconcile with Australia's history.

ELEANOR BOURKE: The hard thing is making sure the change happens, that truth should bring.

RUSSELL MULLETT: It's about knowing that history and accepting it and not tucking it away. Australia can only be a better place if we all understand each other.

PAUL BRIGGS: It's our ancestral obligations and it's our obligations to future generations that we will continue, that we will always be here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Four Corners is the home of Australian investigative journalism.