Aboriginal Australians and the Impact of the White Man

Transcription

1 MASARYK UNIVERSITY BRNO FACULTY OF EDUCATION Department of English Language and Literature Petr Hudec Aboriginal Australians and the Impact of the White Man Bachelor Thesis Supervisor: Michael George, M.A. Brno 2011

2 Acknowledgements I sincerely would like to thank Michael George, M.A. for his outstanding support, great advice and kind help as well as for the supervision of this work. 2

3 I declare that I have worked on this bachelor thesis independently, using only the sources listed in the bibliography. 3

4 1. Introduction Historical background The official policy and situation in Australia in the late 19 th century Aboriginal Protection Acts The Stolen Generations Ways of social and cultural assimilation of stolen children Aborigines at the beginning of the 20 th century The Constitution of Australia 1901 and its effect on Aborigines White Australia policy Aboriginal situation after the Constitution Policy of assimilation First signs of resistance and pro-aboriginal organizations The Day of Mourning World War II and Post World War II development The petition campaign and the 1967 referendum Policy of self-determination and land rights movement Bringing Them Home report Conclusion

5 1. Introduction The Indigenous peoples of Australia (Australian Aborigines) led very rich and spiritual life connected with nature for thousands of years. It is estimated that before the arrival of white man there were up to 750,000 Aborigines living in more than 500 tribes scattered throughout the whole continent. Aborigines did not build any permanent houses because they used to move from place to place in a nomadic way because they were mostly hunters and gatherers but they had strong connections to their traditional lands nonetheless. The arrival of the whites in the 18 th century proved to be almost fatal not only for Aboriginal peoples themselves but also for their culture and traditional life style. When James Cook first arrived at the new continent of Australia he declared this new country unpopulated and thus started almost 200 years of Aboriginal discrimination. New European settlers brought with them diseases unknown to Aborigines which led to epidemics devastating Aboriginal population from the very beginning; and as Australia was considered to be unpopulated Europeans started to appropriate land and water resources. The Aborigines, one of the oldest peoples on the Earth with their culture dating back thousands of years, were not even considered to be human beings by many. Despite that, there began to be an ever increasing number of children of mixed descent, especially of white fathers and Aboriginal mothers, who were called Half-Castes and who were to be protected and assimilated into the white society. It was believed that full-blood Aborigines would die out through their cultural and social inferiority. The children of mixed descent were thus offered the above mentioned protection and later assimilation into the white society, in a way of official government policies, even though it meant their forcible removal from their families for European upbringing and education. These children forcibly removed from their families were later to be called the Stolen Generations, sometimes also referred to as the Lost Generations. The population of Aboriginals thus started to decline rapidly. The situation of Aborigines did not improve after the 1901 Constitution at all because according to the Constitution Aboriginals were not to be recognized in the Census and the forcible removal of children continued even on a larger scale. The 5

6 policy of protection was changed into the assimilation policy which was the official government policy from 1930s to 1970s and there were no signs of improvement of Aboriginal status in the society. It was in the 1930s when Aborigines started to be organized in official associations and organizations protecting their rights and demanding the change of the overall situation of the Aborigines. The Day of Mourning in 1938 is among the most visible and memorable events on the Aboriginal way to recognition from this period of time. The path to Aboriginal recognition was in fact very slow process which was happening throughout the whole 20 th century. The most significant event was the 1967 Referendum which is considered to be one of the milestones and turning points in the history of Australian Aborigines and pursue for their rights. The referendum basically recognized the Indigenous people of Australia because it led to the change of the Constitution so that Aborigines could be counted in the national Census and it gave the government right to make special laws concerning Aborigines. The forcible removal of children did stop after the Referendum 1967 and the official government policy did change from assimilation to self-determination but there were another thirty years and a lot of struggle on the way to reconciliation. The final step towards reconciliation was in fact the 1997 Bringing Them Home report which openly and clearly addressed the issue of the Stolen Generations and called for compensation and apology. The official government apology came more than ten years later from the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in his parliament speech on 13 th Feb Overall it took Indigenous people in Australia almost 200 years to be recognized and eventually also reconciled. This thesis compiles historical data concerning Aborigines from the arrival of the whites to the beginning of the 21 st century. It deals with Aboriginal situation from the initial contact and their protection status with the Stolen Generations. In chapter 3 it tries to analyse the so called Protection Acts and it also discusses the ways of this government protection policy while the possible reasons and explanations are offered. The first half of the 20 th century is chronologically mentioned as well, especially the 1901 Constitution and the World War II, because these historical events played a great role regarding Aborigines and their status in the society. The importance of these events 6

7 and the complicated process of Aboriginal struggle for recognition are outlined in chapter 4. The final chapter of the thesis summarises two turning points in the history of Aboriginal recognition which were the 1967 Referendum and the Bringing Them Home report thirty years later. The backgrounds as well as consequences of both these events are explained together with the resulting government change of the official policy and the concurrent Aboriginal land rights movement. The process of reconciliation, which consequently led to 2008 apology to the Stolen Generations, is described in the final chapter as well. 2. Historical background The continent today called Australia has been peopled long before the first Europeans came there. It is believed that the first Aborigines (indigenous peoples of Australia) arrived at Australian continent some 40,000 to 70,000 years ago. This is why they belong to one of the oldest surviving peoples in the world. Even though there are no written records it is believed that their strong and spiritual culture and traditions has been preserved for tens of thousands of years (Crawford and Tantiprasut 2). It is estimated that before the first arrival of Europeans Aboriginal people had lived there for over 2,000 generations (Clarke 10), and all these people continued in their developed lifestyle of hunters, gatherers and fishermen. Pursuant to their lifestyle and to their concept of history or religion, often referred to as the Dreaming 1, Aborigines developed the unique connection with their land and nature. Unlike Europeans, they considered themselves as part of natural world as well as the land they lived (Clarke 15) and it was the land that became one of the most striking issues after the arrival of white man. 1 The Dreaming, alternatively referred to as Dreamtime, is the central concept of the indigenous Australian worldview. The Dreaming is a rich term with several different meanings. First, it is the Aboriginal word for the time of creation, the time when the land, plants, animals, and humans were created. Second, the Dreaming refers to the spiritual dimension of contemporary life, to the truth or reality that is responsible for both the world and its unfolding events, and yet somehow is hidden from sight and obscured by the world so that it is only apparent to those whose spiritual eyes are opened. Third, the Dreaming is the source of all life, both in the beginning and now. Because its creative engines can be tapped into, it is the source of all healing and renewal of life. Everything owes both its presence and continued existence to the power of the Dreaming. Bahr, Ann Marie B, and Martin E. Marty. Indigenous religions. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers, Google Books. Web. 25 Feb

8 There are no official data about when Europeans, or any white man, first reached Australia but it is generally accepted fact that Australia had existed in minds of Europeans long before it was really discovered (Clancy 2). Portuguese and Dutch ships observed the west coast of Australia as early as at the beginning of the 16 th century. It was arguably the English buccaneer and scientific observer William Dampier who officially recorded the first observation of Aborigines in 1688 (Clancy 2). The official discoverer of Australia is considered English explorer and ship captain James Cook who arrived to the east shores of Australia almost hundred years later in The Crown almost immediately recognized the great potentials of new lands mainly as a convict colony and a possible source of commercial commodities like timber or flax. The first English Fleet with its captain and to-be Governor Arthur Phillip reached Australia in Aborigines were almost immediately looked at as an inferior race and this basic fact together with profound cultural and language differences led to violence as early as in late 1700s and early 1800s. The growing numbers of Europeans arriving to Australia, especially convicts as cheap and much needed labour, meant even greater disruption of Aboriginal traditional way of life and violence toward Aboriginals became common practice. 3. The official policy and situation in Australia in the late 19 th century 3.1. Aboriginal Protection Acts Not only violence towards Aborigines and tendency to control their lives by the new European settlers from the very beginning of the colonization of Australia but rapidly growing population of whites in Australia with their different attitude to the lands and different lifestyle had an enormous impact on them. Although Aboriginal conception of the land is very specific because it plays the crucial role for them, the white people could see another great commercial potential of Australian land. As arid land was quickly taken and sheep stations spread out throughout less agricultural lands, more and more labour was needed and more and more men were getting settled within those original Aboriginal lands. Aborigines had to suffer cruel treatment as well as labour exploitation right from the beginning of the colonization. Even though the 8

9 official policy of the whites towards the Aborigines in the late 19 th century was officially less controlling and more protective and even though it considered natural assimilation of Aborigines as a solution to become part of white society, the reality was in fact different. As Andrew Armitage, who works as an associate professor and director of School of Social Work at the University of Victoria, writes: Aboriginal peoples recognized exactly what happened. They were poor now. White men had taken their good country, they said, no ask for it but took it. Black man show white man plenty grass and water and then white man say come be off and drive them away and no let them stop. This pattern of dispossession without negotiation, compensation, or recognition was characteristic of the Australian frontier. Land was taken, and the relationship of the Aboriginal owners of the land to the European settlers was defined in terms of the right of the latter to defend his or her property and the duty of civil government to protect property rights. As a consequence, violence was common. 2 The official Aboriginal policy was constituted in the first Aboriginal Protection Act 1869 which was enacted in the state of Victoria in This Act is called Protection Act but it was passed to regulate and control the lives of the Aborigines in Victoria in terms of the places of their residence, their employment, marriage and even social lives. It was stated within the Aboriginal Protection Act 1869 very clearly who was deemed to be an Aboriginal: 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 (3). The Act also established the agency called the Board of Protection of Aborigines which was to put these Laws into action and serve as a controlling authority. The Board of Protection of Aborigines is defined in the Aboriginal Protection Act in its section 3: There shall be in and for Victoria a Board to be styled the Board for the protection of aborigines, consisting of the Minister and such and 2 Armitage, Andrew. Comparing the Policy of Aboriginal Assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, Google Books. Web. 20 Dec p

