# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
National Apology to the Stolen Generations - PM Kevin Rudd

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ABC News: Paul Keating Redfern Speech (1992)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dispossession

The Gurindji people had lived on their homelands in what is now the Victoria River area of the Northern Territory for tens of thousands of years when in 1883 the colonial government granted almost 3,000 square kilometres of their country to the explorer and pastoralist Nathaniel Buchanan.

The Gurindji would have had no appreciation that someone from outside their community 'owned' part of their country.

In 1884, 1,000 cattle were moved onto the land and 10 years later there were 15,000 cattle and 8,000 bullocks. This put incredible pressure on the environment, and the system of land management the Gurindji had developed over many millennia started to break down.

This pattern was repeated across Australia as pastoralists took possession of First Nations lands and stocked them with cattle and sheep.

Traditional ways of life came under intense pressure in this clash between Western and First Nations land usage. First Nations peoples generally wanted to stay on their land; their lives were so connected to the environment there was an existential need for them to remain on Country.

This necessity to stay played into the hands of pastoralists as the cattle and sheep stations required cheap labour, and over the next 70 years First Nations peoples became an intrinsic but exploited part of the cattle industry across Northern Australia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1966: Gurindji strike (or Wave Hill Walk-Off) led by Vincent Lingiari

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Pilbara strike of 1946-49 is one of the most dramatic moments in Australia's indigenous history. Aboriginal people not only defied the owners of pastoral stations in North-West Western Australia by demanding better wages and conditions, but also sought to win independence from their colonial masters.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Immigration Restriction Act 1901, also known as the White Australia policy, affected migrants who came to Australia between 1901 and 1958.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Executive Directives are aligned under the policy statements, they have the legal force of CECWA Policies. They direct all staff on what must and should be done to ensure compliance with legislation and registration standards and inform ongoing improvement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This report is a tribute to the strength and struggles of many thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people affected by forcible removal. We acknowledge the hardships they endured and the sacrifices they made. We remember and lament all the children who will never come home.

We dedicate this report with thanks and admiration to those who found the strength to tell their stories to the Inquiry and to the generations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people separated from their families and communities.

Contents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This report is a tribute to the strength and struggles of many thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people affected by forcible removal. We acknowledge the hardships they endured and the sacrifices they made. We remember and lament all the children who will never come home.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A mixture of information on Aboriginal resistance fighters from the start of colonisation, the recent past and today.

# data[].attributes.headline
Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration

# data[].attributes.subject
Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Monday 21 February
Grafton: on the border between the Bundjalung and Gumbaynggir people

'We heard a tape prepared by a Mr Miles, from the ABC. It described the conditions of aborigines on the far north coast, really exposed the complexities of the problem and suggested concrete solutions. There were many recordings of aborigines expressing their views. The tape was prepared two years ago but had never been used - it was too hard-hitting for the ABC.' - Ann Curthoys

Tuesday 22 February
Lismore and Cabbage Tree Island: home of the Bundjalung people

'Cabbage Tree Island was very interesting but the reserve was really very much like any other reserve. The co-op shop was OK and so were some of the houses, but others did not have water or electricity. The manager seemed to be a real bastard.' - Ann Curthoys

Wednesday 23 February
Bowraville: home of the Gumbaynggir people

'We'd hardly arrived when this woman, the president or secretary or something of a local Aborigines Welfare Committee, assured us there was no discrimination in Bowraville, and told us all about how wonderful her committee was.

'A group of us went out to the reserve which was about one and a half miles out of town. It was controlled by the Welfare Board but didn't have a manager... The conditions were very bad. The houses were weatherboard, very run down, and hadn't been looked after for 15 years (the houses were 26 years old). They were extremely overcrowded.

'The general picture we got from talking to the people on the reserve was one of extreme lack of job opportunity... The discrimination in the town was absolutely shocking - by far the worst we'd encountered.

'We learnt there was a partition in the picture theatre separating the aborigines from the whites. The aborigines had to buy their tickets separately and could only enter the theatre after the picture had started.

'We learnt of a number of segregated pubs and cafes, and of instances of segregation in the school about 6 years earlier. The two populations were almost completely separate. At first we weren't sure where to start - the town was just so bad. We thought the press could blow up a big story about it, but they refused, obviously instigating us to put on a demonstration.

'We decided to first go up to the manager of the picture theatre, who had previously told Hall that he would let no aborigines in the back of the picture hall, including Charlie Perkins. We went up to see him but he refused to answer the door. The press got a photo of him opening the door slightly and shut it.' - Ann Curthoys

Thursday 24 February
Kempsey: home of the Dhanggati people

'The general picture in Kempsey re discrimination was that everything was fair (a cafe here and a pub there excepted), but the segregation of the swimming pool was the most outstanding thing.

'We took about 10-15 kids with us to the swimming pool. They weren't allowed in and neither were Charlie or Gary. Absolutely blatant.

'Charlie was very emphatic about the success of it because of the publicity, but most of the rest of us thought it an absolute flop because we had failed to force the issue within Kempsey itself. We all realised Kempsey had ignored us, which was precisely what we didn't want. - Ann Curthoys

Friday 25 February
Taree: home of the Birpai people

'Stopped at the Purfleet reserve for half an hour, talking to the people there.' - Ann Curthoys

Saturday 26 February
Sydney: home of the Eora people

'We got all tense etc near the end, because of the press conference. Had tea at Hornsby and then drove on to Uni. When we arrived there was Ted Noffs, a few pressmen, some parents etc. and that's about all. No aborigines or other supporters. We found out later that Noffs had deliberately not told anyone where and when we were arriving.' - Ann Curthoys

Aftermath

Charles Perkins reported the events to a crowd of 200 people at the 1965 Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (FCAATSI) conference in Canberra. 'The problem is out in the open now', he told them. He called for necessary follow-up work such as the building of relationships with local Aboriginal groups and improved services and access to education for Aboriginal residents in western New South Wales towns. Conference goers heard that one positive result of the students' activities was that the NSW Aborigines Welfare Board publicly announced that it would spend sixty-five thousand pounds on housing in Moree.

Later in the year, Harry Hall, president of the Walgett Aborigines' Progressive Association, appealed to Perkins and other Aboriginal activists to return to Walgett to assist in the fight against the colour bar being applied at the Oasis Hotel. Perkins and others returned to help.

The SAFA engaged in further visits to country towns later in the year but, by the end of 1966, it was finished as a political force.

The 1965 Freedom Ride through New South Wales towns and the publicity it gained, including in overseas newspapers such as the New York Times, illuminated to the world the racial discrimination happening in Australia. While the life of the SAFA was relatively short, the Ride had a lasting impact and served to strengthen the campaigns that followed to bring about greater equality and recognition for Aboriginal people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Monday 21 February Grafton: on the border between the Bundjalung and Gumbaynggir people 'We heard a tape prepared by a Mr Miles, from the ABC. It described the conditions of aborigines on the far north coast, really exposed the complexities of the problem and suggested concrete solutions.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why is this important for all Australians?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why is this important for all Australians?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While many people think that the Referendum gave Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples the right to vote, this wasn’t the case.

# data[].attributes.body
Caritas Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Who We Are | Caritas Australia Mission + Principles | Caritas Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is Caritas Australia’s Mission? We aim to provide justice, dignity and hope for all. With your help, we can achieve our vision to eradicate poverty and injustice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples, 2008, The Hon Kevin Rudd (author and signatory) (born 1957), Gemma Black (calligrapher) (born 1956), Gifts Collection, Parliament House Art Collection, Canberra ACT. Commissioned by The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, 2008.

About this collection highlight

In 1995 a National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families commenced, headed by the President of the Human Rights and Equality Commission, Sir Ronald Wilson.

By the end of 1996 nearly 800 submissions had been heard and in May 1997 the Bringing Them Home report was tabled in Parliament concluding that:
For individuals, their removal as children and the abuse they experienced at the hands of the authorities or their delegates have permanently scarred their lives. The harm continues in later generations, affecting their children and grandchildren.
After winning the 2007 election, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered an official apology on 13 February 2008. He expressed regret for past government policies that resulted in the forced removal of Indigenous children from their families.
That today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history. We reflect on their past mistreatment. We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations-this blemished chapter in our nation's history. The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia's history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future. We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians. We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country. For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry. To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry. And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry. We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation. For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written. We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians. A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again. A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity. A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed. A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility. A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples, 2008, The Hon Kevin Rudd (author and signatory) (born 1957), Gemma Black (calligrapher) (born 1956), Gifts Collection, Parliament House Art Collection, Canberra ACT. Commissioned by The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, 2008.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In response, Vincent Lingiari said this:

"Let us live happily together as mates, let us not make it hard for each other... We want to live in a better way together, Aboriginals and white men, let us not fight over anything, let us be mates."

But what led to this historical event?

In 1973, Prime Minister Whitlam announced that funds would be made available for the purchase of properties that were not on reserves, and Lord Vestey, from Vesteys pastoral company, surrendered the land in question to the Gurindji people.

The Gurindji walk-off would be the longest protest in Australian history.

The Gurindji campaign was an important influence on the events leading to passing the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (Northern Territory) 1976.

Who was Vincent Lingiari?

His traditional Aboriginal wife was named Blanche Nangi and they had six sons and two daughters.

In 1976, Vincent Lingiari was named a Member of the Order of Australia for his services to the Aboriginal peoples.

The Northern Territory Federal electorate 'Lingiari' is named after him, and a memorial to him is located in Reconciliation Place, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory.

We asked people on the street how much they knew about this iconic image - here's what they had to say.

Use the hashtag #ThePointNITV to join the discussion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vincent Lingiari & Gough Whitlam: the story behind the image

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The powerful image you see depicted here is of two great but different leaders, Vincent Lingiari, a fiercely, proud and respected Gurindji man from Daguragu, Wattie Creek Station, in the Northern Territory and Gough Whitlam, the 21st Prime Minister of Australia is one of the iconic images that make...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Clancy, Dooley and Don McLeod and The 1946 Pilbara Strike - Shane Howard

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
and that this was unlikely to change. The means of maintaining this racial and cultural homogeneity is loosely termed the White Australia policy.

The 'White Australia' ideology was commercialised and used to sell things from soaps and games to pineapple slices.

Immediately following Federation in 1901, policies were designed to keep Australia white and British. Non-racial language was used to minimise international condemnation, but the xenophobic concern was plainly evident. Australia's first prime minister, Edmund Barton,

his belief in white superiority:

There is no racial equality. There is that basic inequality. These races are, in comparison with white races - I think no-one wants convincing of this fact - unequal and inferior.

The White Australia policy was in place for seven decades after 1901 and had a profound impact on the newly federated Commonwealth.

What happened?

The White Australia policy was not a single government directive but a series of acts with a common goal: to achieve and maintain a white, British national character. The

(all passed in 1901) formed the initial legislative foundation.

The progressive Whitlam government symbolically buried the last remnants of the White Australia policy in 1973. The

made it illegal to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" someone because of their race. Those words are from Section 18C of that act, which the current government is

What was its impact?

The masthead of the popular Bulletin magazine read:

Australia for the White Man.

The object of the White Australia board game was to:

... get the coloured men out and the white men in.

The acceptance of large numbers of Vietnamese refugees under the Fraser government was seen as a litmus test of whether the White Australia policy was really gone.

The White Australia Game was registered in 1914 and was popular throughout the 1920s. Migration Heritage Centre

What are its contemporary implications?

In the 1980s, the

made the economic case for greater Asia literacy. However, the region was - and

- viewed by many with suspicion. In 1996, Pauline Hanson warned parliament that Australia risked being "

In the lead-up to the 2001 election, Norwegian container ship the

rescued 438 asylum seekers and attempted to enter Australian waters. Prime Minister John Howard refused to accept them, causing a tense diplomatic stand-off. The widespread support for Howard, which arguably helped him secure election victory, has been

as evidence of a lingering White Australia mindset.

have argued that the White Australia ideology is still shaping Australian immigration policies in the 21st century, especially in regard to refugees. The bipartisan commitment to offshore processing and the re-emergence of Hanson's One Nation party following the 2016 election lend some weight to this view.

, however, agree with the prime minister. Multiculturalism is here to stay.
Benjamin T. Jones does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What was the White Australia Policy, and how does it still affect us now?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Australian politics explainer: the White Australia policy.

# data[].attributes.headline
What does this mean for me, professionally?

# data[].attributes.subject
What does this mean for me, professionally?

# data[].attributes.body
Chapter 7

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Part 2 Tracing the History

Chapter 7 Western Australia

In many things the white people mean well, but they have so little understanding. My experience has convinced me that, psychologically, the Native Department is working on wrong lines ... The same law that applies to the white race should apply to the native races in that particular. I think that is most essential. Our native mothers have all the natural feelings of mothers the world over, and to many of them the administration of the Native Department, by men only, is stark tragedy (Gladys Prosser, a Noongar mother, in an interview to Perth's Sunday Times, later quoted in a speech to the Legislative Council by Hon. H Seddon Hansard 22 November 1938 page 2246).

Following the founding of the Swan River Colony in 1829 relations between the British settlers and local Indigenous peoples in Western Australia became characterised by conflict. As a result of fierce fighting,

... on the Swan and Canning Rivers all opposition by the Aborigines had ceased by 1832, while the Murray River tribe gave no further trouble after it had been decimated by posses of settlers and soldiers in what became known as the battle of Pinjarra (Biskup 1973 page 7).

Following the report of the 1837 British Select Committee into the condition of `natives' in all British colonies, protectors were appointed in Perth and York. By 1850 the protectors had become firmly aligned with the colonists against the Aboriginal population. So successful were they in securing the settlers' interests that the office of protector was abolished and not revived until 1886. In the interim police and magistrates were assigned the protective role. In reality settlers took the law into their own hands.

