Australian History Mysteries Five case studies in twentieth century Australian history
National Museum of Australia Ryebuck Media Pty Ltd
2
ISBN 0-949380-58-X © 2005 National Museum of Australia and Ryebuck Media Pty Ltd Written by Robert Lewis, Tim Gurry, David Arnold Produced by National Museum of Australia Schools Program Section GPO Box 1901 Canberra ACT 2601 Phone (02) 6208 5239 Fax (02) 6208 5198 Email
[email protected] Website http://schools.nma.gov.au
Ryebuck Media Pty Ltd 31 Station Street Malvern Victoria 3144 Phone (03) 9500 2399 Fax (03) 9500 2388 Email
[email protected] Website www.ryebuck.com.au
Designed by Polar Design, Carlton, Victoria Printed by Impact Printing, Brunswick, Victoria All efforts have been made to find copyright ownership of materials used in this publication. Any contraventions are accidental and will be redressed. For any copyright matters please contact Ryebuck Media Pty Ltd. Teachers are welcome to duplicate any pages in this publication for educational purposes in their classrooms.
Case Study four
How have Indigenous people's rights changed over time? Overview How have Indigenous Australians’ rights changed? How can you reconcile the apparent racism revealed by the 1965 Freedom Ride in places like Walgett and Moree with the overwhelmingly positive example of the 1967 referendum? Or the apparent hostility of many towards the Aboriginal Tent Embassy in 1972 with the awarding of equal pay to Aboriginal pastoral workers in 1966 and the adoption of the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975? Or the High Court rejection of the Yirrkala people’s claim to legal ownership of their land in 1971 with the same court’s acceptance of it in the Mabo case in 1992? Students explore the evidence to critically discuss the issue of Australians’ attitudes to Indigenous rights and racial equality.
Key learning outcomes After a study of this unit students will be better able to: • outline the important developments in this area • explain the significance of the event/issue for the changing rights and freedoms of Indigenous people in Australia.
Teachers’ Guide Classroom planner Classroom activities
1 — Focusing on rights 2 — Video Visit 3 — How have Indigenous people’s rights developed over time? Decision makers
Resource pages required 1–2 3 4–9
Suggested classroom format (Class, group, individual, library/home)
Approximate classroom time
Class and individual
15 minutes
Class
15 minutes
Group
45 minutes
4 — Case Study 1: 1967 referendum
10–13
Group and individual
45 minutes
5 — Case Study 2: Mutual obligation
14–17
Group and individual
45 minutes
Classroom strategies Activity 1 introduces students to the concept of denial of human or civil rights through discrimination. Activity 2, the Video Visit, takes them to some places associated with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander struggles for citizenship rights in Australia, and introduces them to some people who have been part of that struggle. It raises the central issues of this investigation — how have Indigenous Australians’ rights changed over time, and how can we explain the apparent ambivalence or dichotomy that has sometimes existed towards this development? In Activity 3 students learn about some of the key developments in Indigenous civil rights in the second half of the 20th century in Australia. They also see the variety of attitudes that existed among decision makers and ordinary people towards these developments — at some times promoting them, and at other times resisting them. Students are faced with simplified versions of the key principles behind some landmark human rights situations, and must confront the decision-making process. It is desirable here to encourage student discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the various options, and the dilemmas that they often involve. The actual decisions can be revealed after each situation. It also encourages students to further research an issue for presentation, with starting materials available on the National Museum of Australia website for this project. Activities 4 presents an historical case study for analysis and discussion by the whole class. The 1967 referendum is a key moment in Indigenous citizenship history. This case study allows all students to consider some key questions associated with it: how it has been represented, what it meant, why people voted as they did, and how it is seen today. It also raises the question of why other developments in Indigenous rights were not also overwhelmingly supported by the Australian people. A web resource whereby students can find out how their own electorate voted in the 1967 referendum is available on the NMA site www.nma.gov.au/ahm/home/html. Activity 5 asks students to look at a typical current issue — the controversial Mutual Obligation policy. The two articles included on the Resource Pages reflect different attitudes towards the policy — one more critical of it than the other — but it is interesting to see how the two articles use very similar information to create their different emphases. The analysis of the cartoons should be a particularly interesting exercise for students.
68 Australian History Mysteries 2 Investigating five case studies in twentieth century Australian History
Key discussion points • Are citizenship rights important? • Why are some rights denied to some people? • Should all citizens have equal rights all the time? Is it ever appropriate to refuse some rights to some people for a good reason? • What is the difference between having rights, and exercising them? • What responsibilities go with rights? • Is it acceptable for some groups to have separate or additional rights that others do not have? • How have rights changed over time? • Have Australians always supported those developments? Why or why not?