10 so many persons as the Governor stall from time to time appoint to be members thereof, and the persons who at the passing of this Act shall be the members of the board for the protection of the aborigines are together with the Minister hereby appointed the first members of such board. 3 The assimilation of Aborigines into white society was also happening especially when taking into account the fact that there were mostly white men and clearly a very limited number of white women, given the hard circumstances and life in Australia in those days. Aboriginal women seemed to be a very easy target for men s libidos, especially considering that half of the men working in sheep country were convicts. The result was a growing number of children of mixed race descent, especially children of white fathers and Aboriginal mothers, the so-called half-caste 4. The mixing of the Aborigines and Europeans was in fact very natural process even though some convicts ways were less than genteel 5 but throughout the second half of the 19 th it was clear that European and Aboriginal societies were simply incongruous in most aspects. There was the Aboriginal perception of the lands, their culture, traditional life-style, habits and different attitude towards property, food gathering and hunting while on the other hand there was the European land exploitation and overall materialistic way of life. The figurative as well as literally clash of these two different societies seemed to be inevitable especially when taking into account that it was European people who spread unknown diseases like cold, flu, measles and smallpox 6 among Aborigines and it was also Europeans who proved to take the lands Aboriginal peoples had lived for thousands of years. As Aborigines were considered to be the inferior race and as the mutual peace co-existence seemed to be impossible, the political consequence was not long in coming and in 1886 the government passed the second Aboriginal Protection Act. 3 Aboriginal Protection Act Foundings.com.au. National Archives of Australia. Web. 14 Nov Available at: 4 Half-caste (sometimes also Half-cast) is an English term describing people of mixed race or ethnicity. It is considered very offensive and is no longer used. Half-Caste. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 6 Mar Web. 14 Mar Available at: 5 Broome, Richard. Aboriginal Australians: A History since th ed. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, Google Books. Web. 3 Feb p In 1789 only smallpox killed around 50% of Aboriginal population in coastal New South Wales (Sydney). Quoted from: History of smallpox. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 7 Mar Web. 12 Mar Available at: 10

11 While the first Act 1869 was enacted in the state of Victoria and its consequences were clearly visible only in Victoria itself, this following Aboriginal Protection Act 1886, which is often referred to as the Half-Caste Act, had its implications throughout the whole Australia. One of the most significant regulations of the Act was the regulation concerning Aboriginal children and Aboriginal children of mixed descent, the Half-Castes. This particular provision gave government the power to take away the Aboriginal and Half-Caste children in order to bring them up in accordance to official white-australian policy. This official policy of the Australian Government was considered to be a help to the Aboriginal peoples as Aboriginal society was believed to be incapable of providing the right education and upbringing for these children. It was also considered the most appropriate way of introducing and assimilating the indigenous peoples into the white-australian society, including the culture and the way of life. White men wanted the Aboriginal children to behave like white people and this was to be ensured before the children learned Aboriginal lifestyle (Read 3). Another Aboriginal Act, the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act , is significant as well because authorities were allowed to provide for the care, custody, and education of the children of aboriginals (7) and it was also prescribing the conditions on which any aboriginal or half-caste children may be apprenticed to, or placed in service with, suitable persons (7). Interesting fact is that one of the main reasons this Act 1897 was officially enacted was because of great and widespread injury was being caused to the aboriginal and half-caste and certain other inhabitants of the Colony by the consumption of opium (1). Opium was brought to Australia by Europeans together with the above mentioned diseases as well as malnutrition caused by the labour exploitation of Aboriginals by new settlers and it is clear that this particular Act was only a veil covering a search for different ways to control Aboriginal peoples. Dr. Sally Babidge from the University of Queensland suggests that: Being under the Act meant that an Aboriginal person was subject to Queensland legislation, the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897 (and later amendments) which 7 Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld). Foundingdocs.gov.au. National Archives of Australia. Web. 21 Feb. 2011Available at: 11

12 remade Aboriginal people into wards of the state. The legislation meant a decline in the extent to which Aboriginal people could order and determine the course of their own lives, and Amendments in 1901, 1934 and 1939, each extended government powers. Aboriginal people s ability to reproduce and determine their family relationships in the context of these Acts was limited in a myriad of ways, not least in removals and extensive surveillance from 1897 up until, and in some cases beyond, the Aborigines Act Under the Act, people thus defined could be removed to settlements, had their wages controlled by the Department and had to ask for permission from the Protector to get married. The 1897 Act decreed that every person who desires to employ an aboriginal or half-caste shall make application in writing to the nearest police officer in charge of a station 8 Officially the children were thus taken from their reserves or stations to be put in the care of whites only in case they were neglected. The Board officers official definition of neglect was connected particularly with children having no visible means of support or fixed place of abode (Read 7). It became a common practice to remove the Aboriginal and Half-Caste children from their families with the intention of their assimilation. Even though it was mostly children who was taken from their parents, the Act 1886 specified that any half-caste under the age of 34 might be removed from a reserve (Aboriginal Protection Act ). All these children and all the young people removed from their parents and their communities and homeland are generally referred to as the Stolen Generations sometimes also called the Lost Generations. There are no official data or statistics concerning the numbers of people removed and lost without trace (see table 1) but there is no question that the impact on Aboriginal communities, culture and way of life has been enormous. 8 Babidge, Sally. Aboriginal Family and the State: The Conditions of History. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited, Google Books. Web. 10 Jan p

13 3.2. The Stolen Generations The Stolen Generations term in general meaning then stands for the removing children of Aboriginal origin or children of half-aboriginal origin, the Half-Castes, from their families by Australian government between 1869 and 1969 in order to assimilate them. These children, who were usually under the age of four, were taken into government-controlled institutions and/or Church missions, commonly referred to as State homes or religious homes, but the Board for protection of Aborigines had to rely on unofficial powers like stopping the food rations or different threats or promises because there were no legal powers to coerce people, and Aborigines showed no enthusiasm for the scheme (Read 3). Members of the Board had to often face a practical difficulty of having to release the children by the magistrates because these children could not simply be considered neglected because they were healthy, well clothed and well fed. Even though there are not enough data or legal documents to enumerate exact number of such cases, it is clear that they were not rare because members of the Board started to complain about insufficiency of their powers. The situation was similar in most states in Australia. All children in New South Wales, including Aboriginal children, could be removed from their parents if neglect could be proved before a court. The problem facing the Board was that most of the Aboriginal children it had its eyes on were not suffering neglect. As the Board explained to the Chief Secretary in 1909: Under the law these children cannot legally be called neglected If the Aboriginal child happens to be decently clad and apparently looked after it is very difficult to show that the half-caste or Aboriginal child is actually in a neglected condition, and therefore it is impossible to succeed in court: The Board thought it needed the power to separate children from their parents even where there was no question of neglect. 9 9 Manne, Robert. In denial: the stolen generations and the right. Melbourne: Schwartz Publishing Pty Ltd, Google Books. Web. 10 Jan p

14 The situation of Aborigines even deteriorated after the complaints and demands from members of the Board were met and the Aborigines Protection Amending Act in 1915 was passed. It clearly stated in its new section 4, subsection 13a the new rights for taking children into the custody: The Board may assume full control and custody of the child of any aborigine, if after due inquiry it is satisfied that such a course is in the interest of the moral or physical welfare of such child. The Board may thereupon remove such child to such control and care as it thinks best. 10 If the definition of a child being neglected was considered ambiguous and the members of the Board complained about limited powers, the above mentioned definition of moral or physical welfare of a child was even more ambiguous and it gave the members of the Board almost unlimited powers. In fact, Peter Read describes the overall situation as follows: It was up to the parents to show that the child had a right to be with them, not the other way round. No court hearings were necessary; the manager of an Aboriginal station, or a policeman on a reserve or in a town might simply order them removed. The racial intention was obvious enough for all prepared to see, and some managers cut a long story short when they came to that part of the committal notice, Reasons for Board taking control of the child. They simply wrote, for being Aboriginal 11 Thus, numbers of children who were being taken away in the two following decades after 1915 rose from hundreds to thousands (as seen in table 2, which is an example showing estimates only for New South Wales). The periods of times (between Protection Acts and/or their Amendments) in terms of children taken away are very difficult to compare because there were many factors affecting these numbers but it is 10 Aborigines Protection Amending Act 1915 AIATSIS.gov.au. AIATSIS Library. Web. 11 Mar Available at: 11 Read, Peter. The Stolen Generations: The removal of Aboriginal children in New South Wales 1883 to th ed. Sydney: New South Wales Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Print. p. 8 14