From the 1860s the pastoral frontier expanded northwards and eastwards, with the Kimberley region reached in the 1880s. A ban on the employment of convicts north of the Murchison River made pastoralists dependent upon Indigenous labour for which rations were provided instead of wages. In the south, the pattern was different. Indigenous communities developed in camps on the outskirts of towns and supported themselves by hunting and working casually for local farmers and businesses. Some became farmers themselves until their properties were resumed in the early twentieth century.

In the 1840s several church-run schools for Indigenous children opened with government financial assistance. By 1847 all but one had closed because of financial constraints and because children had been reclaimed by their parents following the deaths of some pupils from disease. The remaining school was at the Roman Catholic mission at New Norcia where Indigenous families settled near the mission while their children were housed in dormitories within the mission complex.

In the late nineteenth century two institutions opened in the south for Indigenous children. Although they were run as orphanages, many of the children sent there had living parents (Haebich 1988 page 8). The children were schooled and trained for domestic and farm work. Under the Industrial Schools Act 1874 children who were voluntarily surrendered to a school, orphanage or institution would remain under its authority until the age of 21 regardless of the parents' wishes. The manager of the institution could apprentice children over the age of 12.

Responding to atrocities committed against Indigenous people in Western Australia the British Parliament passed the Aborigines Protection Act 1886 establishing the Aborigines Protection Board. Among the Board's functions was `the care, custody and education of Aboriginal children'. Resident Magistrates, acting on the Board's instructions, were empowered to apprentice any Aboriginal or `half-caste' child of a `suitable age'. Under the 1874 Act applying to non-Indigenous children the minimum age at which children could be apprenticed was 12 years.

In reducing the age of Aboriginals against whom contracts shall have force, your committee considers that ten years is not too young, as Aboriginal children mature so much more quickly than civilised ones, and it is at that age that habits of thrift and honesty are most easily inculcated. Should they be at liberty to roam about without employment until 16 they would be useless afterwards (comments of the Parliamentary Select Committee which reviewed the Bill prior to its enactment, quoted by Dr Neville Green submission 341 on page 6).

Concern about the treatment of Indigenous people in WA led the British Government to retain control of Aboriginal affairs until 1897 when the Aborigines Act 1897 was passed. This Act created the Aborigines Department with the same functions as the Board. Henry Prinsep, who had experience in colonial administration in India, was appointed Chief Protector.

Prinsep believed that Aboriginal children of mixed descent who grew up with their Aboriginal families would become `vagrants and outcasts' and `not only a disgrace, but a menace to society' (quoted by Haebich 1988 on page 57). Lacking any legislative power to forcibly remove these children to the existing institutions and missions (which were not under his control), he endeavoured to `persuade' the parents to part with their children. In a circular letter to all Protectors and Government Residents in WA dated February 1902 Prinsep requested information on any `half-caste' children in their districts who could be induced to enter one of the existing institutions for their care and eduction.

Not surprisingly, most mothers refused to part with their children. For the few that agreed, hasty arrangements were made for the child's removal in case the mother changed her mind (Dr Christine Choo submission 385 page 7). Referring to his very limited success in this exercise, Prinsep complained in 1902 that `the natural affections of the mothers ... stood much in the way' (Aborigines Department Annual Report 1902 quoted by Haebich 1988 on page 67).

Prinsep proposed the extension of his powers to enable him to remove children forcibly and without parental consent.

In 1904 the WA Government established an inquiry into Aboriginal administration headed by Dr W E Roth, the Chief Protector of Aborigines in Queensland. Although he was asked to inquire into `the treatment of the aboriginal and half-caste inhabitants of the State' as well as the administration of Aboriginal affairs generally, he limited his inquiry to conditions in the north-west and far north. His findings of `a most brutal and outrageous state of affairs' in which Aboriginal people were exploited, brutally controlled and malnourished caused a public furore. He recommended `proper legislation, combined with firm departmental supervision' (quoted by Leaming 1986 on page 4).

Although Roth did not investigate conditions in the south-west he supported Prinsep's concerns about the increasing numbers of `half-castes' there, then numbering about 750. He noted that pastoralists who fathered `half-caste' children made little attempt to educate or support them. The appropriate course, according to Roth, was for the Chief Protector to assume guardianship of these children, to remove them from their Aboriginal families and place them in institutions. To prevent the problem arising again in the future there should be prohibitions against `mixed marriages' and `miscegenation'.

Roth's recommendations were implemented by the Aborigines Act 1905 making the Chief Protector the legal guardian of `every Aboriginal and half-caste child' under 16 years.

[A] half-caste, who possesses few of the virtues and nearly all of the vices of whites, grows up to be a mischievous and very immoral subject ... it may appear to be a cruel thing to tear an Aborigine child from its mother, but it is necessary in some cases to be cruel to be kind (J M Drew, WA Parliamentary Debates 1904, quoted by Biskup 1973 on page 142).

It was claimed that it was `wrong, unjust and a disgrace to the State' to leave children to be cared for by their mothers. More generally, the 1905 Act

... laid the basis for the development of repressive and coercive state control over the state's Aboriginal population. It set up the necessary bureaucratic and legal mechanisms to control all their contacts with the wider community, and to enforce the assimilation of their children and to determine the most personal aspects of their lives (Haebich 1988 page 83).

Missions

In the north of WA a Catholic mission was established at Beagle Bay in 1890. Another four followed in the next 20 years with the help of government subsidies. The missions shared Prinsep's objectives of removing the children from their families.

As soon as possible, children can be removed from the adult camp and the nomadic ways of their parents, and be housed in dormitories on mission premises to be educated at school and in trades (Father George Walter, Superior at Beagle Bay, 1906, quoted by Dr Christine Choo submission 385 on page 6).

In 1906 the Pallottines at Beagle Bay requested that the police round up the Indigenous children living in and around the north-west towns, now wards of the Chief Protector, and send them to the mission.

If the police sent me only the most obvious cases, the number of children on the mission would be about 200 (Father George Walter, Superior at Beagle Bay, 1906 letter to Chief Protector, quoted by Dr Christine Choo submission 385 on page 11).

The local protector, James Isdell, supported the mission's concern to rescue `waifs and strays from the bad contaminating influence of natives' camps'.

The half-caste is intellectually above the aborigine, and it is the duty of the State that they be given a chance to lead a better life than their mothers. I would not hesitate for one moment to separate any half-caste from its aboriginal mother, no matter how frantic her momentary grief might be at the time. They soon forget their offspring (quoted by Dr Christine Choo submission 385 on page 14).

In the south of the State little use of the removal power was made before 1909. In that year a regulation dispensed with the need for the Chief Protector's permission to remove any mixed descent child under the age of eight. The number of forcible removals increased and the children were taken to New Norcia, the Swan Native and Half-Caste Home and the Dulhi Gunyah Orphanage in Perth. To put pressure on parents to send their children to the missions the Aborigines Department refused to assist orphaned or needy children away from the missions.

`Native settlements'

Protests from non-Indigenous people in the south about the presence of Aboriginal camps on the edges of towns led the government to revise its approach. The new plan was to establish isolated self-contained `native settlements' run by the government. Chief Protector A O Neville who was appointed in 1915 and who remained in the position until 1940, was firmly committed to the new plan.

Neville saw the settlements as a means of integrating children of mixed descent into the non-Indigenous society. They were to be physically separated from their families on the settlements, receive a European education, be trained in domestic and stock work and then sent out to approved work situations. Between jobs they would return to the settlements. Neville theorised that this process would lead to their acceptance by non-Indigenous people and their own loss of identification as Indigenous people.

My [wife's] father died when she was eleven, so Rose was left an orphan, and was placed in the New Norcia home for Aboriginal girls ... Rose left her life in New Norcia mission when she turned fourteen, to work as a housemaid. But before she could go out to work, she had to come to the Moore River Native Settlement ... Rose had no trouble being placed in service to a white woman. In between she had to return to the settlement ... All those who went out to work had to return to Moore River when their terms of employment were finished: to do otherwise meant to be hounded by the authorities and made to return. Again, no options! No choice! (van den Berg 1994 pages 88-89).

Neville began by taking control of the mission at Carrolup and expanding its size to be self-supporting. In 1918 a second settlement was opened, at Moore River. In the north, too, Neville wanted to take control of the missions and turn them into self-supporting cattle stations. Moola Bulla in the Kimberley was his model. It had opened in 1910 as a ration depot and government-run cattle station. It was intended to be an alternative to the more expensive option of imprisoning large numbers of Aboriginal people for cattle spearing as well as `raising beef to feed them and ... training men for work on the stations' (Long 1970 page 192).

There would be considerable savings to the government as it would no longer have to subsidise the missions.

Generally the recommendations are made on the score of economy, combined with the knowledge that the Missions are not performing the useful work which might be expected of them. A large number of natives and half-castes are growing up in idleness instead of being employed on the various stations in the Northern portions of the State ... scores of the children are growing up without any prospect of a future before them, being alienated from their old bush life, and rendered more or less useless for the condition of life being forced upon them (A O Neville quoted by Jacobs 1990 on pages 77-78).

Two former pastoral stations were acquired: Munja in 1926 and Violet Valley in 1935. On purchasing Munja Neville commented that `the purpose of establishing the stations was to pacify the natives and accustom them to white man's ways and thus enable further settlement' (quoted by Kimberley Land Council submission 345 on page 11). Although no other missions were established in the north during Neville's time in office the United Aborigines Mission founded a mission at Mount Margaret in the Goldfields in 1921.

Indigenous families did not willingly move to these settlements. In the south most were able to find employment in their local area, receiving wages which were preferred to the payment in kind offered at settlements. The living conditions at the settlements were not significantly better yet they were highly regulated. The parents rightly feared that their children would be placed in segregated dormitories if the family moved to a settlement.

The missions attracted families whose children would otherwise be taken from them.

Even when at the mission the children still took every precaution. The women discussed in the raffia room what to do with their children if the police should take them on the hop. Where could they hide them? - inside the cupboard perhaps? ... The children however took matters into their own hands. They continually kept their ears cocked for horses' hooves.

[In 1926] came a visit from A.J. Neale, new manager of Moore River Settlement, representing the Aborigines Department. Dicky Wingulu, Doris's tribal father, talked to Mr Neale and pleaded for his little girls that they not be sent away to Moore River. Finally he persuaded Mr Neale that Mount Margaret would be a good place to send them, as he had heard they were starting a school (Morgan 1991 pages 83 and 94).

As in the past, to compel people to move the Aborigines Department refused rations or other assistance to people living away from the settlements. In response to complaints from local police about the camps on the outskirts of non-Indigenous towns, Indigenous people were `rounded up' by police and sent to the settlements. Aborigines convicted of alcohol related offences were also sent to Moore River for their `rehabilitation'. Between 1915 and 1920 at least 500 people, about a quarter of the Indigenous population in the south, had been removed to settlements. Moore River expanded quickly. In January 1919 there were 19 inmates at Moore River, in June 1919 93 inmates, by June 1927 330 inmates and by 1932 500 (Choo 1989 page 45).

In the north, travelling inspectors kept a watch for mixed descent children on pastoral stations and in communities. Warrants were then prepared for their forcible removal to the government settlements in the north or far south to Moore River.

Work placements

At the age of 14 children of mixed descent were sent out from the settlements to work. A large proportion of the young women returned pregnant. Though annoyed that the burden of maintaining these children fell upon the government, Neville did not feel that the high rate of pregnancies reflected adversely on his department's policies.

The child is taken away from the mother and sometimes never sees her again. Thus these children grow up as whites, knowing nothing of their own environment. At the expiration of the period of two years the mother goes back into service so that it doesn't really matter if she has half a dozen children (quoted by Choo 1989 on pages 49-50).

`Biological absorption'

By the 1930s Neville had refined his ideas of integrating Indigenous people into non-Indigenous society. His model was a biological one of `absorption' or `assimilation', argued in the language of genetics. Unlike the ideology of racial purity that emerged in Germany from eugenics, according to which `impure races' had to be prevented from `contaminating' the pure Aryan race, Neville argued the advantages of `miscegenation' between Aboriginal and white people.

The key issue to Neville was skin colour. Once `half-castes' were sufficiently white in colour they would become like white people. After two or three generations the process of acceptance in the non-Indigenous community would be complete, the older generations would have died and the settlements could be closed.

Neville claimed that the settlements prepared Indigenous children to be `absorbed' into non-Indigenous society. He argued that for the absorption process to work properly his powers needed to be extended to all children with any Indigenous background. The grandiose nature of his `vision' contrasted starkly with the reality of life in the chronically under-funded settlements.

I visited the Moore River Settlement several times [in the 1930s]. The setting was a poor one with no advantage for anyone except isolation. The facilities were limited and some of them were makeshift. The staff were inadequate both in numbers and qualification. The inmates disliked the place. It held no promise of a future for any of them and they had little or no satisfaction in the present. It was a dump (Hasluck 1988 page 65).

Opposition and dissent

Public reaction to Neville's ideas was mixed. The segregation of Aboriginal people had been actively supported by non-Indigenous people. Neville's support for `miscegenation' was in a different category. `[A] variety of harsh words were expressed about the Chief Protector's outrageous suggestion that marriages between black and white (because if it was out in the open it would have to be marriage) should be condoned' (Jacobs 1990 page 195).

In the early 1930s allegations of slavery, mistreatment of Aborigines and abuse of Aboriginal women appeared in the local and international press. Among them was a series of articles by Mary Bennett attacking the administration of Aboriginal affairs. The pressure of this publicity forced the government to establish a Royal Commission into the conditions of Aborigines, headed by a Perth magistrate, H D Moseley. In evidence to the Commission, Bennett attacked the practice of removing children from their mothers.

They are captured at all ages, as infants in arms, perhaps not until they are grown up, they are not safe until they are dead (quoted by Jacobs 1990 on page 234).