Web activities The web activities for this unit on www.nma.gov.au/ahm/home/html are a map by electorate of how Australians voted in the 1967 referendum; and a collection of further evidence files and references to help students research individual key moments in more depth.
Further reading This unit has been developed from a wide variety of text and web materials. No single general reference can be particularly recommended.
Case study 4 How have Indigenous people's citizenship rights changed over time? 69
case study 4
activity one
Focusing on rights resource page 1
I
magine that the whole school has been invited to attend a special concert by the most popular group around. All, that is, except your class. You cannot go. Why? Because you are considered to be dirty and unreliable. There’s no good reason for thinking this — but most people do think it. So you cannot go.
1 2
How do you feel about this? What can you do about it?
This was essentially the situation facing Indigenous people in Australia in 1945. Most were excluded from many of the rights and freedoms that other Australians had; many non-Indigenous Australians believed that Indigenous Australians were unreliable and dirty; many Indigenous people lived in conditions that were among the worst in Australia. This unit explores the ways in which this situation has changed over the last sixty years, and the degree to which Indigenous people have equal citizenship rights and responsibilities with all other Australians today. The unit asks you to consider how Indigenous rights and freedoms have changed to create an equal citizenship. A key focus of this unit is the issue of ‘citizenship’. What does citizenship mean? Citizenship is not simply about having a vote to choose government. It is about having the right to participate equally in your society, and accepting the responsibilities that you have for the way in which your actions affect others. It is about being an equal and responsible person in a community and society. So it’s not just about theoretical rights, it’s also about being able to exercise those rights in practice. Look at the video to start getting ideas and information that will help you through the unit.
Your task Your task is to develop an annotated timeline of key events in the development of Indigenous citizenship rights from 1945 until today. For each key event you need to provide information on these aspects (where appropriate): • • • • • • • • • •
What was the event? When did it occur? Where did the events take place? Why did the event occur? Who was most involved (individuals and groups)? Who supported it? Why? Who opposed it? Why? What were the main outcomes (positive and negative)? Who was most affected by the event? What was the significance of this event in the development of Indigenous citizenship rights?
70 Australian History Mysteries 2 Investigating five case studies in twentieth century Australian history
case study 4
activity one
Focusing on rights resource page 2
Your task Each event should be on a separate A4 page, and could look like this (using the 1965 Freedom Rides as an example): 2 1965
3 The events took place in …
4 The Ride was undertaken because …
5 Those most involved were …
1 FREEDOM RIDES
10 The significance of this event in the development of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizenship rights was … 6 It was supported by … because …
7 It was opposed by … because …
INSERT YOUR CHOICE OF ILLUSTRATION
8 The main outcomes were …
9 Those most affected by this were …
The pages can be placed in chronological order around the walls of your classroom to create a timeline of key events, like this: 1946
1961
1965
1966
1967 etc.
T
he following Resource Pages will help you develop an overview of changing Indigenous Australians’ rights during the second half of the twentieth century. In Resource Pages 4–9 you are Au asked to become a decision-maker in eight historical citizenship situations. You will need to research each one further if you choose it as your featured event. Extra materials are available to help you on the National Museum of Australia website www.nma.gov.au/ahm/home/html. A list of possible key events is included below, with those for which there is information in this unit marked*, but you may find other events not listed there that you want to research.
1946 — *Kimberley strike 1965 — *Freedom Rides 1966 — *Gurindji strike and land claim 1966 — *Equal pay decision 1967 — *Referendum 1971 — *Gove land rights case 1972 — *Aboriginal Tent Embassy
1972 — *Wave Hill land handover 1975 — *Racial Discrimination Act 1988 — *Australia Day protest 1992 — *Mabo decision 1993 — *Native Title Act 1996 — *Wik decision 2004 — *Mutual obligation policy
This unit also includes information for a detailed study of the 1967 referendum, and material to help you explore a current issue in an analytical way. These case studies focus on one of the most important events in Australian history, and also show you that the issue of Indigenous Australians’ rights is still an important one in your society today. A study of these case studies will also provide a way of developing the inquiry skills that you will need to use in your research on your individual timeline event.
Case study 4 How have Indigenous people's citizenship rights changed over time? 71
case study 4
activity two
Video visit resource page 3
1
What general impression does this video give about the citizenship rights of Indigenous people in Australian society over recent time?
2
Who is involved in the changes and actions on the video?
3
What different sorts of evidence are available in the video for you to find out about the issue of citizenship rights?
4
What other sorts of evidence might be available in the community?
5
The video shows people taking action to secure rights for themselves, and for others. Why do you think some people are prepared to do this?
6
What is the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, and why do you think it is there?
7
What are your impressions of it?
8
Why do you think some people might support it, while others oppose it?
9
Why do you think some people try to keep rights from others?