15 clear that the number of children, who were stolen from their homes, was rising. This official policy of Aboriginal assimilation into white society and culture was in operation until 1969 and unofficial estimates vary. Kevin Rudd, the former Australian Prime Minister, in his Apology to Australia s Indigenous Peoples speech on 13 th Feb estimated that the number of children taken forcibly from their families was up to 50,000, which was between 10 and 30 per cent of indigenous children Ways of social and cultural assimilation of stolen children The Aboriginal Australian blacks, or the so-called full-blood Aborigines, were thought of as an inferior race with an inevitable way to extinction. The novelist Anthony Trollope and an imperial ideologue Charles Dilke went even further and described Aborigines with no constraints: The Aborigines were ineradicably savage, declared the former in 1872; the male possessed the deportment of a sapient monkey imitating the gait and manners of a do-nothing white dandy, as well as suffering from a low physiognomy that rendered him lazy and useless. It is their fate to be abolished; and they are already vanishing, he concluded without regret or moral scruple. The harshness of Trollope s judgement that the Aborigine had to go was hardly mitigated by the wish that they should perish without unnecessary suffering. Dilke commented in similar terms in relation to Indigenous population collapse. The Aboriginal Australian blacks were so extraordinarily backward a race as to make it difficult to help them to hold their own. They were rapidly dying out, and it is hard to see any other fate could be expected for them. 13 Comments on Aborigines like this were quite common at the end of the 19 th and the beginning of the 20 th centuries and often came from very respectable persons, like 12 Rudd, Kevin. Kevin Rudd s Apology. Australian Parliament. Canberra, AUS. 13 Feb Parliament Speech. p. 2. Available at: 13 Moses, Dirk. Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History. Oxford: Berghahn Books, Google Books. Web. 20 Feb p

16 Anthony Trollope above. It was thus believed that Aboriginal people could not bring up children of mixed origin, the Half-Castes, and the only way to assimilate these children was to separate them from the rest of their race (Aboriginal race, of course) in any possible sense thinkable. Return of a child from the home (either State or Religious) to the Aboriginal station or reserve was almost impossible once this child was taken away. Even family ties between brothers and sisters were cut as they were not supposed to be in the homes together because authorities tried to shut them off from their original life. The children were not only taken away from their families and cut off from their brothers or sisters but they were also systematically brainwashed as to believe that blacks on reserves were dirty, untrustworthy and bad and girls were to come to believe that Aboriginal men posed a threat because they were dirty, brutal and black (Read 12). This kind of propaganda did in fact work because it was aimed at small children who are much more easily manipulated in general but under the given circumstances they actually did not have a choice if they wanted to survive. Most children were taken to the homes before the age of four but quite often the children were even younger. They were taught the European way of life-style, their culture and way of thinking and consequently there were in fact some children who left the homes ashamed of the colour of their skin (Read 1). 4. Aborigines at the beginning of the 20 th century 4.1. The Constitution of Australia 1901 and its effect on Aborigines Aboriginal situation and its government legal solution was not of course an isolated problem because political development of Australia as such went hand in hand with the progress of Aboriginal issues, even though their situation did not seem to develop at all. The process of stealing Aboriginal generations was still in operation, in fact, the worst decades were about to come, while the country of Australia became to existence. British parliament passed the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 which entered into force on 1 st Jan and the former colonies became states of the new country the Commonwealth of Australia with country s first Prime Minister Sir Edmund Barton. This Prime Minister of Australia was very articulate when speaking 16

17 from the position of the leader of Australian government as he quoted Professor Charles Henry Pearson on contamination by foreign and unwanted racial impurities: We are guarding the last part of the world in which the higher races can live and increase freely for the higher civilisation The day will come when the European observers will look around the globe girdled with a continuous zone of the yellow and black races. It is idle to say that if all this should come to pass our pride and place will not be humiliated. We are struggling among ourselves for supremacy in a world which we thought of as destined to belong to the Aryan race; and to the Christian faith; to the letters and arts and charms which we have inherited from the best of times. 14 The Prime Minister simply expressed the overall belief in Australian society at that time that Aboriginals (or any other race different from Europeans for that matter) were an inferior race. On the bases of the overall feeling of the white society towards Aborigines and considering the fact that Aboriginal Protection Acts were actively in operation, it comes as no surprise that the newly drafted Constitution almost ignored Aboriginal peoples and in case they were mentioned in the document, they were not recognized as equal citizens. The Constitution failed to make provision for the Indigenous peoples of Australia. Section 127 provided that aboriginal natives were not to be counted in reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of the State. Section 51(xxvi) gave the Commonwealth legislative power with respect to the people of any race other that the aboriginal race, in any State. In these respects, the Constitution represented popular thinking in That thinking gave way in 1967 to a somewhat more enlightened approach when s 51(xxvi) 14 Edmund Barton, op. cit., 1901, p. 3503, quoting from Pearson s National Life and Character: A Forecast, p. 36. Available at: 17

18 was amended to exclude the exception for the aboriginal race and s 127 was repealed. 15 There are two very important historical propositions to be considered when reading the previous quotation and its consequences. Before the Constitution 1901, Aboriginal people had in fact a vote in all the colonies apart from Queensland and Western Australia but they were actively discouraged by the whites of the missions or did not actually have the need to enrol and vote because they simply did not (want to) recognize the new, white constitutional arrangements. After all previous Acts, including the Aboriginal Protection Acts and so-called Half-Caste Act, concerning their lives, their lands and their cultural and social traditions were passed without them as well. As Christine Fletcher points out in her book: The threshold question is whether the indigenous peoples of Australia wish to be part of Australia s constitutional system. The constitutional arrangements from 1788 through the nineteenth century were imposed without their consent, without their participation. The same can be said of the federal constitution. So, well into the century, non-indigenous society in Australia simply developed its own constitutional structures without any regard for, or consultation with, the indigenous peoples, and without their consent. Although the official theory concerning the extension of British sovereignty has it that the Australian colonies were settled and not conquered indigenous peoples have been treated as though they were conquered. 16 Even though Aboriginals did have a vote, it was only in South Australia that some Aboriginal people actually enrolled and voted. 17 When Aboriginals had a vote it meant that they were recognised as (equal) citizens of Australia which was a cause of a 15 French, Robert. Reflections on the Australian Constitution. Sydney: The Federation Press, Google Books. Web. 2 Mar p Fletcher, Christine. Aboriginal self-determination in Australia. Canberra: AIATSIS, Google Books. Web. 10 Mar p Aboriginal South Australians and Parliament. Parliament.sa.gov.au. Parliament of South Australia. 28 Apr Web. 21 Mar Available at: boriginalsouthaustraliansandparliament.aspx 18

19 debate over whether they are to be included in the Australian census. If Aboriginal people were not counted in the Australian census they were at risk of losing their right to vote. Under the circumstances and overall feeling towards Aboriginal peoples in Australia, it seemed almost inevitable that they were about to lose their right to vote and their recognition as citizens of the newly formed country of Australia. In fact it was only South Australian delegation at the Constitutional Convention ( ) that argued that Aborigines should be counted in the Australian census and that to exclude them was... one of the black spots of the Bill. There were many aborigines on the electoral roll who were intelligent men and to exclude them from the census was an insult. 18 Unfortunately, this notion was vain and Section 127 became part of the Constitution of Australia. It is believed that there were also financial and political reasons behind this Section because it related to official number of population and per capita state grants. In reality it prevented some states, especially Queensland and Western Australia with their huge Aboriginal populations, to gain excessive government funds. Political reasons were similar because number of seats in Parliament depended on population of the particular state. The whole Section has been removed only in 1967 after the referendum but the situation of Aborigines has been improving very slowly and even today the situation is not as ideal as it could be as some Aboriginal organizations and associations still declare. Not only did the referendum in 1967 repeal Section 127 of the original Constitution but it also amended Section 51(xxvi), which is commonly referred to as the race power. It gives Parliament power to make special laws for people of different race but excluding Aboriginal people. The part other than the aboriginal race in any State 20 has been omitted from Section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution. 18 Aboriginal South Australians and Parliament. Parliament.sa.gov.au. Parliament of South Australia. 28 Apr Web. 21 Mar Available at: boriginalsouthaustraliansandparliament.aspx 19 Original Section 127 of the Constitution stated 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. Commonwealth of Australia constitution Act. Foundingdocs.gov.au. National Archives of Australia. Web. 21 Feb p. 35. Available at: 20 Original Section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution stated that: The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws. 19