Bessie Rischbieth also gave evidence to the Moseley Commission arguing that `neglect' was not a justification for removing Aboriginal children to the settlements. `In most instances I should prefer to see the children left with their parents ... the system of dealing with the parents should be improved in order that they might keep their children.' (quoted by Paisley 1995 on page 266). In her opinion government administrations were forcibly removing children `because it was cheaper than providing the same system of support which operated for neglected white children' (Paisley 1995 page 266).

Aboriginal women from Broome sent a petition to the Commission in which they asked `would you like to think that when you send your children to school that you would never see them again?' (quoted by Paisley 1995 on page 267).

Neville's response to these attacks on his policies was to argue that removal was in the best interests of children.

I say emphatically there are scores of children in the bush camps who should be taken away from whoever is looking after them and placed in a settlement ... If we are going to fit and train such children for the future they cannot be left as they are ... I want to give these children a chance ... Unless those children are removed, social conditions in those places will go from bad to worse ... I want to teach them right from wrong. How are the children to fight against these conditions? The conditions in the absence of teaching, are going to become infinitely worse than they are now (quoted by Jacobs 1990 on page 235).

Moseley was sufficiently impressed by Neville's views to recommend the extension of his powers to all people of Aboriginal descent. The Native Administration Act 1936 defined `natives' to include nearly all people of full and part descent regardless of their lifestyle and expanded restrictions on movement and lifestyle.

Virtually any child of Aboriginal descent could now be taken forcibly from his or her family and placed in a government institution to be trained in the ways of `white civilisation' and `society'. The Commissioner of Native Affairs, not their parents, had total control over their lives until they reached the age of twenty-one. From this age any person of `quarter-caste' or less was prohibited by law from associating with persons deemed to be `natives'. In this way they were to be forced to live in the white community, although no measures were introduced to force white people to accept them (Haebich 1988 on page 351).

Sister Kate's

In the early 1930s Kate Clutterbuck, an Anglican nun, offered to open a home in Perth for `half-caste' children if government funding were provided. She informed Neville that `we should of course like to have the poorest and most neglected children not those who have mothers who love and care for them, but those who are most unwanted in the State' (quoted by Jacobs 1990 on page 218). Neville took advantage of the offer to put his ideas into practice. Once the home commenced operations in 1933 he began to supply Sister Kate with the lightest skinned children.

Sister Kate's Home operated until 1974 with an average of 85 children staying there at any one time (WA Government submission page 19).

In 1940 Neville retired. He was succeeded by Francis Bray and then, in 1948, by Stanley Middleton. Just prior to Middleton taking office, an inquiry by F E A Bateman had recommended the abandonment of the policy of government settlements. By then, the language of `welfare' and `social assimilation' had started to replace that of `absorption' and `miscegenation'.

In Middleton's view, isolating children of mixed descent on run-down government settlements was not the way to achieve assimilation. In 1951 Carrolup (Marribank) and Moore River (Mogumber) were transferred to mission control, followed by Sister Kate's Home in 1956, and financial arrangements were made with them for the placement of removed children.

In the north financial support was offered to the existing missions and whole communities were forced to move, sometimes several times, as the smaller missions were closed. In 1955 Moola Bulla was sold. Although it was a condition of the sale that the new owners would look after the interests of the Aboriginal inhabitants of the area, the new owners arranged for the Department of Native Affairs to transport them to Fitzroy Crossing and Halls Creek (WA Government submission, Appendix 2 page 9).

I can't remember anything much about the day we were evicted from Moola Bulla [in July 1955] because they just came and told us to go. There was no explanation, we don't know what happened. We were stunned. There were four kids and no money to feed them. A transport contractor, took all the people into Halls Creek. We camped around the race course for a few days, whilst asking for jobs on other stations ... The welfare gave us some rations, that's all. It was July and pretty cold and we camped, waiting, just like a refugee camp. We were brought to Moola Bulla as children without our consent nor our mother's and the later kicked off the land after living there for so long. It caused us a lot of pain inside. We were displaced and lost with no sense of belonging.
Quoted by Kimberley Land Council submission 345 on pages 64-5.

Another aspect of the assimilation policy was that Indigenous children were to be accepted into the state schools. From the early 1950s the schools were opened to them. Children in the north were encouraged to attend schools in Derby, Wyndham and Broome while they stayed in government and mission-run educational hostels for most of the year. They were allowed home during holidays if they had a `suitable home' to go to.

In the Kimberley, during this period, a `suitable home' was difficult to provide for people who had limited employment opportunities, no housing and limited access to Welfare services. In any case, not all parents could afford to pay for airfares or other means for their children to travel long distances across the Kimberley (Kimberley Land Council submission 345 page 18).

As in other remote regions of Australia, Indigenous children were effectively separated for very long periods from their families, communities and cultures by their need to relocate for schooling. In 1958 it was estimated that 25% of Kimberley children were living in missions (Dr Anna Haebich submission 342).

`The welfare'

From 1951 in WA Aboriginal children were more likely to be removed under the Child Welfare Act 1947 by the Child Welfare Department than by the Department of Native Welfare acting under the 1936 Act. This practice was formalised when the Native Welfare Act 1954 was passed revoking the removal power of the Commissioner for Native Affairs. The Commissioner remained the legal guardian of all Aboriginal children except State wards until the Native Welfare Act 1963 was passed.

Although the child welfare legislation required a court to be satisfied that the child was destitute or neglected, the requirement made little impact on the numbers removed in practice. The definition of destitution could be applied to the situation of many Aboriginal families with few material resources whose lifestyle was the subject of constant surveillance by government officials.

... all of a sudden the Welfare just came and took them, they didn't say anything to me, just picked up the boys coming back from the shop and the Welfare made them wards of the State. I used to work at the hospital nursing, keeping my little family together. If the Welfare wanted to help they could have given money every fortnight like they do now ... They weren't helping taking [them] away or splitting us up, that was the most terrible thing that they done to my family, my sons and myself.
Confidential submission 197, Western Australia: mother of two boys removed in the late 1950s.

A thorough examination was not made as the father was not present. From what I saw however, I am satisfied that the children are `neglected', if for no other reason than the shack they live in (welfare officer's file note dated 11 January 1968, quoted by Telling Our Story 1995 on page 76).

The definition of neglect was also interpreted in a climate of assimilation which denigrated the worth of Aboriginal lifestyles. Aboriginal families who had moved to towns and cities following the closure of some of the missions and settlements and had to re-establish themselves were particularly vulnerable to action under the 1947 Act.

In 1958 the Special Committee on Native Matters warned that `removal of a child from his mother at an early age can cause serious psychological and mental disturbances'. This warning was ignored (WA Government submission page 26). Between 1958 and 1961 the number of Aboriginal children committed to government care more than doubled (Marron 1994).

In 1966 the award for pastoral workers was extended to Aboriginal people, meaning that from 1968 Aboriginal workers in the pastoral industry were entitled to equal pay. This decision led to the eviction of whole communities from pastoral stations. These families settled on the outskirts of towns in conditions of dire poverty and were extremely vulnerable to intervention by `the welfare'.

During this period Native Welfare Department publications increasingly stressed the need to keep families together. However, as records on the numbers of Aboriginal children in care were not kept, it is almost impossible to assess the impact of this change in emphasis. Overall the number of children committed to care between 1971 and 1973 halved and over half of those committed were returned home or placed with their extended family (WA Government submission page 51).

Towards self-management

In 1972 the Department of Native Welfare was abolished and its welfare responsibilities were absorbed by the Department of Community Welfare. At the time there were 3,099 Aboriginal people in institutions, almost one in every ten Aboriginal people in the State. The majority of these people were children.

The Child Welfare Act 1947 was amended in 1976 to repeal `destitution' and `neglect' as grounds for removal and to introduce the concept of being `in need of care and protection'. Aboriginal children, however, remained dramatically over-represented among WA children in State care. In the period 1979-81 57% of children in care were Aboriginal and 66% of them had been placed with non-Indigenous families ( Children in Limbo 1981 page 157).

In 1980 an Aboriginal Child Care Agency was established in Perth. It was replaced in 1991 by the Yorganop Child Care Corporation.

The Aboriginal Child Placement Principle became the policy of the Department of Community Services in 1985. A review of the department in 1989 showed that there had been a 58% reduction over the previous five years in the number of Aboriginal children in departmentally subsidised foster care and that most Aboriginal children were placed with Aboriginal caregivers, including 66% with relatives (WA Government submission page 58).

Millicent

At the age of four, I was taken away from my family and placed in Sister Kate's Home - Western Australia where I was kept as a ward of the state until I was eighteen years old. I was forbidden to see any of my family or know of their whereabouts. Five of us D. children were all taken and placed in different institutions in WA. The Protector of Aborigines and the Child Welfare Department in their `Almighty Wisdom' said we would have a better life and future brought up as whitefellas away from our parents in a good religious environment. All they contributed to our upbringing and future was an unrepairable scar of loneliness, mistrust, hatred and bitterness. Fears that have been with me all of life. The empty dark and lonely existence was so full of many hurtful and unforgivable events, that I cannot escape from no matter how hard I try. Being deprived of the most cherished and valuable thing in life as an Aboriginal Child - love and family bonds. I would like to tell my story of my life in Sister Kate's home - WA.

My name is Millicent D. I was born at Wonthella WA in 1945. My parents were CD and MP, both `half-caste' Aborigines. I was one of seven children, our family lived in the sandhills at the back of the Geraldton Hospital. There was a lot of families living there happy and harmonious. It was like we were all part of one big happy family.

In 1949 the Protector of Aborigines with the Native Welfare Department visited the sandhill camps. All the families living there were to be moved to other campsites or to the Moore River Aboriginal Settlement. Because my parents were fair in complexion, the authorities decided us kids could pass as whitefellas. I was four years old and that was the last time I was to see my parents again. Because my sisters were older than me they were taken to the Government receiving home at Mount Lawley. My brother Kevin was taken to the boys home in Kenwick. Colin and I were taken to the Sister Kate's Home.We were put in separate accommodation and hardly ever saw each other. I was so afraid and unhappy and didn't understand what was happening.

We were told Sundays was visiting day when parents and relatives came and spent the day. For Colin and I that was a patch of lies because our family were not allowed to visit. We spent each Sunday crying and comforting each other as we waited for our family. Each time it was the same - no one came. That night we would cry ourselves to sleep and wonder why. We were too young to understand we were not allowed family visits.

A couple of years passed and I started primary school. It had been such a long time since I had seen my brother Colin. I was so helpless and alone. My brother had been taken away to the boys' home in Kenwick and now I was by myself. I became more withdrawn and shy and lived in a little world of my own hoping one day Mum would come and take me out of that dreadful place. As the years passed I realised that I would never see my family again.

They told me that my family didn't care...

They told me that my family didn't care or want me and I had to forget them. They said it was very degrading to belong to an Aboriginal family and that I should be ashamed of myself, I was inferior to whitefellas. They tried to make us act like white kids but at the same time we had to give up our seat for a whitefella because an Aboriginal never sits down when a white person is present.

Then the religion began. We had church three times a day, before breakfast, lunchtime and after school. If we were naughty or got home from school late we had to kneel at the altar for hours and polish all the floors and brass in the church. We had religion rammed down our throats from hypocrites who didn't know the meaning of the word. We used to get whipped with a wet ironing cord and sometimes had to hold other children (naked) while they were whipped, and if we didn't hold them we got another whipping. To wake us up in the morning we were sprayed up the backside with an old fashioned pump fly spray. If we complained we got more. Hurt and humiliation was a part of our every day life and we had to learn to live with it.

Several more years passed and I still had no contact with my family, I didn't know what they looked like or how I could ever find them. By this time I was old enough to go to High School. This meant I didn't have to look after several of the younger kids as I had previously done, bathing, feeding and putting them on the potty and then off to bed, chopping wood before school and housework which all of us kids done and the housemothers sat back and collected wages - for doing nothing. My life was miserable, and I felt I was a nobody and things couldn't get any worse. But I was wrong.

The worst was yet to come.

While I was in first year high school I was sent out to work on a farm as a domestic. I thought it would be great to get away from the home for a while. At first it was. I was made welcome and treated with kindness. The four shillings I was payed went to the home. I wasn't allowed to keep it, I didn't care. I was never payed for the work I did at Sister Kate's so you don't miss what you didn't get, pocket money etc.

The first time I was sent to the farm for only a few weeks and then back to school. In the next holidays I had to go back. This time it was a terrifying experience, the man of the house used to come into my room at night and force me to have sex. I tried to fight him off but he was too strong.

When I returned to the home I was feeling so used and unwanted. I went to the Matron and told her what happened. She washed my mouth out with soap and boxed my ears and told me that awful things would happen to me if I told any of the other kids. I was so scared and wanted to die. When the next school holidays came I begged not to be sent to that farm again. But they would not listen and said I had to.

I ran away from the home, I was going to try to find my family. It was impossible, I didn't even know where to go. The only thing was to go back. I got a good belting and had to kneel at the altar everyday after school for two weeks. Then I had to go back to that farm to work. The anguish and humiliation of being sent back was bad enough but the worse was yet to come.

This time I was raped, bashed and slashed with a razor blade on both of my arms and legs because I would not stop struggling and screaming. The farmer and one of his workers raped me several times. I wanted to die, I wanted my mother to take me home where I would be safe and wanted. Because I was bruised and in a state of shock I didn't have to do any work but wasn't allowed to leave the property.

When they returned me to the home I once again went to the Matron. I got a belting with a wet ironing cord, my mouth washed out with soap and put in a cottage by myself away from everyone so I couldn't talk to the other girls. They constantly told me that I was bad and a disgrace and if anyone knew it would bring shame to Sister Kate's Home. They showed me no comfort which I desperately needed. I became more and more distant from everyone and tried to block everything out of my mind but couldn't. I ate rat poison to try and kill myself but became very sick and vomited. This meant another belting.

After several weeks of being kept away from everyone I was examined by a doctor who told the Matron I was pregnant. Another belting, they blamed me for everything that had happened. I didn't care what happened to me anymore and kept to myself. All I wanted now was to have my baby and get away as far as I could and try and find my family.