10 The video talks about ‘varying and changing attitudes’. Why do you think attitudes change? 11
What are the main ‘mysteries’ you are being asked to explore in this case study?
72 Australian History Mysteries 2 Investigating five case studies in twentieth century Australian history
case study 4
activity three
Decision makers resource page 4
How have Indigenous people's rights developed over time? Decision maker Situation 1
A group of Aboriginal pastoral workers is considering a strike. The men receive far less pay than European workers doing the same job, but are supplied with clothes and food. A strike might see them victimised and harassed by the white landowners, police and community leaders, all of whom are usually associated with the pastoralists.
The options
The people ask your advice on which option to choose: A Strike until they win. B Just threaten and see if this will get wages raised. C Strike for a brief time, but go straight back and start negotiating for more. D Move somewhere else and work. E Do nothing, accept the situation.
NT stockman Herald and Weekly Times Ltd
Your decision Your reasons
Situation 2
The options
You have heard that there is racial discrimination against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in some country towns. You are part of a group on a bus, touring these towns, talking to local people, gathering the facts, and prepared to demonstrate peacefully where you find an injustice. You have visited one place where Aboriginal children were not allowed in the same pool as whites. You protested, and the rule seemed to have been changed. You think you really made an impact in raising awareness of the problem in that town. You continued on your trip. You now hear that the discriminatory practice has started again. If you go back you can expect possible violence this time.
Cartoon: ‘Youse can’t come in here — you’re unhygienic.’ Bulletin 1965
The group is discussing what to do. What is your choice? A Go back, face any violence, and force a change again. B Complain to the local authorities that they have broken their word, but keep visiting new places rather than go back. C Stress that is now up to people on the spot to carry on the struggle. You have shown the way, and need to visit other places to show them how to handle discrimination in their community. D Accept that you tried, but failed. Go home.
Your decision Your reasons
Case study 4 How have Indigenous people's citizenship rights changed over time? 73
case study 4
activity three
Decision makers resource page 5
How have Indigenous people's rights developed over time? Decision maker Situation 3
You are a union official in northern Australia. You are aware that pay to Aboriginal stockmen is much lower than to white stockmen doing the same job. Their families are allowed to live on the property, which is part of their traditional land. Some of the women work as domestic labourers at the homestead. The seasonal nature of the work gives the community time to maintain their customs and traditions. But the fact is that they are just not paid a fair and equal wage. The pastoralists say they cannot afford an increase, and if they are forced to pay more to workers, they will have to withdraw food and permission to live on the properties from the stockmen’s families.
The options
You have to decide what course of action you recommend. A Take an equal pay case to court. You are likely to win. B Negotiate with the pastoralists to secure an increase over several years. C Negotiate with Aboriginal leaders and ask them what they want. D Decide that the present situation is better than one with equal wages but with family groups disrupted.
State Library of Victoria
Your decision
Your reasons
Situation 4
A group of Aboriginal people has lived in a particular area for many thousands of years. Their possession and use of the land has been continuous. Minerals have been discovered in the area. A mining company wants to drill, but cannot get the permission of the traditional owners. The case goes to court.
The options
You are a High Court judge. A Apply the rule of ‘terra nullius’ — once the British claimed Australia in 1788 it all became Crown Land, and traditional ownership no longer applied. The mining company can drill. B Apply the rule of ‘Native Title’ — recognising the traditional ownership of the area by the local people. The mining company cannot drill without the permission of the traditional owners.
Your decision
Your reasons
74 Australian History Mysteries 2 Investigating five case studies in twentieth century Australian history
Tribune
case study 4
activity three
Decision makers resource page 6
How have Indigenous people's rights developed over time? Decision maker Situation 5
Calls for land rights for Indigenous people have not been addressed. In protest some Indigenous people have set up a tent on lawns outside Parliament House. They are calling it an ‘Embassy’, a term that is only applied to the property used by a foreign nation to conduct relations with the host nation. The tent is therefore highly symbolic — of poverty, of protest, and of alienation. Some people in government want it forcibly removed. The protesters vow they will not go without a violent struggle.
The options
The Government asks your advice on which option to choose: A Let it remain. B Remove it after negotiation. C Remove it by force. State Library Victoria
Your decision
Your reasons
Situation 6
The United Nations has drafted a statement or ‘covenant’ that claims that there must be no racial discrimination. Australia has been invited to adopt this covenant and create a local Act of Parliament to implement it in Australian law. If it does so it will be committing Australia to the principles; if it does not it will be saying that while Australia might agree with the law, it will only pass laws that have been specifically created for Australian conditions. Mitchell Library
The options
You are a Member of Parliament who has to decide how to vote in Parliament: A Vote to accept the general principles of the United Nations, even though some parts of their covenant might not be exactly what you want. B Refuse to accept this covenant exactly, but pass a specifically Australian version of it that the Australian parliament can control and change as it wants without being seen to be rejecting the UN’s general principles.