20 4.2. White Australia policy The problem of racial purity in Australia was not related to Aboriginal peoples only because there were also other white and non-white people coming and living in Australia. The original people coming to Australia, before the discovery of gold, were mainly of British origin. 21 After the discovery of gold in 1851 there was an immigration wave from many different countries including non-european counties, especially China. It is estimated that within 20 years following the discovery of gold, there were about 40,000 Chinese immigrants coming to Australia. 22 There had been white diggers animosity towards Chinese diggers from the beginning of the gold rush in the 1850s which later led to violence. Not only Chinese immigrants but also people from South Pacific, the so-called Kanakas, were the reasons for various immigration restriction and official and unofficial discrimination of non-white immigrants. It is thus in this particular period of time that started the various successive policies restricting the immigration to Australia, so called White Australia policy. The governments of Victoria and New South Wales colonies introduced restrictions on Chinese immigration. Later, it was the turn of hard-working indentured labourers from the South Sea Islands of the Pacific (known as 'Kanakas') in northern Queensland. Factory workers in the south became vehemently opposed to all forms of immigration which might threaten their jobs; particularly by non-white people who they thought would accept a lower standard of living and work for lower wages. 23 Quoted from: Commonwealth of Australia constitution Act. Foundingdocs.gov.au. National Archives of Australia. Web. 21 Feb p. 18. Available at: 21 Out of estimated 162,000 convicts: English and Welsh (70%), Irish (24%) or Scottish (5%). Quoted from: Convicts and British Colonies in Australia. Culture.gov.au. Australian Government. Web. 2 Mar Available at: 22 The Australian Gold Rush. Culture.gov.au. Australian Government. Web. 2 Mar Available at: 23 Abolition of White Australia Policy. Immi.gov.au. Australian Government. Dept. of Immigration and Citizenship. Web. 7 Mar Available at: 20

21 This policy was exercised throughout the late 19 th century and eventually resulted in The Immigration Restriction Act 1901 which is considered the key document in White Australia policy because it gave immigration officers almost unlimited powers to control and prevent individuals from entering Australia. The Immigration Restriction Act 1901 was passed to ensure that other non-whites would be prevented from coming to Australia any time in the future 24 and although it did not refer to race by name, its intention was clear enough and Attorney-General Alfred Deakin, the second Prime Minister of Australia stated in his parliamentary debate on 12 th Sep. 1901: The two things go hand in hand. They were the necessary complement of a single policy the policy of securing a White Australia. 25 The race, as a reason for not entering Australia, could not be mentioned in the Immigration Restriction Act because this would be in conflict with official policy of Britain at that time and it was frowned upon by Britain s ally, Japan. 26 This Act thus prohibited many individuals from entering Australia for various reasons but race. People excluded from entering Australia were people with infectious diseases, people who were insane or idiots and people who were recently imprisoned but also prostitutes or people living on the prostitutions of others and/or people who are under a contract to work for wages. 27 Number one on the list was the exclusion of an individual on the bases of literacy, which was asserted by a Dictation Test. The Commonwealth Immigration Restriction Act prohibits the entry into Australia of any person who, when asked to do so, fails to write out at dictation, and sigh in the presence of an officer, a passage of 50 words in length in a European language. Thus for a written application 24 Reynolds, Henry, and Marilyn Lake. Drawing the Global Colour Line. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, Google Books. Web. 3 Feb p Curthoys, Ann, and Marylin Lake. The White Australia Policy. ANU E Press. Australian National University. Web. 21 Mar Available at: 26 Immigration Restriction Act 1901 (Cth). Foundingdocs.gov.au. National Archives of Australia. Web. 10 Mar Available at: 27 Immigration Restriction Act Foundingdocs.gov.au. National Archives of Australia. Web. 10 Mar Available at: 21

22 in a form prescribed in the Schedule, such as was required by the New South Wales Act of 1898, a dictation test was substituted. The elasticity of the method was thus increased, and any evasion of it by sham knowledge was made practically impossible. 28 Any immigrant could be asked to take the dictation test within the first year of his stay in Australia. It was originally suggested to be in English but after some argument it was changed to any European language and yet later in 1905 to any prescribed language not to offend Japanese immigrants. The test was adjusted yet once more in 1932 when the decision was made to allow immigration officers to give the test to immigrants within the first five years of their stay and any number of times. 29 The term White Australia policy, which was abandoned only in 1973 and which is race related policy, is closely connected with Aboriginal issues as well as with other non-white connected problems in Australia. It is also possible to look at this problem from yet another angle which is simply a colour. The colour of the skin used to play very important role and as Claire McLisky suggests in her book: As the promulgation of White Australia Policy in 1901 would seemingly demonstrate, Whiteness was crucial to the constitution of the new Australian nation. Whiteness has been recognized as a significant part of the story of Australian nationalism Aboriginal situation after the Constitution According to the Australian Constitution, Australian Aborigines at the beginning of the 20 th century did not even exist, which meant that they were still considered to be 28 Willard, Myra. History of the White Australia policy to London: Frank Cass and Company Limited, Google Books. Web. 27 Feb p The Dictation Test was administered 805 times in with 46 people passing and 554 times in with only six people successful. After 1909 no person passed the Dictation Test and people who failed were refused entry or deported. Quoted from: Immigration Restriction Act 1901 (Cth). Foundingdocs.gov.au. National Archives of Australia. Web. 10 Mar Available at: 30 McLisky, Claire. Creating White Australia. Sydney: Sydney University Press, Google Books. Web. 2 Mar p. ix. 22

23 less than (equal) citizens, and moreover it was their fault that they were discriminated because their own inferior status as a society. Dr James Jupp, a director of the Centre for Immigration and Multicultural Studies at the Australian National University, points out that: Until the 1960s it was common for historians of the post-frontier 31 period to offer explanation in terms of the inability of the victims of discrimination, the Indigenous people, to adjust to the superior or more complex society. Thus, the historian H. G. Turner wrote in 1904 of the costly and continuous efforts (that) were made for the amelioration of their condition, and that these failed, not from neglect, but from the absolute incompatibility of the native character with even the primary conditions of civilization. 32 The situation of Aboriginals between 1860 and 1930 is sometimes called protective status because there were several attempts to protect Aborigines from some problems of the British colony. That is why most of the Acts from this period are called Protection Acts and some of them really tried to provide some protection from alcohol and/or opium use or sexual exploitation but most of these acts were passed to control Aborigines and their lives. This included where they could live, where their children could live, what funds they could have as an allowance, and who was and who was not an Aboriginal person. The settlements created through this system of legislation were administered, rather than free, communities. The manager of the settlement had all the power of a Poor Law overseer or jail warden. Aboriginals were brought to, and effectively confined in, these settlements because they had no other place to live. The expectation 31 The frontier period usually refers to the period in which there was armed conflict between white settlers and Aborigines. For most of Australia, the frontier period lasted from 1788 to the end of the nineteenth century. Quoted from: Phases of the Aboriginal History of Australia. Hsse.nie.edu.sg. National Institute of Education Singapore. Web. 14 Mar Available at: 32 Jupp, James. The Australian people: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, Its People and Their Origins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Google Books. Web. 23 Feb p

24 of the time was that the original Aboriginal population would eventually die out, and that these settlements would provide a pillow for a dying race. In time they, too, would be closed. 33 While the full blood Aborigines were expected to die out through cultural and social inferiority and lived on the margins of white society the Half-Castes were being removed from protective stations to eventually become free and equal citizens. Children were usually taken from their families and any possible contact was strictly prohibited because it was believed that the only way to converse them to Christianity was distancing them from their families and their original Indigenous lifestyle. Separation of the half-caste children from their original Aboriginal families was considered to be one of the means of whitening out Aboriginal culture as a distinctive identity. It was not allowed to be reproduced over time. 34 Even though there were visible consequences of this policy, as the full blood population was rapidly declining and thus the population of mixed descent population was increasing, the idea of the Indigenous peoples completely dying out proved wrong. Aboriginal peoples proved to be more durable than had been assumed in the early protection statuses, and they showed a continued resistance to the loss of their land and way of life. However, in spite of this resistance, the continuing official effort to civilize them resulted in the ending of Aboriginal initiation ceremonies, the disruption of Aboriginal families, and the loss of Aboriginal languages. 35 The full blood Aborigines thus survived and it was clear that this approach and policy would not work as a solution to the Aboriginal problem. Eradication and total control of the Aborigines started to prove wrong as well as their marginalization and labour exploitation. Yet, it was in the 1920s when Protector of Natives in the Northern 33 Armitage, Andrew. Comparing the Policy of Aboriginal Assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, Google Books. Web. 23 Feb p Veitch, Scott. Law and Irresponsibility: On the Legitimation of Human Suffering. New York: Routledge-Cavendish, Google Books. Web. 23 Feb p Armitage, Andrew. Comparing the Policy of Aboriginal Assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, Google Books. Web. 25 Feb p