My daughter was born [in 1962] at King Edward Memorial Hospital. I was so happy, I had a beautiful baby girl of my own who I could love and cherish and have with me always.

But my dreams were soon crushed: the bastards took her from me and said she would be fostered out until I was old enough to look after her. They said when I left Sister Kate's I could have my baby back. I couldn't believe what was happening. My baby was taken away from me just as I was from my mother.

My baby was taken away from me just as I was from my mother.

Once again I approached the Matron asking for the Address of my family and address of the foster family who had my daughter. She said that it was Government Policy not to give information about family and she could not help me. I then asked again about my baby girl and was told she did not know her whereabouts. In desperation I rang the King Edward Memorial Hospital. They said there was no record of me ever giving birth or of my daughter Toni. Then I wrote to the Native Welfare Department only to be told the same thing and that there were no records of the D. family because all records were destroyed by fire.

I now had no other options but to find a job and somewhere to live. After working for a while I left Western Australia and moved to Adelaide to try and get my life together and put the past behind me. I was very alone, shy and not many friends and would break down over the simplest thing. Every time I saw a baby I used to wonder, could that by my little girl. I loved her and so desperately wanted her back. So in 1972 I returned to Western Australia and again searched for my family and child. I returned to see the Matron from Sister Kate's. This time she told me that my daughter was dead and it would be in my best interest to go back to South Australia and forget about my past and my family. I so wanted to find them, heartbroken I wandered the streets hoping for the impossible. I soon realized that I could come face to face with a family member and wouldn't even know.

Defeated I finally returned to Adelaide. In my heart I believed that one day everything would be alright and I would be reunited with my family. My baby was dead. (That's what I was told). I didn't even get to hold her, kiss her and had no photographs, but her image would always be with me, and I would always love her. They couldn't take that away from me.

C onfidential submission 640, South Australia: WA woman removed in 1949. In January 1996, Millicent received an enquiry from the South Australian welfare authorities. A woman born in 1962 was searching for her birth mother. This was Toni, Millicent's daughter. The two have since been reunited.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In many things the white people mean well, but they have so little understanding. My experience has convinced me that, psychologically, the Native Department is working on wrong lines ... The same law that applies to the white race should apply to the native races in that particular.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Dreaming embraces time past, present and future, a substantively different concept from populist characterisations portraying it as "timeless" or having taken place at the so-called "dawn of time". Unfortunately, even in mainstream Australia today, when and where we should know better, schmaltzy, quasi-New Age notions of "The Dreaming" frequently still hold sway. The Australian anthropologist W.E.H. Stanner conveyed the idea more accurately in his germinal 1956 essay The Dreaming, in which he coined the term "everywhen": "One cannot 'fix' The Dreaming in time: it was, and is, everywhen" wrote Stanner, adding that The Dreaming " ... has ... an unchallengeable sacred authority". Stanner went on to observe that: "We [non-Indigenous Australians] shall not understand The Dreaming fully except as a complex of meanings".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Dreaming embraces time past, present and future, a substantively different concept from populist characterisations portraying it as "timeless" or having taken place at the so-called "dawn of time". Unfortunately, even in mainstream Australia today, when and where we should know better, schmaltzy, quasi-New Age notions of "The Dreaming" frequently still hold sway.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recognition, listening and better results. Vote Yes on October 14.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Saturday 27th of May marks the 50th anniversary of the 1967 Referendum in which Australians voted overwhelmingly to amend the Constitution to allow the Commonwealth to make laws for Aboriginal people and include them in the Census of Population and Housing conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, commencing with the 1971 Census.

The referendum put the following question to the Australian people:
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'?
The proposed law (Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967) sought to give the Commonwealth Parliament power to make laws with respect to Aboriginal people wherever they lived in Australia. It also sought to make it possible to fully include Aboriginal people in the national five-yearly census. The amendment deleted part of section 51 (xxvi) of the Constitution and repealed section 127.

Turnout for the referendum was almost 94 per cent, and the result was a strong 'Yes' vote, with a significant majority in all six states and an overall majority of almost 91 per cent. The results of the referendum vote are set out below:

The referendum also put a separate question on a proposed law seeking to remove the connection in the Constitution between the number of members of the House of Representatives and the number of senators; this question was not carried. The estimated cost of the referendum was $1,041,000 (approx. $12.9m in 2016 prices).
Background
The reasons for the previous and explicit exclusion of Aboriginal people by sections 51 (xxvi) and 127 of the Constitution are not entirely clear. However, the effect of this exclusion was the implementation by the states of policies that could broadly be termed 'assimilationist', and laws that resulted in Aboriginal peoples' dispossession, oppression and alienation.

Following longstanding calls for greater Commonwealth involvement in Indigenous affairs, in the 1960s the pressure for change built rapidly. In the face of evidence that assimilationist policies had failed, and with Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal activists drawing attention to the denial of civil rights and discrimination that these policies entailed, the plight of Aboriginal people became a significant political issue. Activists ran petition campaigns to amend the Constitution in support of Indigenous civil rights, and bills seeking to amend the Constitution in favour of Aboriginal people were debated in the Federal Parliament.

In 1967, in response to a Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (FCAATSI) petition calling for a referendum on sections 51 and 127 of the Constitution, the Holt Coalition Government introduced the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) Bill 1967 to the Parliament. The legislation was passed unanimously.

Because no parliamentarian had voted against the proposals relating to Aborigines, the Government only prepared a 'Yes' case for the referendum. The campaign for a 'Yes' vote gained widespread support among the Australian public and this was reflected in the final vote.
Impact
The significance of the 1967 Referendum has been somewhat obscured by a number of myths. These include the misconceptions that the Referendum granted Aboriginal people citizenship, the right to vote, wage equality and access to social security, among other things.

In terms of its practical significance, perhaps the main achievement of the Referendum was to raise the expectations of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people regarding Aboriginal rights and welfare.

The Referendum also had a great deal of symbolic significance. As John Gardiner-Garden has observed, the event 'has come to act as a form of historical shorthand for a decade of change which began in the early 1960s and ended in the early 1970s'. The Referendum signalled a general shift in the way that Australian governments approached Indigenous issues, away from assimilationist policies towards policies based around self-determination, reconciliation and, more recently, 'closing the gap'.
Further reading
J Gardiner-Garden, The origin of Commonwealth involvement in Indigenous Affairs and the 1967 Referendum, Background paper, 11, 1996-97, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 1997.

J Gardiner-Garden, The 1967 Referendum-history and myths, Research brief, 11, 2006-07, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2007.

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS), ' The referendum Australia had to have ', AIATSIS website.

National Museum Australia, ' The Referendum, 1957-67 ', Collaborating for Indigenous Rights 1957-1973 website.

Parliamentary Library, Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia, 44th Parliament, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2014.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Saturday 27th of May marks the 50th anniversary of the 1967 Referendum in which Australians voted overwhelmingly to amend the Constitution to allow the Commonwealth to make laws for Aboriginal people and include them in the Census of Population and Housing conducted by the Austra

# data[].attributes.body
Western Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many Noongar and other Aboriginal children, for the past 150 years, have been taken away from their families and placed into missions and other institutions.

There were a number of church missions in Noongar country, for example Wandering Mission, Roelands Mission and New Norcia Mission. Children were also taken to government settlements such as Moore River Native Settlement and Carrolup Native Settlement.

Many children were taken from hospitals, schools, in the street or directly from their families. Often they never saw their parents and siblings again. Some of the kids from missions have been fortunate enough to find their families much later in life.

There are many stories told by Noongar people about their life and experiences in these missions and institutions. For example, Heather Vicenti's experiences at Roelands Mission are told in Too Many Tears: an Autobiographical Account of Stolen Generations. Mary Terszak, in Orphaned by the Colour of my Skin: a Stolen Generation Story, talks about her time at Sister Kate's.

Between 1995 and 1997 there was an inquiry which looked into the removal of Aboriginal children from their families. The Bringing Them Home Report handed their findings to the Federal Government on May 26, 1997, which led to Sorry Day, one year later. The report found that from 1910 to 1970, the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children removed from their families was between one in three and one in ten children.

Anglican children's missions, Perth

From the earliest years of the colony, there were several missions in Perth, Fremantle and the Upper Swan.

Dr Louis Giustiniani established a mission at Middle Swan in 1836. Following conflict with local settlers, he left the colony in 1837 but the mission continued.[i]

Reverend King opened a school in Fremantle in 1842, with fifteen children, mostly girls, attending. In 1851, concerns about the children being close to the new convict depot in Fremantle, led to the children being transferred to the Wesleyan mission school in Perth.[ii]

Anniesfield

Anglican mission in Albany which operated from 1852 to 1871.

In 1858 there were 13 girls and 5 boys, aged from 18 months to 16 years. They were cared for by Mrs Camfield, wife of the Government Resident in Albany.

The girls did the domestic work for the mission. The children were also taught reading, writing and arithmetic.

Some of the girls married men from the Albany area and others went to Victoria to marry men from the Ramahyuck Mission Station, including Bessie Flower.

In 1871 Bishop Hale closed the mission and transferred the children to Perth. [iii]

Badjaling Mission

Established by Miss Mary Belshaw and Miss May McRidge at Badjaling near Quairading in 1930. It operated until 1954. There was a school room, hospital ward and a church. Children lived with their families nearby.

Aunty Doolann Leisha Eatts talks about Noongar people camped at Badjaling Mission working together to protect children from being removed.

For more information see video: Badjaling Noongar Cultural Festival 2008

Carrolup

Carrolup was a government run settlement (for the stolen generations) near Katanning that operated from 1915 to 1922, and again from 1938. It 1952 it became Marribank Farm School run by the Baptist Church until 1970. [iv]

Between 1946 and 1951 children at Carrolup produced distinctive landscape paintings based on what they saw in the local bush. Through British philanthropist Florence Rutter, they were exhibited throughout Australia, New Zealand and England. A large collection of Carrolup art was sold to a United States collector at a European exhibition in 1951. More than sixty years later, in 2004, the collection was found at Colgate University in upstate New York. In 2013 it was gifted to Curtin University and will be displayed back in Katanning.[v]

There is more information about Carrolup art in Koorah Coolingah (Children Long Ago), a catalogue of Carrolup art produced by the Berndt Museum of Anthropology in 2006.

Moore River Native Settlement

Moore River Native Settlement was a government run settlement that operated from 1918 to 1951. In 1951 it became Mogumber Mission, run by the Methodist Church from 1951 until 1980. [vi]

Doris Garimara Pilkington's 2002 book Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence was based on her mother's and aunt's experiences being taken away to Moore River Native Settlement in 1931. They escaped and walked back to their home at Jigalong in the north-west of Western Australia, 2,400km away. The book was made into a film: Rabbit Proof Fence. There is more information in this study guide.

New Norcia

Established in 1846 by Benedictine monks, the mission closed in 1974.[vii] Initially Noongar families lived in cottages and worked on the property. St Mary's Aboriginal boys' mission was established in 1858 and St Joseph's Aboriginal girls' mission in 1861.[viii]

As Perth developed along the river, new settlers and Noongar people clashed for their own livelihood and access to land and water. One of the strategies was to remove the children and place them in missions with the idea that the parents would follow. A lot of Noongar people surrendered to New Norcia because of massacres down here. So therefore Noongar people saw the mission as a safe place. They could live anywhere on the farm because it all belonged to the church.[ix]

There were many deaths from measles at New Norcia in the 1860s. By 1875 there were 180 Aboriginal people at the mission, and in 1890 there were 122.[x]

After reductions in government subsidies for missions in the 1890s and Bishop Salvado's death in 1900, Noongar families were encouraged to work for other farmers in the area rather than for the mission. Children lived at the mission and parents had restricted access to them. Sometimes children from other places were taken by the Welfare and placed in New Norcia.[xi]

By 1946, when the mission had been operating for 100 years, more than 700 boys had been through St Mary's orphanage and school.[xii]

In the 1950s and 60s a combination of the welfare and Benedictine community rules made it difficult for parents to keep in contact with children in the mission.[xiii] They needed special permission to see their kids and that was only on a Sunday.[xiv]

Margaret Drayton was a New Norcia town and mission resident:

We had access to some education living at New Norcia mission. Although, this brought its own restrictions, as we were bound to live by the mission's rules and religion and were not allowed to speak our language.
I have a strong connection to Yuedcountry, around New Norcia. I take my children there to remember where they came from.
Margaret Drayton, oral history, SWALSC, 2011

Martha Borinelli nee Taylor talks about how the government gathered Noongar people together at New Norcia and Moore River Native Settlement during WWII.

Roelands Mission

The Native Mission Farm, Roelands was established in 1941 as a non-denominational mission for children. It was set up by a group of Christians headed by Perth businessman Albany Bell, who also owned the land. The mission was located on the Collie River between Bunbury and Collie, and had a dairy, chooks, orchards and grazing. In total about 500 children spent time at Roelands before it closed in 1975.

Roelands is now managed by Woolkabunning Kiaka Inc., a group of former mission residents. The group runs educational and healing programmes on the site and some former residents live in the mission houses.

Some Roelands stories:
Roelands Mission transforming the hurt into healing Roelands Mission - Syd Jackson Les Wallam's story
Sister Kate's

Sister Kate's catered for fair-skinned ("quarter-caste") children, who lived in cottages and went to the local school.

Initially called the Children's Cottage Home, Sister Kate's was established by the Anglican Sister Kate in Mosman Park in 1933, moving to Queens Park in 1934. Sister Kate died in 1946 and the Presbyterian Church took over management in 1956.