Your decision
Your reasons
Case study 4 How have Indigenous people's citizenship rights changed over time? 75
case study 4
activity three
Decision makers resource page 7
How have Indigenous people's rights developed over time? Decision maker Situation 7
A group of Torres Strait Islander people has lived in a particular area for many thousands of years. Their possession and use of the land has been continuous. A State Government claims that the island is part of the State, and that the State, not the local people, has title to the land.
The options
You are a High Court judge. A Follow the 1971 precedent and apply the rule of ‘terra nullius’ — once the British claimed Australia in 1788 it all became Crown Land, and traditional ownership no longer applied. The State Government owns the land for the Crown. B Create the totally new law of ‘Native Title’ — recognising the traditional ownership of the area by the local people. The State Government does not own the land.
Eddie Mabo and Torres Strait Island flag National Museum of Australia
Your decision
Your reasons
Situation 8
A group of Aboriginal people has lived in a particular area for many thousands of years. But their land has been controlled by the State Government, and has been leased to pastoralists for many years, though never sold outright. The Aboriginal people claim the land under the law of ‘Native Title’; the pastoralists claim that their long-term leases of it have destroyed a Native Title claim to it.
The options
You are a High Court judge. A Follow the Mabo decision and award Native Title. B Follow the Gove decision and award it to the pastoralists. C Decide that both parties should share it. Memorial to Aboriginal Land Rights, Canberra
Your decision
Your reasons
76 Australian History Mysteries 2 Investigating five case studies in twentieth century Australian history
case study 4
activity three
Decision makers resource page 8
How have Indigenous people's rights developed over time? What actually happened Situation 1
In 1946 Aboriginal stockmen and their families went on strike in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. They were harassed by the authorities, but stuck it out. They were promised increased pay, but this agreement was not honoured. They moved and set up their own community.
Why this is significant
It is an early example of Aboriginal people acting to demand equality and justice. The community they established is still there and is very successful.
Explore it further
A recent play, Yandy, is based on this event. To see two detailed discussions of the event as represented in the play, go to www.nma.gov.au/ahm/home.html
Situation 2
In 1965 a group of Sydney University students, led by Aboriginal student Charles Perkins, went on a ‘Freedom Ride’ through outback New South Wales. They de-segregated the town baths at Moree, but the next day the ban was reinstated. The students returned and faced a hostile local crowd (though some locals supported them) but they succeeded again in breaking the ban. As they resumed their trip the bus was run off the road by some locals, though nobody was harmed.
Why this is significant
The Freedom Ride won great publicity among the metropolitan press, and opened many people’s eyes to the reality of racial discrimination in Australia.
Explore it further
To see a detailed recollection and analysis of the event by a participant, go to www.nma.gov.au/ ahm/home.html
Situation 3
In 1966 the union did not consult with Aboriginal people. It believed that the principle of equality was so important a basic human right that it had to be won for them. The court awarded equal pay, and many pastoralists forced communities to leave their properties and gather together in poor physical and social conditions in towns. Many lost contact with their land and many social problems developed.
Why this is significant
This well-meaning attempt to implement a basic human right was done without consultation with Aboriginal people, and while it created greater equality in theory, in practice it caused great cultural and social harm to many.
Explore it further
To see a detailed recollection and analysis of the event, go to www.nma.gov.au/ahm/home.html
Situation 4
In 1971 the Yirrkala people of Gove Peninsula took a mining company to the High Court to resist the company’s attempts to mine the land without permission. The High Court upheld the traditional law of ‘terra nullius’ — the principle that since the Indigenous people did not cultivate the land and did not have clear leaders with whom to negotiate, the land automatically was controlled by the Crown, who could give the company permission to mine it.
Why this is significant
It re-stated a law that denied Indigenous people ownership of their traditional land.
Explore it further
To see information on the Gove Land Rights case, go to www.nma.gov.au/ahm/home.html
Case study 4 How have Indigenous people's citizenship rights changed over time? 77
case study 4
activity three
Decision makers resource page 9
How have Indigenous people's rights developed over time? What actually happened Situation 5
All three options have been tried since 1972. The initial strategy was a forcible removal, and this created an angry and violent clash between protesters and police. The Aboriginal Tent Embassy, established in 1972, is still there, though in a physically different structure today.
Why this is significant
It provided a focus for Indigenous people’s grievances, and a powerful symbol of difference. It still creates debate about whether it is an eyesore or a significant heritage site worthy of preservation.
Explore it further
To see information on the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, go to www.nma.gov.au/ahm/home.html
Situation 6
In 1975 the Australian Parliament accepted the UN’s principles in the Racial Discrimination Act.