25 Territory Dr Cecil Cook made his statement which is often quoted as one of the most notorious examples of the approach towards Aborigines in the early 20 th century: Generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white. The Australian native is the most easily assimilated race on earth, physically and mentally. The quickest way is to breed him white Policy of assimilation Even though the previous policy of protection was about controlling Aborigines in all the possible ways and meant in fact merging Aboriginal race into the white society it was not until 1930s when it was adopted as a new way to deal with Aboriginal affairs. 37 The previous model of merging was very similar to the model of assimilation but while merging, sometimes referred to as absorption, was a biological one, the policy of assimilation is considered rather socio-cultural model. 38 This model was adopted in 1937 at the first Commonwealth-State Natives Welfare Conference. Before that whites were prohibited to enter the Aboriginal reserves or associate with Aborigines and therefore only those with no apparent admixture of blood, those who looked Aboriginal were permitted to live on the reserves. Assimilation and segregation thus worked hand in hand. 39 In the 1930s this kind of policy changed when it was realized that, at that time, the number of full-blood Aborigines was much lower than the number of mixed-blood Aborigines. This was seen as a good sign that 36 Strang, Heather, and John Braithwaite. Restorative justice and civil society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Google Books. Web. 21 Feb p The policy of assimilation was confirmed as official policy as late as 1963 at a meeting of state and Commonwealth ministers in Darwin. Report of special committee enquiring into legislation for the promotion of the well-being of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in Queensland included the phrase that all Aborigines and part-aborigines attain the same rights and privileges as other Australians. Quoted from: Chesterman, John. Civil Rights: How Indigenous Australians Won Formal Equality. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press, Google Books. Web. 26 Feb p. 158, Bringing Them Home. AUSTLII.edu.au. Australian Legal Information Institute. Web. 24 Feb Available at: 39 Doukakis, Anna. The Aboriginal people, parliament and "protection" in New South Wales, Sydney: The Federation Press, Google Books. Web. 26 Feb p

26 Aboriginal identity could be destroyed through a process of absorption. In the 1930s, the policy of assimilation was meant to absorb Aboriginal peoples, particularly those of light caste, into the white society population. 40 There were in fact two ways through which the policy of assimilation was to be accomplished. The first one was the motivational policy by the process of exemption which meant that an Aboriginal person could in fact become an Australian citizen by being exempted from the Board s legislation and the protector. This process included an application and police inquiry into personal life-style to be decided whether the applicant was successful and thus exempted from the authority of the Board. This person was then provided with a exemption certificate which meant that the individual was legally a full citizen with all rights The second way to successfully accomplish the assimilation policy was coercive policy which, apart from taking away children to be raised in institutions, consisted in not maintaining reserve buildings as well as closing stores and ceasing to provide services. 41 Aboriginal people were to be brought to live amongst white people. They would proceed to act and think like them as they became progressively europeanised. In successive generations the Aboriginal strain would become less prominent until no one would be distinguished or would want to be distinguished as being of Aboriginal descent. Within a few generations the former Aborigines would actually be white people. There remained two practical problems : how to get the Aborigines from their home on the reserves into towns and how, once they were there, could they be made to want to be Europeans? 42 Yet another way to carry out the policy of assimilation was to strictly define who was in fact Aborigine and who was of mixed-blood and thus disqualified from living in 40 Armitage, Andrew. Comparing the Policy of Aboriginal Assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, Google Books. Web. 5 Mar p Australia. Dept. of Territories. The Australian Aborigines. Sydney: The Department of the Territories, Print. p Read, Peter. A Hundred Years War: The Wiradjuri People and the State. Sydney: Australian National University Press, Print. p

27 the reserves and/or receiving rations. This kind of assimilation dealt with the definition of Aboriginality which in fact defined the proportion of European blood to fit the current policy. As the policy of dealing with Aboriginals changed a lot throughout the history, so did the definition of Aboriginality changed as well. In fact John McCorquodale analysed over 700 pieces of legislation and found more than 67 definitions of Aboriginality in his analyses. 43 Even though there were exceptions, or exemptions as mentioned previously, the assimilation policy preferred half-castes or mixed-blood people to be assimilated and the full-blood Aboriginal society was not accounted for. The reserves usually received minimal funding and the people who were forced to move there were likely to die prematurely as a result of constant hunger, denial of basic facilities and medical treatment. 44 There were also very difficult relationships between government facilities and missionaries because both of these institutions treated Indigenous and non- Indigenous people quite differently. Missionaries provided education of the Indigenous children in their own schools operating with the missions but the government legislation started to send Aboriginal children to schools for non-indigenous children and thus their access to education depended on largesse of local European school. 45 The Indigenous population was controlled in terms of reproduction and did not receive the social security benefits but they were still used as cheap labour and home servants. Especially Aboriginal girls worked as cheap servants because it was believed that long hours of exhausting work would curb the sexual promiscuity attributed to them by non- Indigenous people. 46 This model of assimilation was carried out throughout the first half of the 20 th century until 1951 when Paul Hasluck, federal Minister for Territories stated at the At the Third Commonwealth-State Native Welfare Conference in Canberra stated: 43 McCorquodale, John. "The Legal Classification of Race in Australia." Aboriginal History. vol. 10. Canberra: The Australian National University. Dept. of Pacific and Southeast Asian History, Google Books. Web. 14 Feb pp Bringing Them Home. AUSTLII.edu.au. Australian Legal Information Institute. Web. 25 Feb Available at: 45 A Trans-Generational Effect of The Aborigines Act 1905 (WA): The Making of the Fringedwellers in the South-West of Western Australia. AUSTLII.edu.au. Australian Legal Information Institute. Web. 25 Feb Available at: 46 Graycar, Regina, and Jenny Morgan. The Hidden Gender of Law. Sydney: The federation Press, Google Books. Web. 11 Mar p

28 Assimilation means, in practical terms, that, in the course of time, it is expected that all persons of aboriginal blood or mixed blood in Australia will live like other white Australians do. There can be no doubt that the only possible future for the very small minority of Aboriginal people in Australia today is to merge into and be received as full members of the great community of European persons which surrounds them First signs of resistance and pro-aboriginal organizations Indigenous people of Australia were oppressed since the arrival of Europeans in 17 th century because of many previously mentioned reasons and it is very easy to find examples of physical and political kinds of oppression. The physical oppression relates to better technological advancements of Europeans as such but also to differences in weapons and the political oppression relates to constant legislative and economical control of Aborigines throughout the 18 th and 19 th centuries. Aborigines tried to protect themselves and drive the Europeans back from their lands and the whole period of this armed conflict from 1788 to the end of the 19 th century is called the frontier period, sometimes also referred to as frontier wars. 48 The frontier period was in fact very bloody conflict between settlers and Aborigines by means of local frontier skirmishes and it was mostly Aboriginal people who were killed. The exact numbers of European and Aboriginal death toll are vague and number of killed Aboriginal varies even more but Henry Reynolds estimated that the number of killed Europeans is somewhere between 2,000 and 2, Number of Aboriginals killed in the frontier conflict was estimated implicitly rather than explicitly by using a method of applying a ten to one inter-racial fatality ratio of black to white violent deaths: Hasluck, Paul. Native Welfare in Australia: Speeches and Addresses. Perth: Paterson Brokensha, Google Books. Web. 11 Mar p Conner, John. The Australian Frontier Wars, Sydney: University of New South Wales Press Ltd, Google Books. Web. 11 Mar The Statistics of Frontier Conflict. Kooriweb.org. The Koori History Website. Web. 11 Feb Available at: 50 The Statistics of Frontier Conflict. Kooriweb.org. The Koori History Website. Web. 11 Feb Available at: 28

29 For the continent as a whole it is reasonable to suppose that at least 20,000 Aborigines were killed as a direct result of conflict with the settlers. Secondary effects of the invasion disease, deprivation, disruption were responsible for the premature deaths of many more although it is almost impossible to arrive at a realistic figure. 51 The numbers of people killed in the frontier conflict are only estimates but it is clear that Aborigines killed in this conflict exceeded numbers of Europeans killed overwhelmingly and thus there were the legal consequences to control Aborigines. The Protection Acts and their amendments were supposed to be obeyed by Aboriginals and, in most cases, they were but apart from the frontier conflict, there are many examples of Aboriginal resistance before the beginning of the 20 th century because Aboriginal situation was not improving at all since then. Most examples of Aboriginal resistance in 19 th century include smaller local conflicts and skirmishes. One of the most legendary stories regarding the clash between Europeans and Aboriginals which illustrates the overall situation in Australia at the end of the 19 th century is a well documented legend of Jandamarra 52, and even though he was eventually killed he has been remembered in stories and songs of Aboriginal people for more than a century now. He became a symbol of Aboriginal resistance in the following decades and an inspiration for his followers at the beginning of the 20 th century. Considering all the aspects of the situation of Aborigines in Australia with no signs of improvement, Aboriginal people and their representatives learned that violent resistance is not a long-term solution of their issue. It was then realized that the way to recognition leads through the political involvement of pro-aboriginal organizations 51 Reynolds, Henry. The Other Side of the Frontier: Aboriginal Resistance to the European invasion of Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press Ltd, Print. p Jandamarra, who was nicknamed Pigeon, worked as an armed tracker with the local police to capture Aboriginal people who were spearing sheep. In October 1894 Pigeon s tribal loyalty got the better of him he shot a police colleague at Lillimooloora, freed the captured tribesmen and escaped to lead a band of dissident Bunuba people, who evaded search parties for almost three years. Despite being seriously wounded in a shoot-out at Windjana Gorge only a month after his escape, Pigeon survived and continued to taunt the settlers with raids and vanishing acts. Pigeon killed another four men and in 1897 was finally trapped and killed near his Tunnel Creek hide-out. He became one of the most significant legends of Aboriginal culture. Quoted from: Smitz, Paul. Australia. Melbourne: Lonely Planet Publications Pty Ltd, Print. p