From 1987 an Aboriginal Consultative Committee gave advice to the organisation. In 1988 the Unitiing Church supported the formation of the Manguri Aboriginal Corporation, which took responsibility for the care and services on the site. In 2002 financial and management problems led to its closure.[xv]

In 2014, the land is managed by 2 Aboriginal groups with a third section held in trust by the Aboriginal Land Corporation for the development of a healing centre. The first group, Sister Kate's Children 1934-1953 Aboriginal Corporation, has established accommodation for former residents of Sister Kate's. The second group, Beananging Kwuurt Institute (beananging means "first light before the break of the day" and kwuurt means "spiritual heart"), offers support for Aboriginal women, men and their families, and is planning to offer a wide variety of training. [xvi]

Mary Terszak's story about her time at Sister Kate's can be found in this exhibition at the National Museum of Australia.

Swan Native and Half-Caste Home

Opened at Middle Swan in 1871 under the direction of the Church of England Orphanage Board.

The Mission was housed in a building now known as Cornwell House, part of the Swanleigh Anglican Hostel. In 2013 it was empty after extensive storm damage.[xvii]

Wandering Mission

Catholic mission in Wandering, ran from 1944 to 1976. Also known as Saint Frances Xavier Mission.[xviii]

[i] William McNair and Hilary Rumley, Pioneer Aboriginal Mission: the Work of the Wesleyan Missionary John Smithies in the Swan River Colony 1840-1855, pp.19-20

[ii] McNair and Rumley, Pioneer Aboriginal Mission,p.60

[iii] Anna Haebich, Broken Circles: Fragmenting Indigenous Families, 1800-2000, p.229
Lois Tilbrook, Nyungar Traditions: Glimpses of Aborigines of South-Western Australia, 1829-1914,Nedlands: UWA Press, 1983, p.44
'Natives' Institution King George's Sound, Western Australia', [about 1858], State Library of WA

[iv] Anna Haebich, Broken Circles: Fragmenting Indigenous Families, 1800-2000, pp.229-230, 519

[v] http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/17076778/noongar-art-coming-home/; http://www.berndt.uwa.edu.au/generic.lasso?token_value=koorah

[vi] Anna Haebich, Broken Circles: Fragmenting Indigenous Families, 1800-2000, pp.229-230

[vii] George Russo, Lord Abbot of the Wilderness: the Life and Times of Bishop Salvado,Melbourne: Polding Press, 1980, p.38-42;
Abbott Bernard Rooney, 'Noongar, Windjar Kurl?: Cultural Awareness - A Challenge for the Nineties', in David Hutchison (ed.) A Town Like No Other: the Living Tradition of New Norcia, p.89.

[viii] Neville Green and Lois Tilbrook, Aborigines of New Norcia 1845 - 1914, Nedlands: University of Western Australia Press, 1989, p.xxvii

[ix] Margaret Drayton, former New Norcia resident, conversation with Denise Cook, June 2014

[x] David Hutchison (ed.), A Town Like No Other: the Living Tradition of New Norcia, p.63

[xi] Margaret Drayton, former New Norcia resident, conversation with Denise Cook, June 2014

[xii] David Hutchison (ed.), A Town Like No Other: the Living Tradition of New Norcia, p.66

[xiii] David Hutchison (ed.), A Town Like No Other: the Living Tradition of New Norcia, p.49, 63

[xiv] Margaret Drayton, former New Norcia resident, conversation with Denise Cook, June 2014
[xv] Ashley McDonald, 'Are we Family? And if so can I Still Sue You?', Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law,Vol. 7, No. 1, 2000 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurUEJL/2000/8.html ;
http://www.signposts.communitydevelopment.wa.gov.au/facilities/view.aspx?id=229
[xvi] Neville Campbell, Beananging Kwuurt Institute, conversation with Denise Cook, 30 June 2014

[xvii] Anna Haebich, For Their Own Good: Aborigines and Government in the Southwest of Western Australia, 1900-1940,p.8
Anna Haebich, Broken Circles: Fragmenting Indigenous Families, 1800-2000, p.229

[xviii] Anna Haebich, Broken Circles: Fragmenting Indigenous Families, 1800-2000, p.230

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many Noongar and other Aboriginal children, for the past 150 years, have been taken away from their families and placed into missions and other institutions. There were a number of church missions in Noongar country, for example Wandering Mission, Roelands Mission and New Norcia Mission.

# data[].attributes.body
Dignity of the Human Person

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Before the pipe was installed, Thandolwayo would miss school because she had to walk over 5 km a day to collect water. Now she is able to spend more time at school, and hopes to become a nurse. Photo: Richard Wainwright/Caritas Australia.

Our work is informed by the principles of Catholic Social Teaching, which guide us in all spheres of life - the economic, political, personal and spiritual.

With human dignity at its centre, a holistic approach to development founded on the principles of CST, is what Pope Paul VI called 'authentic development'. Explore the Catholic Social Teaching principles and how they guide our work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore the Catholic Social Teaching principles and how they guide the work of Caritas Australia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Aborigines Protection Act 1886 came into effect in the Crown Colony of Western Australia on 2 September 1886. As outlined in the Act, its purpose was to 'provide for the better protection and management of the Aboriginal Natives of Western Australia, and to amend the Law relating to certain Contracts with such Aboriginal Natives'. However, it was very broad in the way it addressed those objectives.

The Act established the Aborigines Protection Board which was given a range of functions. The Board was appointed by and subject to the Governor, could administer funds granted by the Legislative Council, and was required to provide regular reports on the welfare of Aboriginal people in the colony.

Section 6 set out the duties of the Board, which were generally to take a role in dispensing 'welfare' to Aboriginal adults, but it also gave the Board the power to involve itself directly in the lives of Aboriginal children. Section 6(3) required the Board to make submissions to the Governor 'any proposals or suggestions relating to the care, custody, or education of the children of Aboriginals'. Section 6(6) enabled the Board to 'exercise a general supervision and care of all matters affecting the interests and welfare of the Aborigines. The Board could also make regulations (s.7) to help give effect to its functions. In this way, the Act extended the functions that had previously been outlined in the Industrial Schools Act 1874, (s.18) which made it 'a duty' for any Justice of the Peace in any district 'make inquiry' about any 'native' or 'crossbreed' child who was 'apparently under the age of twelve years' and who was 'not living under the care or guardianship of either father or mother'. If the inquiry led the Magistrate to have any concerns, the Industrial Schools Act 1874, made it lawful for him to 'assume the guardianship' of that child.

The Aborigines Protection Act 1886 enabled the Governor to appoint Protectors of Aborigines, who would 'conform to the instructions of the Board' in terms of expenditure, report to the Board on welfare matters, and 'institute, carry on, or defend' any legal actions, 'enforce' any judgements or orders 'for or on behalf of any Aboriginal, and either in the name of the Aboriginal or of the Protector' (s.17). This 'protective' role essentially gave the Protector the right to assume that he would always be acting in the Aboriginal person's best interest, and the power to do so.

The Act (Part 2) also regulated the employment under contract of Aboriginal people over the age of 14 years and (Part 3) the employment of Aboriginal people who were prisoners.

In Part 4, the Act enabled Aboriginal children to be indentured to an employer until they reached the age of 21. Section 36 enabled 'any Resident Magistrate, acting under the instructions of the Board, to bind by indenture' and place any child of Aboriginal descent with 'any master or mistress willing to receive such child in any suitable trade, business or employment whatsoever' until the young person was 21 years old. The actions of the Resident Magistrate in doing this were to be as if the young person themselves had chosen the placement voluntarily ('as if the child had been of full age, and had bound himself to be such apprentice'). The magistrate was required to 'inform himself, as fully as he can, of the child's age' and to write that age on the indenture. The approximate age of the child as determined by the magistrate would then become the child's 'true age without further proof'. Thus, if a child were deemed to been younger than he or she was, the period of indenture would be longer. The Resident Magistrate was also supposed to ensure that adequate provision was made in the indenture for 'proper and humane treatment' and appropriate clothing and maintenance of the young person.

Section 37 outlined how complaints by apprentices, employers or Protectors of Aborigines were to be dealt with; and section 38 enabled decisions to be taken about the apprentice if his or her employer died. Section 39 made it lawful for any Justice of the Peace or Protector of Aborigines to inspect apprentice's place of employment or residence to 'ascertain whether the terms of the said indenture' had been 'fulfilled'.

Part 5, determined who was an Aboriginal person for the purposes of the Act and gave the power of determining that defintion to the court. Section 45 stated:

Every Aboriginal Native of Australia, and every Aboriginal half-caste or child of a half-caste, such half-caste or child habitually associating and living with Aboriginals, shall be deemed to be an Aboriginal within the meaning of this Act, and at the hearing of any case the Justice or Justices adjudicating may, in the absence of other sufficient evidence, decide on his or their own view and judgment whether any person with reference to whom any proceedings shall have been taken under this Act is or is not an Aboriginal.

Lois Tilbrook remarked in Nyungar Tradition (p.63) that the Act therefore 'distinguished between people of mixed Aboriginal and European descent who lived with Aborigines and who were classed as Aboriginal, and those who did not associate with Aborigines and who were therefore not classified as Aboriginal themselves'. The definition of Aboriginality was important for children, too, as it determined which children were subject to the powers granted under the Act.

The Aborigines Protection Act 1886 was repealed in a number of stages. Part I of this Act was repealed by the Aborigines Act 1897 (Act No.5) on 28 March 1898; Parts II, III, IV and V were repealed by the Aborigines Act 1905 (Act No.14) on 23 April 1906, the remainder was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1964 (Act No.61) on 4 December 1964.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
aborigines protection act 1886 - legislation - find & connect - western australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
history of child welfare in western australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Find & Connect Web Resource Project, The University of Melbourne and Australian Catholic University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Aborigines Protection Act 1886 - Legislation - Find & Connect - Western Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Aborigines Protection Act 1886 - Legislation - Find & Connect - Western Australia, Find & Connect is a resource for people who as children were in out-of-home 'care' in Australia. It contains information about organisations, people, policies, legislation and events related to the history of child welfare.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
corporateName=National Museum of Australia; address=Lawson Crescent, Acton Peninsula, ACT; contact=+61 2 6208 5000

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2008: National Apology to the Stolen Generations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
First Australians are advised that this record may include images or names of people who have died. It may also contain terms that reflect views which are not considered appropriate today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vincent Lingiari speaking at the Wave Hill handover

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This colour photograph taken on 16 August 1975 at Daguragu (formerly known as Wattie Creek) in the Northern Territory shows Gurindji Elder Vincent Lingiari speaking at a ceremony. The ceremony was to mark the transfer of leasehold title to the Gurindji.

# data[].attributes.headline
What does this mean for the students I come in contact with? 

# data[].attributes.subject
What does this mean for the students I come in contact with? 

# data[].attributes.body
video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Video Options:

This documentary DVD was produced in 1997 and forms part of the Bringing them home education resource for use in Australian classrooms.

For more on the report see: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/bringing-them-home-stolen-c...

This resource is based on 'Bringing them home' , the report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families, and on the history of forcible separation and other policies which have impacted on the lives of Indigenous Australians.

This documentary complements a collection of curriculum-linked activities and teaching resources, plus a range of photographs, maps and diagrams, timelines, legal texts and glossaries.

The Australian Human Rights Commission invites teachers and students to use this resource to explore, understand and reflect on one of the most difficult chapters of our national history and to engage with some of the key concepts involved in the reconciliation debate in Australia. For the education resource see: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/education/human-rights-school-classroom
Warning: This video may contain images / voices of deceased Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons.
Video produced by Oziris.

© Australian Human Rights Commission

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This documentary DVD was produced in 1997 and forms part of the Bringing them home education resource for use in Australian classrooms. For more on the report see: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/bringing-them-home-stolen-c...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Further learning about Mabo Day, the legal fiction of Terra Nullius and the Doctrine of Discovery.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Revisit the historical journey made 50 years ago by a group of University students led by Aboriginal activist Charles Perkins, who set off on a bus ride around regional New South Wales to expose racism and prejudice in regional NSW. What they encountered along the way showed just how prevalent segregation and injustice existed in Australia. The trip would prove to be a turning point in the Australian civil rights movement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Freedom Rides - Living Black, Season 22 Episode 2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Revisit the historical journey made 50 years ago by a group of University students led by Aboriginal activist Charles Perkins, who set off on a bus ride around regional New South Wales to expose racism and prejudice in regional NSW. What they encountered along the way showed just how prevalent segregation and injustice existed in Australia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This site includes images, quotes and references to people who have passed. We have included them to acknowledge, honour and pay respect to their contribution and efforts to our struggles, our progress and achievements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This site includes images, quotes and references to people who have passed. We have included them to acknowledge, honour and pay respect to their contribution and efforts to our struggles, our progress and achievements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National Archives holds records relating to the 1967 Referendum. It saw the highest YES vote ever recorded, in favour of removing content from the Australian Constitution that discriminated against Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander peoples.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Carrolup Native Settlement - Summary | Find & Connect

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some people may find content on this website distressing. Read more

Western Australia - Organisation

Crown Colony of Western Australia

The functions of the Aborigines Protection Board included submitting proposals to the Governor relating to the care, custody or education of the children of 'Aboriginals' and exercising a general supervision and care over all matters affecting the interests and welfare of the 'Aboriginals'. Under the Protection Act, the Board could appoint 'honorary local protectors' to oversee rationing and medical care of Aboriginal people and report on the condition of Aboriginal children.

The Act gave Resident Magistrates, acting under instructions of the Board, the power to apprentice any 'Aboriginal' or 'half-caste' child of a 'suitable age' until the age of 21 years, provided that 'due and reasonable provision is made for [the child's] maintenance, clothing and proper and humane treatment'.

On 6 January of 1887, the Government Gazette announced that the Colonial Secretary (Sir Malcolm Fraser) and Attorney General (C.N. Warton) and Members of the Legislative Council, G. Shenton and C. Harper were appointed to the new body. The Board was chaired by the Colonial Surgeon, Dr Alfred Waylen, who was responsible directly to the imperial government in England.