Why this is significant
It tied Australia to important universal principles of racial equality, and meant that any local laws that violated this principle were now illegal. So the nation has accepted international standards and accountability in this area.
Explore it further
To see information on the Racial Discrimination Act, go to www.nma.gov.au/ahm/home.html
Situation 7
In 1992 Eddie Mabo and others’ High Court claim to have their traditional ownership of their land accepted by Australian law was successful. The majority of the judges overturned the 1971 Gove case, and claimed that the law of ‘Native Title’ existed in Australia.
Why this is significant
Native Title gave communal title to land to many Indigenous communities. For the first time their traditional ownership of their land was recognised.
Explore it further
To see information on the Mabo decision, go to www.nma.gov.au/ahm/home.html
Situation 8
In 1996 The Wik people claimed land that was traditionally theirs, but had long been leased for pastoral use. The High Court decided that as the land had never actually been sold by the State Government, Native Title had not been ‘extinguished’. They ruled that both parties should share access to and use of the land, but that the pastoralists had priority if there was a clash of uses.
Why this is significant
This extended the Native Title principle in a large degree to land that was leasehold.
Explore it further
To see information on the Wik decision, go to www.nma.gov.au/ahm/home.html
Now that you have seen this brief overview of some changes to Indigenous Australians’ rights over time you can choose one event to focus on in developing a detailed class timeline. You will find extra resources and references at www.nma.gov.au/ahm/home.html. The remaining Resource Pages in this unit look at two case studies: the 1967 referendum, and the 2004 Mutual Obligation Policy. The 1967 referendum is one of the most important events in Australian history. The 2004 case study will show you that the ideas and issues from the past that you are investigating here are still important elements of our society today.
78 Australian History Mysteries 2 Investigating five case studies in twentieth century Australian history
case study 4
activity four
Case Study 1: 1967 referendum resource page 10
Case Study — 1967 referendum In 1967 the Federal Government put a referendum to the Australian people to change two aspects of the Constitution that affected Indigenous people. Think about how this event will be represented on your timeline. Before 1967 the Commonwealth Government was unable to make laws specifically concerning Indigenous people. The states had that power. On 27 May 1967 Australians voted to change the two sections of the Australian Constitution that specifically referred to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: section 51(xxvi) which prohibited the Commonwealth Government from making laws specifically for Indigenous people; and section 127, which did not allow Indigenous people to be counted in the official Census. The vote was 90.77% in favour of the changes. This meant that the Commonwealth could now make laws specifically affecting Indigenous Australians as a group. On the same day the Australian people voted against another proposed change to the Constitution, to break the connection between the numbers of Members of Commonwealth Parliament (it has to be 2:1 between the House of Representatives and the Senate), thereby showing that there was a deliberate decision on the part of the Australian people behind the choice to change the Constitution in one aspect and not the other. What were the effects? How, if at all, does the 1967 referendum fit into the development of Indigenous rights and citizenship?
1
Here are some claims about what the 1967 referendum was about and achieved. Look at Sources 1–7 following, and match them where possible.
Claim: the 1967 Referendum
This can be seen in Source:
Source 1
Referendum poster
Recognised citizenship rights for Indigenous people Granted Indigenous people citizenship Granted Indigenous people equality Gave Indigenous people the vote Ended discrimination against Indigenous people in state laws Gave control over Indigenous affairs from the states to the Commonwealth All sources are based on material in Bain Attwood and Andrew Markus The 1967 Referendum or When Aborigines Didn’t Get the Vote, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra, 1997
Gordon Bryant Papers, National Library of Australia
Case study 4 How have Indigenous people's citizenship rights changed over time? 79
case study 4
activity four
Case Study 1: 1967 referendum resource page 11
Source 2
Simple request, simple answer
Source 3
Referendum Poster
Courier-Mail
Gordon Bryant Papers National Library of Australia
Source 4
Vote yes for Aboriginal citizenship rights Source 5
End discrimination Vote Yes on May 27
The Common Cause
Source 6
Aboriginal rights and the referendum
Mr Bill Onus, Aboriginal President of the Aborigines Advancement League of Victoria, says that Australians should vote yes to give the Aborigines full citizenship rights. It is a question of human rights. Mr Onus believes that the image of Australia throughout the world is at stake.