30 and/or associations and their systematic and gradual work. It was at the beginning of the new century that first pro-aboriginal organizations came into existence despite the political and social opinion and background in the newly established country of Australia. There was in fact a very significant Aboriginal organization as early as in the first half of the 19 th century which was called the British and Foreign Aborigines Protection Society and which was established in London in This organization was founded to assist in protecting and promoting the advancement of the Aborigines of this colony and the neighbouring islands 53 and it was thus trying to protect Aboriginal peoples of all the British colonies of that time. The auxiliary society of the British and Foreign Aborigines Protection Society was founded in Sydney in 1838 for the particular reason of protection and well-being of Australian Aborigines. This society was called Australian Aborigines Protection Society. This organization published journal articles about Aborigines in Australia because their main objections were as follows: The first object of the Society will be to collect authentic information concerning the character, habits, and wants, of the uncivilised tribes One of its most important duties will be to communicate, in cheap publications, those details which may excite interest of all classes, and thus ensure the extension of correct opinions. It is probable that some cases may be brought under the attention of the Society, in which the interference of the Legislature may be required, and it will then be necessary to appeal to the Government, or to Parliament, for the relief of those who, as natives of our colonies, have a right to the protection of the British laws. 54 Although the Aborigines Protection Society was an official organization trying to protect rights of Aboriginal peoples they did not have enough power to really change their overall situation by only publishing their journal called The Colonial Intelligencer; 53 Australian Aborigines Protection Society. Nla.gov.au. National Library of Australia. Web. 16 Mar p. 6. Available at: 54 Australian Aborigines Protection Society. Nla.gov.au. National Library of Australia. Web. 16 Mar p. 8. Available at: 30

31 or, Aborigines Friend, and/or issuing reports of their annual meetings. 55 The organization continued in existence until 1909 when it merged with the Anti-Slavery Society 56 which acknowledged the connection between the idea of slavery and colonization. Organisations and even individuals in Australia working for Aboriginal rights have informed the Anti-Slavery and Aborigines' Protection Society of civil rights infringements and abuses of power. The Society has lobbied Australian governments on these matters. 57 Aborigines Protection Society may be considered to be one of the first Aboriginal organizations dealing with Aboriginal issues but it was not dealing only with Aboriginal peoples of Australia but with all Aboriginal peoples in all the British colonies. Thus, the first organization dealing directly with problems connected only with Australian Aborigines is Aborigines Protection Association which was founded in Sydney in 1878 by Daniel Matthews to raise money and solicit government support for his private mission in Maloga and it was two years later it adopted even greater goals. 58 The Aborigines Protection Association was in fact originally called the Maloga Committee because it was at Maloga Mission where Daniel Matthews became clearly aware of how he and other settlers had benefited from the theft of Aboriginal land and it was Maloga Mission which he funded as a private mission and where he gathered men together to talk about reforms to the government policies. 59 Maloga Mission was also the place where the future Aboriginal leader William Cooper 60 was educated as a Half- Caste child. The Aborigines Protection Association was a voluntary organization which was replaced in 1885 by the government body called the Aborigines Protection Board 55 Aborigines Protection Society (A111). Therai.org.uk. The Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. Web. 16 Mar Available at: 56 Anti-Slavery Society has operated since 1990 under the name Anti-Slavery International. Anti-slavery, today s fight for tomorrow s freedom. Anti-Slavery International. Web. 16 Mar Available at: 57 Anti-Slavery Society. Indigenousrights.net.au. National Museum of Australia Canberra. Web. 16 Mar Available at: 58 Prentis, Malcolm D. A Concise Companion to Aboriginal History. Sydney: Rosenberg Publishing, Google Books. Web. 17 Mar p Perkins, Rachel, and Marcia Langton. First Australians. Melbourne: Melbourne University Publishing Limited, Google Books. Web. 17 Mar p. xxiii. 60 William Cooper (1861?-1941) was an Aboriginal leader and spokesman for the dispersed communities of central Victoria and western New South Wales in the 1920s and 1930s. William Cooper. Adb.online.anu.edu.au. Australian Dictionary of Bibliography Online Edition. Web. 17 Mar Available at: 31

32 which was in fact against the missions on the basis of his low view of the intellectual and spiritual capacities of Aboriginal people. 61 Maloga Mission was thus eventually closed as well but its importance is clearly explained by Rachel Perkins and Marcia Langton in their book: Maloga Mission was closed in 1888, but it had a decisive influence on generations of Aboriginal people. Leaders of the Aboriginal campaigns of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are descendants of their pupils. The 1881 petition of the Maloga residents to the Victorian Government exerted an influence more than a century later when it was used in evidence in the Yorta Yorta 62 title case. 63 The one of the best examples of the Maloga Mission influence can be seen in the personality of William Cooper who was educated at Maloga Mission and later even married there. He became very influential Aboriginal activist and consequently one of the organizers of the Australian Aborigines League (AAL) in William Cooper and the AAL were very active in trying to enforce the Aboriginal rights and apart from isolated incidents like Cumeragunja Walk-Off 64 and/or journal and newspaper articles like Plea For Black 65 their most famous activity was a petition to King George V which was circulated between 1933 and 1938 but eventually it was refused to be passed to the 61 Matthews, Daniel ( ). Webjournals.alphacrucis.edu.au. Australasian Pentecostal Studies Aims. Web. 17 Mar Available at: 62 The Yorta Yorta people occupied a unique stretch of territory located in what is now known as the Murray - Goulburn region. Their lifestyle was based on hunting, fishing and collecting food. However being river people most of their time was occupied by fishing, as the majority of food was provided from the network of rivers, lagoons, creeks and lakes which were and are still regarded as the life source of the Yorta Yorta people. Quoted from: Atkinson, Wayne Dr. Yorta Yorta Struggle for justice continues. Vicnet.net.au. State Library of Victoria. Web. 17 Mar Available at: 63 Perkins, Rachel, and Marcia Langton. First Australians. Melbourne: Melbourne University Publishing Limited, Google Books. Web. 17 Mar p. xxiii. 64 Cumeragunja Walk-Off was an action taken by Aboriginal people of the Cumeragunja Reserve in 1939 in protest at deteriorating conditions and dictatorial behaviour and arrogant and abusive" demeanour of new manager A.J. McQuiggan. Quoted from: Cumeragunja Walk-Off (1939). Reasoninrevolt.net.au. Reason in Revolt Project. Web. 17 Mar Available at: 65 William Cooper s Plea for Black in The Sun on 11 Sep Plea for Black. Reasoninrevolt.net.au. Reason in Revolt Project. Web. 17 Mar Available at: 32

33 King by the Australian Parliament. Among other things the petition with more than 2,000 Aboriginal signatures clearly stated that: YOUR PETITIONERS humbly pray that Your Majesty will intervene on our behalf, and, through the instrument of Your Majesty s Governments in the Commonwealth of Australia will prevent the extinction of the Aboriginal race and give better conditions for all, granting us the power to propose a member of parliament, of our own blood or a white man known to have studied our needs and to be in sympathy with our race, to represent us in the Federal Parliament. AND YOUR PETITIONERS WILL EVER PRAY. 66 While the AAL with their leader William Cooper circulated this petition there was another Aboriginal activist William Ferguson 67 who founded yet another pro- Aboriginal organization called Aborigines Progressive Association (APA) in William Ferguson formed the APA together with John Patten 68 who became the president of this newly formed organization. The AAL endorsed a long range policy for Aborigines which was defined in a ten-point list of requirements to be given to the Prime Minister and the requests included things like the full citizenship status for Aborigines, representation on the Boards and the proposition to appoint the new Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs with full cabinet rank. There was also a long-delayed petition for the political representation in the federal parliament to be given to the Cabinet. The AAL based in Victoria and represented by William Cooper and APA based in New South Wales and represented by William Ferguson supported each other because they had basically the same aims. When they realized that their demands and petitions were disregarded and in vain both leaders published in 1938 a joint manifesto 66 Petition to King George V. Indigenousrights.net.au. National Museum of Australia Canberra. Web. 17 Mar Available at: 67 Ferguson, William (Bill) ( ). Adb.online.anu.edu.au. Australian Dictionary of Bibliography Online Edition. Web. 17 Mar Available at: 68 Patten, John Thomas (Jack) ( ). Adb.online.anu.edu.au. Australian Dictionary of Bibliography Online Edition. Web. 17 Mar Available at: 33

34 called Aborigines Claim Citizenship Rights. 69 This manifesto was to be distributed to Aboriginal people who attended the protest of Aborigines held in Sydney on 26 Jan which is commonly referred to as the Day of Mourning The Day of Mourning 1938 The background for the idea of the Day of Mourning itself dates back to the previous year when the plans for the Day of protest were announced by one of the chairmen of the AAL Mr. Arthur Burdeu and the APA founder William Ferguson in The Argus Melbourne newspaper on 13 th Nov on page one titled Aborigines Day of Mourning, Plan for 150 th Anniversary: Plans for the observance of aborigine's throughout Australia of a Day of Mourning simultaneously with the 150th anniversary celebrations in Sydney, were announced by the Australian Aborigines League While white men are throwing their hats in the air with joy, aborigines will be in mourning for all that they have lost. It was hoped that the Day of mourning would direct the attention of the people of Australia to the desire of the aborigines for full rights of citizenship. 70 The 26 th Jan was very important day in white-australian history because it was declared an official day of celebration for inhabitants of Australia for the 150 th Anniversary of the first fleet landing in Sydney. The parades were held and first fleet landing re-enactment was performed in Sydney to celebrate this important date but Aborigines decided not to celebrate this day but participated in the Day of Mourning instead. It was clear that the protest was for Aboriginal people only and more than 1,000 Aborigines protested in a march from Sydney Town Hall through Sydney to the Day of Mourning Congress which was a political meeting of Aborigines organized mainly by 69 Aborigines Claim Citizen Rights. AIATSIS.gov.au. AIATSIS Library. Web. 14 Mar p. 1. Available at: 70 Aborigines Day of Mourning, Plan for 150 th Anniversary. The Argus, 13 Nov National Library of Australia. Web. 20 Mar Available at: 34