Publications

Books

Battye, J.S., Western Australia: A History from its Discovery to the Inauguration of the Commonwealth, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1924. Details

Book Sections

van den Berg, Rosemary, 'Aboriginal protectors', in Gregory, Jenny and Jan Gothard [editors] (eds), Historical Encyclopedia of Western Australia, University of Western Australia Press, Crawley, W.A., 2009, pp. Pages 36-37. Details

Newspaper Articles

Online Resources

'The History - Western Australia', in Bringing Them Home: Human Rights Education Resources for Teachers, Australian Human Rights Commission, 2010, https://web.archive.org/web/20160709122520/http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/rightsed-bringing-them-home-8-history-western-australia. Details

'Aboriginal History', in State Records Office of Western Australia website, State Records Office of Western Australia, 2012, https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/state-records-office-of-western-australia/aboriginal-history. Details

Cohen, B.C., 'Waylen, Alfred Robert (1833-1901)', in Australian Dictionary of Biography Online [website], Australian National University and Melbourne University Press, 2006, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/waylen-alfred-robert-4817/text8033. Details

Tilbrook, Lois, Nyungar Tradition : glimpses of Aborigines of south-western Australia 1829-1914, Online version published by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies in 2007, University of Western Australia Press, 1983, http://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/catalogue_resources/m0022954.pdf. Details

Photos

Title

Aborigines Protection Act 1886 (WA)

Type

Document

Date

1886

Sources used to compile this entry: 'Government Gazette', The West Australian, 7 January 1887, p. Page 3. Also available at http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article3763896; Battye, J.S., Western Australia: A History from its Discovery to the Inauguration of the Commonwealth, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1924; Cohen, B.C., 'Waylen, Alfred Robert (1833-1901)', in Australian Dictionary of Biography Online [website], Australian National University and Melbourne University Press, 2006, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/waylen-alfred-robert-4817/text8033; van den Berg, Rosemary, 'Aboriginal protectors', in Gregory, Jenny and Jan Gothard [editors] (eds), Historical Encyclopedia of Western Australia, University of Western Australia Press, Crawley, W.A., 2009, pp. Pages 36-37.

Prepared by: Debra Rosser

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
aborigines protection board - organisation - find & connect - western australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
history of child welfare in western australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Find & Connect Web Resource Project, The University of Melbourne and Australian Catholic University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Aborigines Protection Board - Organisation - Find & Connect - Western Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Aborigines Protection Board - Organisation - Find & Connect - Western Australia - Find & Connect is a resource for people who as children were in out-of-home ‘care’ in Australia. It contains information about organisations, people, policies, legislation and events related to the history of child wel…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
From Little Things Big Things Grow | Paul Kelly & Kev Carmody

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Year: 1987

Classification: G

Runtime: 72 min

Produced In: Australia

Directed By: David Noakes

Produced By: David Noakes, Heather Williams

Language: Njangamarda, Wanmun, Injibandi and English dialogue, English subtitles

price includes GST and postage

On 1 May 1946, 800 Aboriginal station workers walked off sheep stations in the north-west of Western Australia, marking the beginning of a carefully organised strike that was to last for at least three years, but never officially ended.

The strike was more than a demand for better wages and conditions. It was, in the words of Keith Connolly in the Melbourne Herald, 'a well- considered statement by a grievously exploited people, standing up for their rights and dignity'.

Aboriginal people employed on sheep stations were governed by the Native Administration Act. The Act denied them freedom of movement in their original lands and made it illegal for them to leave station employment, employment which was determined by the local 'native protector' who was often the local policeman. Housing conditions were dreadful and food had to be bought out of meagre wages. Their status was that of slaves.

In late 1942, a secret congress was organised by Pilbara Elders Dooley Bin Bin and Clancy McKenna, with many of the tribes in Western Australia attending - over a dozen interpreters were present to deal with 23 languages. The meeting, which lasted six weeks, was also attended by a long-time supporter of the desert people, prospector Don McLeod.

It was decided to organise a strike in the Pilbara region in order to demand better wages and conditions, and to draw attention to the treatment generally of Aboriginal people in Western Australia.

Tough action by the Police and Department of Native Affairs officials forced many strikers back to the stations. But this was short-lived and a month later, two major strike camps were permanently set up, joined by a railway line. To survive, the strikers collected and traded kangaroo and goat skins and, under Don McLeod's direction initially, began alluvial mining operations. The mining was so successful it supported them for over 20 years, ironically drawing attention to the vast mineral wealth in the area.

VIEW TRAILER HERE: vimeo.com/529139143

Director - David Noakes
Writers - David Noakes, Paul Roberts
Producers - Heather Williams, David Noakes
Associate Producers - Paul Roberts, Jacob Oberdoo
Cinematographer - Philip Bull
Editor - Frank Rijavec

"The documentary, which runs for an hour and a quarter, will always be the best, most honest and most entertaining record of the 1946 Strike ... because we see and hear Don McLeod explaining why he organised the Strike and because we meet some of the participants, albeit older than they were in 1946, telling the story and re-enacting scenes from their great adventure. The film is available in DVD form from Ronin Films, who do excellent work with Indigenous material. It is an exhilarating, inspirational documentary that shows what people can achieve when they have vision, courage and solidarity."

- Jerry Roberts, in Pearls and Irritations, John Menadue's Public Policy Journal, 23 May 2021

"A FASCINATING BUT RARELY MENTIONED EPISODE IN AUSTRALIAN HISTORY." - The Age.

WINNER! 1987 Human Rights Documentary Film Award.

NOMINATED FOR 5 AFI AWARDS.

Related files

Click here to download a resource guide: "What was the 1948 Pilbara Strike?" (PDF 230.7 kb)

Click here to download a flyer for the Pilbara Strike 75th Anniversary: (PDF 1.1 Mb)

< Back to Homepage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
HOW THE WEST WAS LOST - Ronin Films - Educational DVD Sales

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The story of the 1946 Aboriginal Pastoral Workers’ Strike that has never officially ended. An event more important than the Eureka Stockade but never recorded...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How Aborigines Made Australia

Paperback Edition Number: 1
Published: 1st June 2012
ISBN: 9781743311325
Number Of Pages: 384

When will this arrive by?
Enter delivery postcode to estimate

Earn 31 Qantas Points on this Book

Explodes the myth that pre-settlement Australia was an untamed wilderness revealing the complex, country-wide systems of land management used by Aboriginal people.

Across Australia, early Europeans commented again and again that the land looked like a park. With extensive grassy patches and pathways, open woodlands and abundant wildlife, it evoked a country estate in England. Bill Gammage has discovered this was because Aboriginal people managed the land in a far more systematic and scientific fashion than we have ever realised.

For over a decade, Gammage has examined written and visual records of the Australian landscape. He has uncovered an extraordinarily complex system of land management using fire and the life cycles of native plants to ensure plentiful wildlife and plant foods throughout the year. We know Aboriginal people spent far less time and effort than Europeans in securing food and shelter, and now we know how they did it.

With details of land-management strategies from around Australia, The Biggest Estate on Earth rewrites the history of this continent, with huge implications for us today. Once Aboriginal people were no longer able to tend their country, it became overgrown and vulnerable to the hugely damaging bushfires we now experience. And what we think of as virgin bush in a national park is nothing of the kind.

About the Author

Bill Gammage is a historian and adjunct professor in the Humanities Research Centre at the Australian National University. He is best known as author of the ground-breaking The Broken Years: Australian Soldiers in the Great War.

Industry Reviews

"A beautiful and profound piece of writing, one that has importance for us all." --"Age"
"This bold book, with its lucid prose and vivid illustrations, will be discussed for years to come." --"Australian Book Review"

Contents

Illustrations

Thanks

Sources

Abbreviations

Definitions

Foreword by Henry Reynolds
Australia in 1788
Introduction: The Australian estate

1. Curious landscapes

2. Canvas of a continent
Why was Aboriginal land management possible?
3. The nature of Australia

4. Heaven on earth

5. Country
How was land managed?
6. The closest ally

7. Associations

8. Templates

9. A capital tour

10. Farms without fences
Invasion
11. Becoming Australian

Appendix 1: Science, history and landscape

Appendix 2: Current botanical names for plants named with capitals in the text

Notes

Bibliography

Index

ISBN: 9781743311325
ISBN-10: 174331132X
Audience: Tertiary; University or College
Format: Paperback
Language: English
Number Of Pages: 384
Published: 1st June 2012
Publisher: Allen & Unwin
Country of Publication: AU
Dimensions (cm): 24.5 x 17.2 x 3.18
Weight (kg): 1.04
Edition Number: 1

This product is categorised by

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How Aborigines Made Australia Paperback Edition Number: 1 Published: 1st June 2012 ISBN: 9781743311325 Number Of Pages: 384 When will this arrive by? Enter delivery postcode to estimate Earn 31 Qantas Points on this Book Simply link your Qantas Frequent Flyer membership number to your Booktopia account and earn points on eligible orders.

# data[].attributes.headline
Constitutional Recognition needs to be more than just symbolic

# data[].attributes.subject
Constitutional Recognition needs to be more than just symbolic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians must involve structural change, not mere symbolism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Australians have been working towards meaningful change for almost a decade. That cannot be derailed by reverting to symbolic recognition.

# data[].attributes.body
3 biggest myths of the 1967 referendum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 1967, 90.77 per cent of Australians voted yes for a change that they believed would improve the lives of Indigenous peoples.

But as with any historic moment, there are myths and mysteries about the referendum - and about what people hoped it would accomplish and what it actually achieved.

Myth: The referendum gave Aboriginal people citizenship rights and the right to vote

Perhaps the greatest myth that persists about the 1967 referendum is that it resulted in Aboriginal people getting the right to vote or becoming citizens.

In fact, it did neither of these two things.

The two changes that did occur were, firstly, that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were to be included in the census, and secondly that the Federal Government was given the power to make laws for Indigenous people.

A poster for the 1967 referendum.(Supplied: State Library of New South Wales )

Up until that point, Indigenous people were the responsibility of the states.

At the time of the referendum, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people could vote in every part of Australia, with the Queensland laws being the last to change in 1965.

Myth: The 1967 referendum changed the lives of Indigenous people

Constitutional change, like the one achieved in 1967, does not mean transformations occur overnight.

Many Indigenous people say they had heightened expectations about what would be achieved by the referendum, and then woke up to find that nothing had changed.

This lack of transformation was one of the factors that drove the rights movement that emerged in the 1970s.

The Tent Embassy, established in 1972 on the lawns of Parliament House in Canberra is a good example of this energised political movement.

The focus shifted from a campaign for inclusion to one that asserted particular Indigenous rights, such as land rights.

Before 1967, section 51(26) of the constitution, the "races power", gave the Federal Government the power to make laws in relation to, "the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws."

The referendum removed the words "other than the aboriginal people in any State" - giving the Federal Government the power to make laws in relation to Indigenous people.

Over time, the races power has been used to pass legislation that has been considered beneficial for Indigenous people, most notably the Native Title Act, 1993.

But the idea that the 1967 referendum dramatically improved life for Aboriginal Australians at the time is a falsehood.

Myth: TheFederal Government would use the races power benevolently

A large part of the campaign for constitutional changes in 1967 that related to the "races power" was underpinned by the assumption that if the Federal Government was given the power to make laws for Indigenous people, it would do a better job of it than the states had. (It's worth noting here, that the Federal Parliament already had powers to make laws for Indigenous people living in Australian territories.)

Underpinning this assumption was the belief by campaigners that the Federal Government would only use theraces power for the benefit of Aboriginal people.

However, nothing in the wording of that section of the constitution makes any mention of the need for the power to be exercised for the benefit of Aboriginal people.

This has been confirmed by the High Court, which has ruled that if the Federal Government has the power to grant a benefit it has the power to repeal that benefit.

In the case of Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1998), traditional owners had been relying on the rights under the federal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act (1984) to stop the building of a bridge they believed would affect one of their sacred sites.

But the Federal Government repealed the legislation to the extent that it would not apply over this particular area.

The traditional owners challenged that decision. One of their arguments was that when the Australian people voted to change the constitution it was clearly with the understanding that the exercise of the power to make laws for Indigenous people would be used beneficially.

However, the High Court said that when the Federal Government was granted the protections, it also retained the power to take those protections away.

Only Justice Michael Kirby dissented.

After considering the history of the changes made in 1967, he concluded that the exercise of the power should be non-discriminatory.

Fact: More than 90 per cent of Australians voted for change

Above are some of the myths that surround the 1967 referendum.

But one thing that remains true is that never has a referendum had such an overwhelming "yes" vote.

The fact that 90.77 per cent of Australians voted for a change they believed would improve the lives of Indigenous people is something we should celebrate.
Larissa Behrendt is a professor of law and the director of research at Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning at UTS. Larissa is a Eualeyai-Kamilaroi woman, a NSW Land Commissioner, barrister and the presenter of Speaking Out on ABC Radio.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The three biggest myths of the 1967 referendum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1967, 90.77 per cent of Australians voted yes for a change that they believed would improve the lives of Indigenous peoples. But as with any historic moment, there are myths and mysteries about the referendum - and about what people hoped it would accomplish and what it actually achieved.

# data[].attributes.body
Took the Children away

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Archie Roach - Took The Children Away  (Official Music Video)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Paul Kelly - From Little Things Big Things Grow

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Remembering the Pilbara walk-off that blazed a trail for Indigenous rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When West Australian sheep station workers went on strike for fair wages and decent conditions, they wrote one of the most important chapters in Australia’s history.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Equality and equity is one of the five key dimensions of reconciliation.

In the State of Reconciliation in Australia Report, equality is defined as 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples being in control of their life choices - enabling them to participate fully in the social, cultural and economic opportunities enjoyed by the wider Australian community.'

In the same report, equity refers to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians unique rights as First Peoples and their ability to freely exercise these rights.