Smoke Signals, Victorian Aboriginal Advancement League
Source 7
180 years of discrimination …
Aboriginal leader Charles Perkins has stated that the coming referendum is an opportunity for white people to demonstrate in a positive way their desire to help in the emancipation of the Aboriginal of Australia … Until now Aborigines haven’t been counted with Australian citizens in a National Census. You can change this. On May 27 vote yes in the lower square. 100,000 Aborigines need your help to be governed under one Federal law. So be sure to vote yes for Aboriginal Legislation on May 27. As a nation we have a chance to show our willingness to really help the Aboriginal people. Vote yes for Aboriginal Legislation on May 27. On Referendum Day a Yes vote for Aboriginal Legislation will prove to the world our determination to help the Aboriginal people. Be sure you vote yes in the lower square. If you really want to help the Aboriginal people, now is your chance. A yes vote on Referendum Day will give them Federal Government rights … so vote yes in the lower square. Gordon Bryant Papers, National Library of Australia
Bruce Petty in The Australian
80 Australian History Mysteries 2 Investigating five case studies in twentieth century Australian history
case study 4
activity four
Case Study 1: 1967 referendum resource page 12
I
n fact none of the claims on Resource Page 10 is true.
• The repeal of the state legislation which discriminated against Indigenous people was a process which was independent of the 1967 referendum and which had begun before the referendum. • Indigenous voting rights had been clarified by the Commonwealth Government five years before the referendum and the extension of award wages to Aborigines occurred in 1968 as a result of actions unrelated to the referendum. • The Commonwealth Government had been involved in Aboriginal Affairs in the Northern Territory since 1911 and, through the grants provision in s.96 of the Constitution, could have been involved in state Aboriginal affairs before 1967 if it had wanted to be. • The referendum result did not automatically make the Commonwealth more involved and indeed little changed for 5 years. So what did it do, who was responsible for its success, who opposed it and why, and was it important? Look at the following evidence to develop your conclusions. For each source, underline the key words that tell you what the main point is that is being made in each document. Source 1
Source 2
Support for the deletion of the reference to the Aboriginal race in s.51(xxvi) was widespread. Those who favoured the deletion of the words did so for two main reasons: to enable the Commonwealth to take positive action for the welfare of Aborigines throughout Australia, and to make it plain to the rest of the world that Australia was not a racist country. It was seen as a means of ending discrimination against Aborigines.
The Age saw positive advantages in a Yes vote: ‘A Yes vote will pave the way for improving their health, education and housing; it will give them opportunities to live normal lives. A No vote will frustrate any vigorous programme to end discrimination against Aborigines; it will be a brutal rebuff to the first Australians and bring this country into international disrepute.’
Source 4 Source 3 The South Australian Attorney-General, Mr Dunstan, said that at present power over Aborigines was held in the State Parliaments which did not have sufficient money to deal adequately with the problem. The only Parliament with sufficient resources was the Commonwealth Parliament and a Yes vote would enable the Commonwealth to carry out welfare activities which were at present outside its power.
Faith Bandler, the campaign director in New South Wales for the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, was concerned that the public was confused about the referendum and felt the political parties had conducted poor campaigns and had not explained the issues clearly. One of the gratifying aspects of the campaign for her had been the rallying together of Aborigines. Many young Aborigines who have never opened their mouths in public before, were now appearing on television and radio interviews and making speeches to church, trade union and factory gatherings. *All sources are based on material in Bain Attwood and Andrew Markus, The 1967 Referendum or When Aborigines Didn’t Get the Vote, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra, 1997
Case study 4 How have Indigenous people's citizenship rights changed over time? 81
case study 4
activity four
Case Study 1: 1967 referendum resource page 13
H
ere are some key questions about the referendum for you to consider. e
Why did people support the referendum? The vote was an overwhelming support for ‘Yes’. Over 90% voted for the changes to the Constitution. Why did people vote the way they did? Here are some possible explanations: • It was a matter of principle. • It was to ensure a ‘fair go’ for Indigenous people. • People did not know what they were doing.
1
• The vote was not seen as changing anything so it was safe to support the idea. • People wanted the federal government to set uniform policies.
You could test these ideas by interviewing family members and friends who were adults in 1967 and ask them how they voted, and why.
All electorates voted Yes, but some had a higher No vote than others. Here are the federal electorates with the greatest No vote: • • • •
2 3 4
Kalgoorlie (WA Rural) 29.04% • Kennedy (Qld Rural) 23.45% Perth (WA Urban) 20.85% • Moore (WA Rural) 20.82% Cowper (NSW Rural) 19.12% • Grey (SA Rural) 18.64% Gwydir (NSW Rural and including Moree) 18.21%
• Canning (WA Rural) 22.75% • Leichhardt (Qld Rural) 19.44% • Angas (SA Rural) 18.24%
What pattern is there in these figures? Why do you think this pattern might have existed? To see how your electorate voted at the time go to www.nma.gov.au/ahm/home.html Was the 1967 referendum a significant moment in Indigenous Australians’ history? Was it a significant moment for non-Indigenous Australians? Look at the following information:
How is the referendum seen by people today? For some people in search of an event to celebrate in the history of Indigenous–white relations, the referendum can be seen to be the moment when all Australian citizens, Indigenous or otherwise, became equal under the Constitution with the same rights and responsibilities. True nationhood was born on the day. For others it can be seen as the moment when Australians rejected what they saw as their racist past, when Australians stood up and were counted. Some Indigenous people do not regard the referendum highly. Some are of the opinion that it had little if any impact on everyday life, that there is still a long way to go before equality is achieved, and that Aborigines still have to struggle for basic rights. Others regard it as highly significant, because it alerted Indigenous people to their rights and gave them the confidence to exercise them for the first time.