35 the two Aboriginal leaders, William Cooper and John Patton. 71 The Aborigines Claim Citizenship Rights manifesto was distributed among those who took part in this protest explaining the Day of Mourning as such in the following resolution: WE, representing THE ABORIGINES OF AUSTRALIA, assembled in Conference at the Australian Hall, Sydney, on the 26th day of January, 1938, this being the 150th Anniversary of the whitemen's seizure of our country, HEREBY MAKE PROTEST against the callous treatment of our people l)y the whitemen during the past 150 years, AND WE APPEAL to the Australian Nation of today to make new laws for the education and care of Aborigines, and we ask for a new policy which will raise our people to FULL CITIZEN STATUS and EQUALITY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. 72 The manifesto, sub-headed A Statement of the Case for the Aborigines Progressive Association, was in fact the first ever explication of the Australian history of the past 150 years from the Aboriginal point of view written by Aborigines organized in an official association which was protecting their real rights. The manifesto plainly and factually touched upon some of the most compelling problems like the Protection Acts, the Half-Castes and powers of the Board, it called for the abolition of the Aborigines Protection Board, and citizen rights but the general concept of the manifesto was resumed in a few opening lines: The 26 th of January, 1938, is not a day of rejoicing for Australia's Aborigines; it is a day of mourning. This festival of 150 years' so-called "progress" in Australia commemorates also 150 years of misery and degradation imposed upon the original native inhabitants by the white invaders of this country. We, representing the Aborigines, now ask you, the reader of this appeal, to pause in the midst of your Sesqui-Centenary rejoicings and ask yourself honestly whether your "conscience" is clear 71 Day of Mourning and Protest. AIATSIS.gov.au. AIATSIS Library. Web. 20 Mar Available at: 72 Aborigines Claim Citizen Rights. AIATSIS.gov.au. AIATSIS Library. Web. 20 Mar p. 12. Available at: 35

36 in regard to the treatment of the Australian blacks by the Australian whites during the period of 150 years' history which you celebrate. 73 Not only the message Aborigines did send to general public on the Day of Mourning and not only the number of Indigenous and non-indigenous supporters who attended the Congress but also very clear and plainly spoken demands in the resolution had an overwhelming effect as the majority of public were not in fact informed about the real Aboriginal situation. There was also an visible effect on Aborigines as well because the Day of Mourning Congress speakers clearly stated that it was time to do something for themselves. 74 The complicated situation of Indigenous peoples could not change immediately but the fact that general message was sent was a good start. Jack Horner, a pro-aboriginal activist and an active member of FCAATSI 75, suggests in his book: For Aboriginal people, it wasn t the meeting that was significant though this was a great source of pride but the date: 26 January 1938, the Day of Mourning. From that day, white and black Australians were to be more concerned about each other s history. 76 The consequences of the Day of Mourning were not only in affecting Aboriginal pride and sending a general message to the Australian public but also visible political ones. One of the greatest immediate effects resulting directly from the Day of Mourning was the official invitation from the Australian Prime Minister Joseph Lyons to meet the official Aboriginal representation. This historical meeting of the first official Aboriginal delegation directly with the Prime Minister was held on 31 st Jan. 1938, only five days after the Day of Mourning. The above mentioned ten-point list of requirements which was known as Our Ten Points Deputation to the Prime Minister and which was 73 Aborigines Claim Citizen Rights. AIATSIS.gov.au. AIATSIS Library. Web. 14 Mar p. 3. Available at: 74 Horner, Jack. Seeking racial justice: an insider's memoir of the movement for Aboriginal advancement, Canberra: AIATSIS, Google Books. Web. 20 Mar p FCAATSI Federal Council for the Advancement of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. Quoted form: Horner, Jack. Seeking racial justice: an insider's memoir of the movement for Aboriginal advancement, Canberra: AIATSIS, Google Books. Web. 20 Mar p. xvii. 76 Horner, Jack. Seeking racial justice: an insider's memoir of the movement for Aboriginal advancement, Canberra: AIATSIS, Google Books. Web. 20 Mar p

37 printed in The Australian Abo Call monthly magazine later in April, was handed to the Prime Minister. The Aboriginal demands and their requirements were not to be met overnight but the meeting with the Prime Minister drew attention of the press and had a great impact on Australian public awareness of the Aboriginal issues. In fact it took another 30 years for Aborigines to achieve the full citizenship rights in Although the Aboriginal situation needed a long-term solution and some changes were not about to happen immediately there were in fact some results achieved as early as in In that year the Aborigines Protection Board was replaced by the Aborigines Welfare Board with William Ferguson as one of its first Aboriginal representatives. As the change of the name clearly suggests the protection policy started to be changed into the welfare policy and some of the consequences resulting from changing the name of the Aborigines Protection Board included the change of responsibility for education of Aborigines which was to be transferred to the Department of Education. Some of the duties of the Board included assisting aborigines in obtaining employment and maintaining or assisting to maintain them whilst so employed, or otherwise for the purpose of assisting aborigines to become assimilated into the general life of the community. 78 Even though these changes were really small concerning all the demands Aboriginal people had it was clear that there was a chance for future change and the AAL and APA did have an evidence of their good work for the Aboriginal community. This momentum for the change was unfortunately almost terminated by the World War II because the war as an international conflict took much greater a priority than the Aboriginal problems in Australia. 5. World War II and Post World War II development Aboriginal organizations tried to continue with their work even during the war especially when Aboriginal Welfare Board replaced the discredited Aboriginal 77 Patten, John. Our Ten Points. The Australian Abo Call, Apr National Library of Australia. Web. 17 Mar Available at: 78 To Remove and Protect: Laws That Changed Aboriginal Lives. AIATSIS.gov.au. AIATSIS Library. Web. 21 Mar Available at: 37

38 Protection Board, the organizations campaigned for the Aboriginal representation in the AWB. The World War II itself played very important role as well because the Aboriginal community was in fact divided over the issue of the military service because some Aborigines and their organizations proclaimed that participation in military units would help their case but others, among them William Cooper, argued that Aborigines should not fight for white Australia. 79 Aborigines were allowed to enlist the forces at the beginning of the war but the situation changed in 1940 when their loyalty was questioned and some white Australians complained about serving with Aborigines in the same force. Despite the ban, Aborigines tried to enlist the Australian Imperial Force (AIF) 80 claiming different nationality or renouncing Aboriginality and because of the recruiting officers indifference and/or confusion, many Aborigines did join the force. After the Japanese air attack on Darwin in 1942 the attitude towards the Aborigines changed and they were enlisted and recruited as soldiers and members of labour corps. It is estimated that more than 3,000 Indigenous people served in various forces and units throughout the World War II. With the war in hand and given the tragic war circumstances these Aborigines serving in the force were given quite a fair treatment, they served under the same conditions as whites and there was in fact little racism between soldiers. 81 The situation of Aborigines in the country improved a lot because of the lack of workforce due to the war. They were given the chance to work with white people under the same work and payment conditions and were offered the long term jobs rather than the seasonal ones. Aborigines were in fact treated as equal citizens against the background of the war as Jack Horner summarises in his book: During the war, employment conditions changed for the better for Aboriginal people (as well as for women). Hundreds of Aboriginal 79 Indigenous Australian Servicemen. Awm.gov.au. Australian War Memorial. Web. 21 Mar Available at: 80 Australian Imperial Force was the name given to all-volunteer Australian Army forces dispatched to fight overseas during World War I and World War II. Quoted from: Australian Imperial Force. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 12 Feb Web. 21 Mar Available at: 81 All-in Indigenous Service. Australia s War Australian Government. Department of Veterans Affairs. Web. 21 Mar Available at: 38