It's important to acknowledge both equality and equity.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP):

affirms that Indigenous peoples are no less equal to all other peoples

recognises the rights of all peoples to be different and to be respected.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UNDRIP work together to promote humanity and diversity. When these declarations are recognised, respected and upheld, you can shape equal and equitable settings in learning environments that are free from discrimination and where all cultures feel welcome.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
recognise respect rights aboriginal torres strait islander reconciliation action plan rap narragunnawali schools early learning education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Equality and equity is one of the five key dimensions of reconciliation. In the State of Reconciliation in Australia Report, equality is defined as 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples being in control of their life choices - enabling them to participate fully in the social, cultural and economic opportunities enjoyed by the wider Australian community.'

# data[].attributes.headline
Australian Committee to discuss how to implement Uluru Statement from the Heart

# data[].attributes.subject
Australian Committee to discuss how to implement Uluru Statement from the Heart

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Former federal Indigenous affairs minister Fred Chaney has warned a push to recognise Aboriginal people in Western Australia's constitution will not make a major contribution towards reconciliation unless more people in the community have their say.

A bipartisan parliamentary committee is examining a recognition bill introduced by the Labor Member for the Kimberley Josie Farrer last year.

Public submissions closed last week and the committee is due to report in March.

Mr Chaney said while he supported the aim of the bill, more time was needed to consult with Aboriginal people across the state.

"I think the mistake we've made over the whole 50-plus years that I've been following this, is we set a timetable that suits us and we tend to leave the Aboriginal people behind," he said.

"Real consultation, really sharing views takes time.

"I think Josie Farrer is a very authentic voice for her people, but there are many Aboriginal voices and many Aboriginal tribes."

Mr Chaney's view was supported by Central Desert Native Title Services, which represents native title claimants across more than 800,000 square kilometres of land in the Goldfields, Pilbara and Kimberley regions.

In his submission to the committee, the services' chairman Terry Grose said he was concerned about the process and the timeframe.

"My understanding is that it is not practicably possible to get on the ground to canvass the issue until late February or early March due to a combination of school holidays, law business, the weather and availability of staff," he said.

"Central Desert applauds you for asking the question but we urge you to consider our concerns and would be pleased to work with you to find a workable way to meet your needs."

However, others support Ms Farrer's bill as it stands.

In its submission Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation said it was consulted as part of the drafting process.

"It is simple and without any legal controversy. It is important and long overdue," wrote the corporation's chief executive Simon Hawkins.

"Even symbolic constitutional changes like the ones in the bill are important to have as one of the tools with which we can continue to fashion a strong and permanent reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities."

Premier Colin Barnett said he agreed that the process should not be rushed.

"Aboriginal people have a right to have a say, particularly about the wording of that recognition, and indeed some groups might not support the whole concept," he said.

"That's why I had some hesitation when the Labor Party tried to rush this in through Parliament.

"It's an important measure, it's a proper measure, but it needs to be done properly."

Ms Farrer was not available for interview but Labor spokeswoman Rita Saffioti said the bill was already overdue and needed to be made a priority.

"Aboriginal people have been waiting long enough," she said.

"I think it's something that has broad community support and we should all just get on with it.

"Labor did significant consultation on the bill and the Premier has an obligation to take this seriously and act quickly on it."

Posted 23 Jan 2015 Fri 23 Jan 2015 at 8:55am, updated 27 Jan 2015 Tue 27 Jan 2015 at 2:14am

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‘Real consultation’ needed on WA Indigenous recognition bill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Former federal Indigenous affairs minister Fred Chaney warns a push to recognise Aboriginal people in Western Australia’s constitution will not make a major contribution towards reconciliation unless more people in the community have their say.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At a demonstration, Faith Bandler (right) and her daughter Lilon (2R) appeal to national unity as grounds for constitutional amendment. Aboriginal Studies Press

On May 27, 1967, campaigners for Aboriginal rights and status won the most-decisive referendum victory in Australian history.

The referendum attracted more than 90% of voters in favour of deleting the two references to Aborigines in Australia's Constitution. Campaigners for a "Yes" vote successfully argued those references were discriminatory and debarred Aboriginal people from citizenship.

Ever since, and as we approach the 1967 referendum's 50th anniversary, it has been popularly remembered as the moment when Aboriginal people won equal rights - even the right to vote. In fact, the referendum did not secure those outcomes.

By 1967, all Aboriginal adults already held the right to vote in federal, state and territory elections. Racial discriminations had been removed from the statute books at the federal level and in all states and territories except Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. And even those three laggards were moving toward legal equality.

So what was achieved?

Constitutionally, the 1967 referendum secured the amendment of Section 51 (xxvi) and the deletion of Section 127.

The former section specified the federal parliament could make laws with respect to the:

... people of any race, other than the Aboriginal race in any state, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.

The words "other than the Aboriginal race in any state" were deleted.

The latter section stipulated that 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.

Neither section prevented Aboriginal people from exercising the same legal rights as other Australians. The rights of Aborigines were abridged not by the Constitution, but by laws enacted by federal and state parliaments.

How was the campaign run?

Campaigners for a "Yes" vote, however, told a different story. They insisted constitutional change was a necessary precondition for Aboriginal equality.

Yet the campaigners' ambitions went beyond legal equality. They sought the inclusion of Aboriginal people as respected members of the national community. This had been a principal goal of Aboriginal and pro-Aboriginal activists since the early 20th century.

The 1967 referendum was the culmination of a long struggle for rights and respect, for social esteem as well as equality before the law.

Accordingly, publicity material for the "Yes" campaign did not focus narrowly on the legal implications of constitutional change. More often, it exhorted Australians to welcome Aboriginal people into the fellowship of the nation. As the opening line of a popular campaign song ran:

Vote "Yes" for Aborigines, they want to be Australians too.

Effectively, the proponents of a Yes vote transformed what could have been a dry, legalistic tinkering with the Constitution into a plebiscite on Australian nationhood.

In achieving this transformation, the campaigners held an unusual advantage. Uniquely among Australian referendums, for the 1967 question on Aborigines there was no campaign for a "No" vote. And even the government broke with convention by providing, in the official advice to voters, only the case for "Yes". Consequently, campaigners could talk up the importance of the changes they advocated virtually unrestrained.

New South Wales campaign director Faith Bandler told voters:

When you write Yes in the lower square of your ballot paper you are holding out the hand of friendship and wiping out nearly 200 years of injustice and inhumanity.

Hyperbole of this kind is not unusual in political campaigns. What was unusual is that there was no organised opposition to contest the claims of the Yes campaigners, or to counter them with equally extravagant rhetoric for the negative.

The lack of a "No" campaign undoubtedly boosted the "Yes" vote. It was equally important in shaping remembrance of the referendum.

Lacking an opposition, the "Yes" campaigners had a virtual monopoly on the narratives about what the referendum meant. Their expansive conception of the referendum as a plebiscite on nationhood prevailed.

A symbolic win

The triumph of the "Yes" vote was primarily a symbolic victory. It did not win rights for Aborigines, and the government of the day did not utilise the extension of Commonwealth powers secured by amendment of Section 51 (xxvi). Nor did Gough Whitlam's government after it came to power in 1972.

Whitlam did, however, invoke the resounding "Yes" vote of 1967 as a moral mandate for change in Aboriginal affairs.

Symbolic victories are important. Shortly after hearing of the massive "Yes" majority, veteran Aboriginal activist Pastor Doug Nicholls proclaimed it was:

... evidence that Australians recognise Aborigines are part of the nation.

As Nicholls knew from three decades of involvement in Aboriginal politics, recognition of his people as part of the nation was a hard-fought achievement.

Regardless of its slight legal consequences, the 1967 referendum was an important event in Australian history. It was a symbolic affirmation of Aboriginal people's acceptance into the community of the nation.

Yet the referendum affirmed only the broad principle of national inclusion. On how that principle should be translated into practice - on the terms of inclusion - the referendum was silent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Right wrongs, write Yes': what was the 1967 referendum all about?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On May 27, 1967, campaigners for Aboriginal rights and status won the most-decisive referendum victory in Australian history. The referendum attracted more than 90% of voters in favour of deleting the two references to Aborigines in Australia's Constitution. Campaigners for a "Yes" vote successfully argued those references were discriminatory and debarred Aboriginal people from citizenship.

# data[].attributes.body
The Children came back

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Briggs - The Children Came Back ft. Gurrumul & Dewayne Everettsmith (Official Video)

# data[].attributes.body
of Indigenous Peoples

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and good faith in the fulfilment of the obligations assumed by States in accordance with the Charter,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Constitutional recognition does not have to exclude the future prospect of a treaty for indigenous people, Stan Grant says.

Mr Grant has been appointed to the Referendum Council to advise the government on a way towards a referendum on recognising Australia's first people in the constitution and removing racist clauses.

But on Friday morning at the first national conference on preventing indigenous suicide he was challenged by Dr Marcus Woolombi Waters from Griffith University.

"We don't want it (constitutional recognition), we don't want to be recognised by the perpetrator of the violence," Dr Waters said, calling instead for a treaty "that gives us the right to negotiate as a sovereign people".

There has been a growing chorus of resistance to constitutional recognition, with some indigenous people feeling it will erase the possibility of a future treaty.

"It's an advisory council, not an advocacy council, it's an important distinction," Mr Grant said.

The constitution affects the daily lives of all Australians, he said, and it is "ludicrous" to pretend it doesn't touch indigenous people.

"There are clauses in that constitution that have allowed our children to be taken away, that have allowed our homes to be invaded, that have told us who we can marry and where we can live. Brother, you can't seriously want those clauses in the constitution, do you?" he asked.

"If we want to remove racist clauses from the constitution, then we can't sit outside and say we don't want to be part of the process."

The form of change and what words will be used are still being negotiated, and it's still not known how many Australians will support the referendum, Mr Grant said.

Only eight of 44 referenda have been successful in Australia, needing the majority of voters in a majority of states to vote yes in order to pass.

Mr Grant pointed to Victoria, whose state constitution recognises indigenous people and which is now opening negotiations for a treaty.

If recognition is not meaningful and did not support and protect the preservation of indigenous people and their culture, "then I'm with you, it's not worth doing," Mr Grant said.

"But we don't do it from the outside, we don't pitch a tent anymore, we don't do it from hurling stones."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Recognition doesn't exclude treaty: Grant

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Stan Grant has been challenged over his backing of constitutional recognition at an indigenous conference in the Northern Territory.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1901—The Australian constitution comes into effect with the federation of Australia. There are two sections referring to the Aboriginal people that marginalises and excludes Australia’s Indigenous population, effectively making them second-class citizens in their own country.

1905—TheAborigines Act 1905 passes in Western Australia, making the Chief Protector the legal guardian of all Aboriginal and half-caste children under the age of 16.

1908—The Commonwealth Government’s Invalid and Old Age Pension Act 1908 provides social security for all Australians, except Aboriginal people.

1909—The Aborigines Protection Act 1909 passes in New South Wales:

allowing for Aboriginal children who are deemed by the court as ‘neglected’ to be removed from their families

allowing for the removal of Aboriginal people from towns

preventing non-Aboriginal people from accessing reserves or associating with Aboriginal people.

1911—The first Commonwealth census defines ‘Aboriginal native’—‘half-castes’ are not considered Aboriginal and can be counted in the census. However, according to the constitution, ‘full-blooded’ Aboriginal people cannot be counted in the census.

1914—At the start of World War I, Indigenous Australians are unable to enlist in the military. In 1917, a new military order allows half-castes to enlist at the discretion of the examining medical officer. After the war, Indigenous veterans seldom receive recognition for their service and are often denied a ‘soldier settler block’, an entitlement given to other veterans of the war.

1915—Amendments to the New South Wales Aborigines Protection Act 1909 result in the government-sanctioned practice of removing Indigenous children from their family at any time, without having to establish their neglect through the court. These children usually receive little education and are trained as manual labourers and domestic servants. (Later, children who were subjected to this forced removal became known as the Stolen Generations.)

1924—Australian Aboriginal Progressive Association (AAPA) forms and campaigns for Indigenous rights and an end to the forced removal of Aboriginal children.

1934—Australian Aborigines League (AAL) is established by Aboriginal leader William Cooper. The league petitions King George V for the representation of Aboriginal people in Federal Parliament.

1937—Conference of Chief Protectors and Boards, which controls the Aboriginal people in the states and in the Northern Territory, approve an assimilation policy for those of mixed descent.

1938—Day of Mourning is declared on 26 January, marking 150 years of European occupation. The protest, led by Jack Patten, stresses the need for Aboriginal people to be consulted in policy decisions and their implementation, for full citizenship rights and for the Commonwealth to have greater control over Aboriginal affairs.

1939—Protest at Cummeragunja Mission in New South Wales leads to a walk-off by Aboriginal Australians over malnutrition, ill treatment and harsh state control. They cross the Murray River into Victoria and set up a new camp, leading to the arrest of many people including Jack Patten.

1945—During World War II, soldiers of the Torres Strait Light Infantry Battalion receive one-third of the pay of other Australian soldiers. Once again, at the conclusion of the war, returned Indigenous soldiers are often not granted land under the War Service Land Settlement Agreement.

1948—Australia is one of the first signatories of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights when it is proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris. Article 1 states:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

1949—Commonwealth Electoral Act 1949 is amended to allow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who served in the armed forces to vote in Federal elections.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Timeline—Events that led to the 1967 Referendum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1901—The Australian constitution comes into effect with the federation of Australia. There are two sections referring to the Aboriginal people that marginalises and excludes Australia’s Indigenous population, effectively making them second-class citizens in their own country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As European settlement occurred across Australia, the six different colonies (and later the state governments) passed laws and regulations concerning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. These laws allowed the removal of Indigenous people from their traditional lands. They permitted the forced removal of Indigenous children from their families, often resulting in children being placed in state institutions. The governments also controlled the employment of Indigenous people, prohibited them from speaking their own languages or participating in cultural practices.

This government control of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples undermined their traditional way of life and demonstrated how white Australians devalued Indigenous culture, one of the oldest continuing cultures on earth originating more than 50,000 years ago.