5
What does the referendum mean to you?
82 Australian History Mysteries 2 Investigating five case studies in twentieth century Australian history
case study 4
activity five
Case Study 2: Mutual obligation resource page 14
Case study — 2004 Mutual Obligation Agreement In 2004 the federal government began to develop ‘Mutual Obligation Agreements’ with remote Indigenous communities, in which they would receive extra government assistance in return for behavioural changes within a community. Are these agreements a way of helping Indigenous people exercise their full citizenship rights, or are they an abuse of individual human rights? Look at the two accounts of the first major agreement, and decide for yourself. Think about how this event will be represented on your timeline. This unit is about changing the rights and freedoms of Indigenous Australians. The situation with equal citizenship is still changing as policies are adopted by the Commonwealth Government to try to improve the conditions of remote or disadvantaged communities. The results of new policies are not known until after they have been implemented. Look at this example of an important but controversial new government policy — ‘mutual obligation’. Source 1
Mulan map
Source 2
Two cartoons
Mark Knight, Herald Sun 11 December 2004
1 2 3 4 5
Look at these two cartoons. Who is in each? How is each depicted? What are they doing? What is the message of each cartoon?
6
If you only had these cartoons, what would you say are the key issues about Mutual Obligation Agreements?
7
Why do you think the two cartoons put such different views of the issue? Krygsman, The Australian, 28 December 2004
Case study 4 How have Indigenous people's citizenship rights changed over time? 83
case study 4
activity five
Case Study 2: Mutual obligation resource page 15
T
he agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the Mulan community
1
Look at the agreement below. Do you think it is fair and reasonable? Or is it an unfair set of requirements? Discuss this in class before you look at the information and opinions that follow.
Shared Responsibilities The community will: • Start and maintain a program ensuring children shower daily and wash their faces twice daily. • Ensure every house has a rubbish bin that is emptied twice weekly. • Ensure household pest control happens four times a year. • Ensure the rubbish tip is properly managed. • Develop and put in place strategies to ensure petrol sold through the store is not used for petrol-sniffing. • Monitor and report on the extent to which commitments to this agreement are met. Families and individuals in the Mulan Community will: • Ensure children attend school, crèche and clinic when required. • Ensure children shower daily and wash their faces twice daily. • Keep homes and yards clean and rubbish-free and ensure household rubbish is put into bins straightaway. • Ensure all household rents are paid so the council can afford pest control, repairs and rubbish removal. The Australian Government will: • Contribute $172,260 for the provision and installation of fuel bowsers. The WA Government will: • Organise to have children regularly tested, especially for trachoma, secondary skin infections and worm infestations. • Monitor and review the adequacy of clinical health services at Mulan to ensure that any ongoing health issues are identified and addressed.
2
Look at the two following newspaper accounts of the same event.
• Compare these two newspaper reports. Look at the headlines and the impression they give, whose opinion is quoted, the writers’ opinions, the overall message that is given in each case. Does the impression readers receive about the policy depend on which newspaper they read? Discuss your findings. • What is your opinion on the policy? • How has that opinion been formed? • What was the most influential element in forming that opinion? For example, was it the cartoons? Or the attitude of the Indigenous people quoted? Or the government explanation? Or the critics? Or your own sense of what is right or wrong? Or some other element?
84 Australian History Mysteries 2 Investigating five case studies in twentieth century Australian history
case study 4
activity five
Case Study 2: Mutual obligation resource page 16
Source 4
Extracts from a newspaper representation of the policy (1)
Hopes for race accord dashed MEAGHAN SHAW HOPES for a dramatic change in black-white relations have been dashed by a controversial deal linking funding for an indigenous community with behavioural change. Less than a week after key Aboriginal leaders hailed the results of a meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, one of the parties to that meeting has blasted a deal in which a remote Kimberley community has agreed to meet hygiene standards in return for petrol pumps and health checks. Patrick Dodson, widely regarded as the father of reconciliation, yesterday described the arrangement with the Mulan Aboriginal community as ‘lunacy’. Mr Dodson said the deal … belittled Aboriginal people. ‘It smacks so much of the old days when the superintendents of missions lined people up and checked whether they’d cleaned their teeth or put their rubbish bins out at the right angle,’ he said … He said it was an indication of the Mulan community’s desperation that
it was prepared to forgo civil liberties to get essential services … The policy of providing funding to Aboriginal communities in exchange for behavioural change has split the Aboriginal community. The Government’s hand-picked National Advisory Committee has backed the Mulan deal. Council chairwoman Sue Gordon said yesterday: ‘I don’t view anything which is going to benefit Aboriginal people — which Aboriginal people themselves put up — as being paternalistic, because it’s not being imposed on Aboriginal people.’ … But while the administrator of the Mulan Aboriginal Corporation, Mark Sewell, has maintained that the agreement was initiated by the community, the people there appear to be divided. One community elder interviewed yesterday, May Stundi, said that Mulan was a ‘clean, proud place’ and that the funding deal was unfair. The only Aborigine in the West Australian Government, Carol
Martin, said the Mulan deal was offensive. ‘I’m offended that people need to sit up and beg,’ she said. ‘I train my dogs by withdrawing things’. But Mr Howard said he believed the deal would ‘resonate through the Australian community as a very common-sense way to go’. Health Minister Tony Abbott predicted ‘dozens and, ultimately, hundreds and thousands of agreements like this’ would be signed … Opposition Leader Mark Latham told ABC radio that mutual obligation was a ‘long-standing Labor principle’.
Rules are unfair, say proud people of Mulan STEVE PENNELLS LAST night, as dusk fell gently across the edge of the Great Sandy desert and the night winds blew the Mulan church band’s ‘Hallelujahs’ intermittently past her front porch, May Stundi’s expression suddenly turned serious. ‘This is unfair. We are a proud people,’ she said. ‘Everyone is well looked after.’ Two of the community’s elders, Bessie and Bill Doonsday, sat beside her and nodded.
‘Look around,’ Ms Stundi continued, ‘this is a clean place, a proud place’. In Mulan, she said, kids didn’t sniff petrol like they did in Balgo, 44 kilometres east. And the rate of trachoma in the community’s children was less than a third of what it was a year ago. Which makes the conditions attached to a $172,260 Federal Government grant — the subject of a growing political storm — hard for the community to understand. (The Age 10 December 2004)
Case study 4 How have Indigenous people's citizenship rights changed over time? 85
case study 4
activity five
Case Study 2: Mutual obligation resource page 17
Source 5
Extracts from a newspaper representation of the policy (2)
Aboriginal community leaders slam face-wash critics
We are just saving our kids PATRICIA KARVELAS AND AMANDA BANKS THE Aboriginal parents who struck a deal promising to force their kids to wash in return for community petrol bowsers yesterday delivered a powerful message to political opponents — the plan was literally saving their kids’ lives. While federal Labor’s Aboriginal affairs spokesman, Kim Carr, dismissed as racially oppressive the scheme adopted by the Mulan Aboriginal community, black leaders in the region insisted outsiders just did not understand the problems faced by their people. ‘People don’t feel that if we don’t do this we will lose our fuel bowsers — they feel if we don’t do this we will lose our kids,’ community administrator Mark Sewell said yesterday from the Kimberley. ‘I can understand people at a distance saying this is a terrible insult to people, this is patronising, but people here don’t see it that way. People see it as an opportunity to lift their game.’ … But speaking at the end of the first meeting of John Howard’s national
Indigenous Council in Canberra, chairwoman Sue Gordon said such deals were good if local communities were behind them. ‘I don’t view anything which is going to benefit Aboriginal people — which Aboriginal people themselves put up — as being paternalistic, because it’s not being imposed [on] Aboriginal people,’ she said ‘Rather, it’s Aboriginal people saying this is what they want to do as a shared responsibility.’ … ‘Mutual responsibility is a left-ofcentre agenda,’ [ALP leader] Mr Latham said. ‘We believe in the genuine two-way street where governments have got to meet their responsibility to provide the services, and individuals and communities have got to meet their responsibility to make good use of those services.’ Senator Carr said the Commonwealth was ‘washing its hands’ of its responsibility, describing the shared responsibility agreements as a potential breach of the law and a human rights abuse …
‘What are the obligations from government, what are they doing? All the obligation seems to be on the community. There’s nothing really mutual about this — I wonder if it is a free and informed choice by the people,’ he said. ‘My fundamental objection to this approach is it’s racially discriminatory.’ … The only Aboriginal in federal parliament, NSW Democrat senator Aden Ridgeway, yesterday condemned the shared Mulan scheme. (The Australian 10 December 2004)
Former human rights commissioner Mick Dodson, brother of Patrick, said the Mulan agreement was not fair or mutual.
86 Australian History Mysteries 2 Investigating five case studies in twentieth century Australian history
Australian History Mysteries Five case studies in twentieth century Australian history
National Museum of Australia Ryebuck Media Pty Ltd
2