When Australia became an independent nation in 1901, the new Commonwealth of Australia was established as a constitutional monarchy. Australia’s constitution was written by representatives from the six colonies (New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania) and accepted by the people through a referendum in each colony during the 1890s. The constitution was then brought into existence by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act through a British Act of Parliament. This allowed the colonies to form their own Commonwealth Government in accordance with the constitution.

The Australian constitution can only be changed with the support and approval of the Australian people. Any proposed changes must be approved by the Federal Parliament and then put to the Australian voters in a referendum. Since Federation in 1901, 19 referendums have been proposed, seeking 44 changes to the constitution. Of those, only eight changes have been passed.

Australia’s 1901 constitution included two references to Aboriginal people (see bolded words):

Section 51

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:

Clause xxvi—The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special law.

Section 127

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.

The 1967 referendum sought to omit the words ‘other than the aboriginal race in any State’ in clause xxvi of section 51 and to remove section 127 from the constitution. These changes meant the constitution would no longer distinguish between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians and give Aboriginal people equal standing under the law. The revisions would mean that, for the first time, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were full citizens of their own country.

The referendum question put to voters in 1967 was:

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'?

The 1967 referendum is often seen as a turning point in Indigenous and white Australian relations. It marks an historic moment in Australian history by granting the Commonwealth responsibility for Aboriginal affairs and by granting citizenship rights to the first Australians. It was the first step towards acknowledging the injustices done to the Indigenous population of Australia since European settlement.

On 27 May 1967, after 10 years of campaigning, more than 90 per cent of the Australian electorate voted ‘yes’ on what became known as the ‘Aboriginal question’, leading to the changes in the Australian constitution.

The Federal Council of the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (FCAATSI) led a campaign for the 1967 referendum based on an emotional appeal. They simplified the message to ‘Vote Yes’ and emphasised rights and equality for Indigenous people. The campaign received significant support from unions, churches and the Labor party. Nobody presented a national case for a ‘no’ vote.

For further background information about the 1967 referendum poster ‘Yes’ for Aborigines read this article from The Sydney Morning Herald about the child who was featured on the poster.

Discuss with students the significance of the photograph being taken by a Czechoslovakian Jew.

Analyse the poster ‘Yes’ for Aborigines: Write YES for Aborigines in the lower square May 27th to see what it reveals about the campaign for the 1967 referendum.

Is this image a primary or secondary source? Explain the reason for your answer.

What obvious information does this poster tell you about the 1967 referendum?

Why do you think the image of an infant was used on the poster?

What mood/emotion does the poster try to convey?

What effect might the image on this poster have had on the Indigenous population?

Have students imagine that the referendum is being held today. Then, using Trove, ask students to research and create their own referendum poster. Have them choose relevant images, words and colours that would influence the Australian population to vote ‘Yes’ on the ballot.

Keeping in mind that students are imagining that the referendum is being held today:

research an effective composition and use of colour for the poster

choose words that reflect a poster of today

demonstrate your research process by explaining your choice of images, words, colour etc. Provide examples of other posters, documents, newspapers, maps, people and photographs that influenced your decisions, and explain why you did or did not choose to use elements from these examples.

create a reference list for each source that you consulted in developing your poster.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 1967 referendum is often seen as a turning point in Indigenous and white Australian relations. It marks an historic moment in Australian history by granting the Commonwealth responsibility for Aboriginal affairs and by granting citizenship rights to the first Australians.

# data[].attributes.body
Racial discrimination – what’s that? a child's view

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 27th of May marks the anniversary of the 1967 Referendum in which Australians voted overwhelmingly to amend the Constitution to allow the Commonwealth to make laws for Aboriginal people and include them in the census. The referendum put the following question to the Australian people: 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 so that Aboriginals are to be counted in reckoning the population'? The proposed law (Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967) sought to give the Commonwealth Parliament power to make laws with respect to Aboriginal people wherever they lived in Australia. It also sought to make it possible to include Aboriginal people in national censuses. The amendment deleted part of section 51 (xxvi) of the Constitution and repealed section 127.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 27th of May marks the anniversary of the 1967 Referendum in which Australians voted overwhelmingly to amend the Constitution to allow the Commonwealth to make laws for Aboriginal people and include them in the census.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Transcript from World News Radio)

The 1967 referendum regarding Aboriginal rights has long been regarded as a pivotal point in modern Aboriginal history in Australia.

But exactly what pivoted on that day?

For 47 years, and even just recently, that has been the source of considerable misunderstanding, both within Aboriginal communities and without.

Ron Sutton steps back and takes a deeper look into the issues.

(Click on audio tab above to listen to this item)

"Vote yes for Aborigines. They want to be Australians, too. Vote yes to give them ... (fades under)

Call it, perhaps, the misunderstanding Australia had to have.

It was May 1967, the days leading up to a national vote on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal People), more commonly known today as simply the '67 referendum.

At the time, Australian voters had backed only four of 24 constitutional referendums in all the years since Federation in 1901.

And the jingle distributed for radio by the Aboriginal Rights "Vote Yes" Committee was part of a campaign suggesting Aboriginal voting rights and citizenship were at stake.

"I think it suited some people to push that agenda because it (left) a whole lot of fair-minded Australians thinking, 'Well, that's just not correct, especially to men and women who served Australia in the world wars and in Vietnam.' The notion that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had the capacity to enlist and fight for Australia and didn't have the capacity to vote in the federal election was something that mainstream Australia didn't like."

The speaker is Peter Buckskin, Dean of Indigenous Scholarship, Engagement and Research at the University of South Australia.

The fact he is alluding to is that Indigenous people in Australia actually already had the right to the vote, and they had citizenship.

Professor Buckskin, chairman of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium, says perhaps portraying it otherwise was the price of passage.

But, he says, it also may be a key reason why today, almost half a century later, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia widely misunderstand the referendum's place in history.

Four key misunderstandings persist about modern Indigenous history and the referendum, which, indeed, passed with more than 90 per cent approval:

1) whether it gave Indigenous people the right to vote in federal elections

2) whether it gave Indigenous people the right to Australian citizenship

3) whether it gave Indigenous people the right to be included in the census, and

4) whether, up until the referendum, Indigenous people were classed as fauna.

The answer, to each, is no, although Peter Buckskin says he fully understands the confusion -- and even beyond the campaign of the time.

"Until that referendum, you weren't entitled, in a sense, to some benefits that all other Australians had entitlements to, and so changing that gave the opportunity for people to receive benefits, to ensure that they had those entitlements that all Australians were entitled to, and I think that gave the perception that it made us citizens."

A one-time researcher for the former State History Centre in South Australia, Pat Stretton, takes those perceptions even a step further.

"Lots and lots of Aborigines celebrate 1967 as the year they got the vote, and it doesn't matter if you say, 'No, no, you had the vote before then,' they'll still give you a fish eye* and say, 'We got the vote in 1967.' And they're much more correct than I am, because that's when they felt they were recognised by society and recognised as proper people with proper rights. So, you can say all you like -- 'Oh, I can show you, you had the right to vote ... whenever' -- and, if you didn't know you did, and if, in every other way, you were treated as if you didn't count, then why would you think you had the right to vote?"

Professor Buckskin points to Indigenous entitlement to social-security benefits, war pensions, child endowments and children's pensions as very real outcomes of the referendum.

That is because the referendum was actually aimed at addressing two parts of the constitution that had actively discriminated against Indigenous people.

It removed Section 127, which said Aboriginal natives shall not be counted in "reckoning the numbers" of people in the Commonwealth, that is, in the population Census.

And it amended Section 51, which prohibited the federal government from specifically making laws for the Indigenous people of any state.

The Aboriginal right to vote in most Australian states actually dated back legally to the 1850s, long before Federation.

Pat Stretton points out every state but Queensland and Western Australia allowed all male British subjects to vote.

That included Aboriginal men, and, in 1895, when South Australia gave women the right to vote, Aboriginal women shared that right.

Few Aboriginal people knew of their voting rights, though, and, after Federation, the 1902 Franchise Act allowed only those who had already been state voters to vote federally.

Even when the Chifley Government passed an Act in 1949 that anyone eligible to vote in state elections could now vote federally, many Aboriginal people still believed they could not.

Finally, in 1962, legislation extended the vote in federal elections to all Aboriginal people of voting age, but, even then, it remained voluntary and not well known.

That is why, even after Western Australia finally allowed the vote in state elections in 1962 and Queensland followed in '65, the '67 referendum appeared to many to open the door.

Pat Stretton says those circumstances, then, give the referendum a rightful place alongside other historic moments such as Kevin Rudd's apology for the Stolen Generations.

"So I think 1967 is a watershed. It's a watershed in people's minds in the same way that the apology is a watershed. It mightn't actually make all that much difference in reality and on paper maybe, but it does if you feel differently."

Hence, Peter Buckskin's perspective on the citizenship issue.

But while the 1967 referendum felt like the beginning of being an Australian citizen for many, that had come almost two decades earlier.

The Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 gave automatic citizenship to all Australians previously deemed British subjects, which, again, included Indigenous people.

Yet, says long-time Aboriginal activist Sol Bellear, many people who were Indigenous still pretended not to be, right up until the referendum

"A lot of Aboriginal people didn't see themselves as citizens and that they had the right and whatever, and that's why a lot of Aboriginal people back then passed themselves off as Hawaiians and Maoris and Indians, et cetera."

In recent days, when the West Australian government tabled a draft bill recognising the Noongar people as traditional owners of large areas of land, the misunderstanding arose yet again.

The head of the state's South-West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council, Glen Kelly, feeling the deep emotion of the Noongar elders, remarked:

"Those fellas there, for half of their lives, they weren't citizens. They were at the mercy of the Commissioner for Native Welfare. They were pushed onto missions and reserves. It wasn't until after the 1967 referendum that they were actually able to become citizens."

The third point, the census issue, is a little murkier, since including Aboriginal people in "reckoning the numbers" was an aim of the referendum.

Up until 1967, the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics indeed interpreted Section 127 to mean it could count Aboriginal people but not in the official population.

A race question in the census was used to assess the number of what it termed "full-blood" Aboriginal people -- anybody of over 50 per cent Aboriginal ancestry.

That number was then subtracted from the population count.

As well, only rough estimates of remote Aboriginal populations were done, and, again, because society viewed Aboriginality as a disadvantage, many people did not reveal theirs.

The shortcomings showed starkly after the referendum: from 1966, the year before it, to 1971, the Aboriginal count increased by almost 45 per cent.

Over the next five-year period, it increased again by almost 40 per cent.

So it was a landmark time for many.

Pat Stretton says, back at Federation in 1901, South Australia had wanted Aboriginal people included in the census but dropped the idea under pressure.

"Each colony had a capitation fee -- I think it was a pound a head, but it was a certain sum for every person -- to get the Commonwealth going, because they didn't have any money until they could start raising taxes. And, at Federation, South Australia included the Northern Territory. So, if you said, 'We will add the Aboriginal population to the white population,' that was going to hit South Australia in the hip pocket** big-time, and, I'm sorry to say, that was the end of that conversation."

In 1947, Queensland did finally convince the Commonwealth to count Torres Strait Islanders, although they were first classified as Polynesians, then as Pacific Islanders.

Not being counted properly in the census all those years has fed into the misunderstanding that Aboriginal people were classified as fauna until the '67 referendum.

In recent years, an Aboriginal politician even referred to growing up under a state Flora and Fauna Act.

Several states did, indeed, often manage Aboriginal affairs through departments that also handled flora, fauna and wildlife.

But there is nothing to show Aboriginal people were ever classed as one and the same, despite the fact they were not being counted in the official human population.

Sol Bellear, now chairman of the Aboriginal Medical Service, says the animal counts in those years were actually far more accurate than the Aboriginal counts.

"In actual fact, back then, they knew how many sheep and cattle and dogs, et cetera, were in Australia (better than) they knew how many Aboriginal people existed here."

Mr Bellear says officials had a sense of the animal numbers because they fit into the important calculations of the time but the Aboriginal numbers did not.

"They had an idea (on the animals) so that there wasn't any overgrazing and that sort of thing. I think what would now be called the Farmers' Federation, whatever it was back then, did a rough count on animals and whatnot. Each farmer would know how many sheep he could graze, how many cattle they could graze, on whatever acreage they had, et cetera, et cetera, so they didn't overgraze their land."

The right to vote, citizenship, counting in the census, no longer counting as fauna ... Peter Buckskin says they are, indeed, the key areas of misunderstanding about the 1967 referendum.

But the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium head says the list of misunderstandings about the years leading up to it needs one addition.

Long before Aboriginal people were accepted as a real part of Australia, he says -- be it 1967 or whenever -- many made a very real, often ignored contribution on the battlefield.

"I think it's really important that people understand how men and women enlisted in the armed forces to fight for Australia, even in the Boer War, all the way through to the situation, you know, prior to the '67 referendum, where some people kind of had to deny their Aboriginality to ensure they could be enlisted."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 1967 referendum regarding Aboriginal rights has long been regarded as pivotal, but myths about it continue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wanju Wanju Kaartdijin Noongar - Welcome to Noongar Knowledge

Kaartdijin in Noongar means 'knowledge'. Noongar people have lived in the south-west of Western Australia for more than 45,000 years. The aim of the Kaartdijin website is to share the richness of our knowledge, culture and history in order to strengthen our community and promote wider understanding.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kaartdijin in Noongar means 'knowledge'. Noongar people have lived in the south-west of Western Australia for more than 45,000 years. The aim of the Kaartdijin website is to share the richness of our knowledge, culture and history in order to strengthen our community and promote wider understanding.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AIATSIS acknowledges all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Traditional Custodians of Country and recognises their continuing connection to land, sea, culture and community. We pay our respects to Elders past and present.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are Australia's only national institution focused exclusively on the diverse history, cultures and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Noongar Boodjar Language Cultural Aboriginal Corporation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Noongar Boodjar Language Cultural Aboriginal Corporation (NBLCAC) was established in 2014. A board of directors representing most of the Noongar clans manages NBLCAC's operations.