39 people came to the cities to work at the munitions factories, and Sydney s Aboriginal population increased in those years. The pay was good, although housing was always hard to find. In the big country towns, too, there was little unemployment and Aboriginal workers received equal pay and similar conditions to other Australians. 82 Pro-Aboriginal activists still continued in their work throughout the war hoping that the situation of Aborigines would stay the same as it was during the war when Aborigines enjoyed more or less equal rights with the white citizens of Australia. Especially those Aborigines who served in the army forces gained a lot of pride and confidence to demand their rights even after the war. 83 The key role was to be played by the 1944 referendum on Constitution Alteration (Post War Reconstruction and Democratic Rights), sometimes referred to as Fourteen Point or Fourteen Powers. The referendum concerned fourteen points including rehabilitation of ex-servicemen, national health and family allowances as well as the people of Aboriginal race. 84 The person submitting the referendum to the federal government was Dr. Herbert Evatt, the Commonwealth Attorney-General and it was also his idea to transfer the control of Aborigines from the states to the federal government and thus the federal government would be responsible for the legislation concerning Aborigines. Unfortunately, Evatt s initiative was not successful because, as Jack Horner suggests: Referendum asked much of white uninformed people and explained too little. The result was negative. Race relations did not rise again as a national question for more than 20 years. 85 Race relations did not rise as a national question until 1967 but Aboriginal organizations were still active in the 1950s and 1960s calling for the transfer of the 82 Horner, Jack. Seeking racial justice: an insider's memoir of the movement for Aboriginal advancement, Canberra: AIATSIS, Google Books. Web. 21 Mar p Indigenous Australian Servicemen. Awm.gov.au. Australian War Memorial. Web. 22 Mar Available at: 84 Bills Introduced, together with printed Amendments, etc. Aph.gov.au. Parliament of Australia. Parliamentary Library. Web. 21 Mar p. 6. Available at: 85 Horner, Jack. Seeking racial justice: an insider's memoir of the movement for Aboriginal advancement, Canberra: AIATSIS, Google Books. Web. 21 Mar p

40 responsibility for Aboriginal affairs to the Commonwealth government but still more and more Aboriginal organizations realized the need for constitutional change. In fact, it the 1950s the case for constitutional change came to be plotted so often that it came to be simply accepted as common sense by many campaigners and their supporters. 86 A few separate organizations pursued the same aim regarding the Aboriginal affairs and the removal of the discriminatory legislations in the late 1950s. The Aboriginal Australian Fellowship (AAF) was one of these organizations and apart from civil rights it was also concerned with educational activities. 87 One of its leaders was a former member of the APA Mary Pearl Gibbs who wanted to have both Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal members to help mutual understanding because both Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal people could work together on equal terms, for the betterment of both, including the repeal of discriminatory laws. 88 Still, one of the main issues to be addressed by the AAF was the constitutional change. The Federal Council for Aboriginal Advancement (FCAA) was established for the same particular reason in February, 1958 with the cooperation of the Aborigines Advancement League (AAL), formerly Australian Aborigines League, and the AAF. The FCAA is sometimes referred to as the Federal Council for Aboriginal Advancement and Constitutional Change 89 and this longer title also suggests the most significant aim of this organization. The AAF not only helped establish the FCAA and its committee but it also affiliated with the organization shortly after it was founded. 90 In 1964, responding to the request from Torres Strait Islanders, the FCAA changed its name to the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (FCAATSI) which played the crucial role in the Australian Aborigines campaign for the change of the Australian Constitution. Its sustained campaign for the constitutional change resulted in 1967 Referendum which later resulted in amending the Australian Constitution. 86 Attwood, Bain, and Andrew Markus. The 1967 referendum: race, power and the Australian Constitution. Canberra: AIATSIS, Google Books. Web. 21 Mar p Prentis, Malcolm D. A Concise Companion to Aboriginal History. Sydney: Rosenberg Publishing, Google Books. Web. 21 Mar p Never Forgotten. Lryb.AIATSIS.gov.au. AIATSIS Library. Web. 21 Mar p. 14. Available at: 89 Attwood, Bain, and Andrew Markus. The 1967 referendum: race, power and the Australian Constitution. Canberra: AIATSIS, Google Books. Web. 21 Mar p Prentis, Malcolm D. A Concise Companion to Aboriginal History. Sydney: Rosenberg Publishing, Google Books. Web. 21 Mar p

41 5.1. The petition campaign and the 1967 referendum The FCAATSI was an open organization which meant that it offered a membership to any Aboriginal Advancement organization and thus in the 1960s it became the most influential organization in terms of pursuing Aboriginal rights. The overall atmosphere in Australia regarding Aborigines was slowly improving and there were signs that Australia is getting ready for change. For example, even though the policy of assimilation was still enforced in the 1960s the Aboriginal Welfare Conference in 1965 decided that assimilation might be voluntary and later the aim of assimilation was replaced by integration. 91 On the other hand the assimilation of the children through their removal as such and the existence of child welfare systems continued until the late 1960s. 92 Although Aborigines did have the voting right in most states, apart from Western Australia and Queensland, they were not allowed to enrol and vote at federal elections. In 1962 the Commonwealth Electoral Act amendment provided that Aborigines should have the right to vote at Commonwealth elections but at that time the enrolment was not compulsory. Aboriginal people were allowed to vote but despite this amendment, it was illegal under Commonwealth legislation to encourage Indigenous people to enrol and vote. 93 The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Act from 1962 allowed all Australian Aborigines to vote, including those who lived in Queensland and Western Australia, but the states elections were still restricting Aborigines from these two states to vote and it took another four years to change. In Queensland the first state election in which all Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders were able to vote was held on 28 May Prentis, Malcolm D. A Concise Companion to Aboriginal History. Sydney: Rosenberg Publishing, Google Books. Web. 22 Mar p Armitage, Andrew. Comparing the Policy of Aboriginal Assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, Google Books. Web. 22 Mar p Electoral Milestone. Aec.gov.au. Australian Electoral Commission. Web. 22 Mar Available at: 94 Voting rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Queensland. Slq.qld.gov.au. State Library of Queensland. Web. 22 Mar Available at: data/assets/pdf_file/0019/41851/indigenous_voting_05.pdf 41

42 As the atmosphere in the society was slowly changing and the overall situation of Aborigines was improving the FCAA and later the FCAATSI called for constitutional amendments because the Sections 127 and 51(xxvi) were still part of the Australian Constitution as mentioned in chapter three of this thesis. Aborigines were thus officially allowed to vote in federal elections and they were officially Australian citizens, even though their citizenship rights and enlistments were still denied, 95 but they were not counted in the Commonwealth Census (Section 127) and the Commonwealth legislation was not allowed to make special laws concerning Indigenous peoples of Australia (Section 51xxvi). The way to the 1967 Referendum was long and complicated and was in fact preceded by petition campaign from as early as In that year the FCAA ran one the first petitions calling for the Referendum which was signed by more than 25,000 people within three months and it was submitted to the parliament in the same year. This petition addressed social, political and economic issues and called for the Referendum to be held at an early date. The two Sections of the Constitution regarding Aborigines were to be deleted as a result of the Referendum. 96 One of the people responsible for this particular petition in 1958 was Jessie Street who was one of the co-founders of the AAF and later also the FCAA but it was also her who reactivated the campaign for constitutional change and drafted an amendment to the Australian Constitution to remove discriminatory references to Aborigines. 97 Another important figure was the first president of the Aborigines Advancement League (AAL) Gordon Bryant who worked closely with the FCAA and who was also a member of the federal parliament at that time. He later organised the Vote YES campaign The Commonwealth Citizenship and Nationality Act 1948 for the first time makes all Australians, including all Aboriginal people, Australian citizens. But at state level they still suffer legal discrimination. Indigenous Australia Timeline 1901 to Australianmuseum.net.au. Australian Museum Sydney. Web. 22 Mar Available at: Petition for a referendum, Federal Council for Aboriginal Advancement, Indigenousrights.net.au. National Museum of Australia Canberra. Web. 22 Mar Available at: 97 Attwood, Bain, and Andrew Markus. The 1967 referendum: race, power and the Australian Constitution. Canberra: AIATSIS, Google Books. Web. 22 Mar p Gordon Bryant. Indigenousrights.net.au. National Museum of Australia Canberra. Web. 22 Mar Available at: 42

43 The petition from 1958 was a great success but at the annual conference in 1962 the FCAA decided to run national petition campaign which was to collect 250,000 to 300,000 signatures from all the Australian states. Gordon Bryant was the author of the petition draft which was later sent to the representatives in all the states. The wording of this second petition changed from the previous one because apart from the above mentioned issues it also concerned issues like discrimination, legal status of Aborigines and their tribal lands. 99 The 1962 petition did not collect a quarter of a million signatures it set as its goal but only 103,000 which were collected within a year from October 1962 to October 1963 in 94 separate petitions. 100 The overall result was that the general public was much better informed about the Aboriginal situation but the campaign committee needed to get some political results and consequences. The petitions were tabled to the Parliament and to the Prime Minister Robert Menzies who consequently agreed to a request, brokered by Gordon Bryant, to meet the Federal Council delegation and hear its plea for constitutional change. 101 The complicated sequence of events following this meeting is very clearly described by Robert French, the present Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. When writing this case in 2003, Robert French was a non-resident member of the Supreme Court of Fiji. 102 In 1964, the Labour Opposition leader Arthur Calwell introduced the Constitution Alternation (Aborigines) 1964 Bill for a referendum to remove the exclusionary term from s. 51(xxvi) and to delete s The bill lapsed when Parliament was dissolved. A Bill for the removal of s. 127 was introduced by Prime Minister Menzies in 1965 Then in 1966 another Bill was proposed to repeal s. 51(xxvi) and in lieu to confer power on the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws for the Advancement of the Aboriginal natives of the Commonwealth of 99 National Petition form, entitled Towards equal citizenship of Aborigines, Indigenousrights.net.au. National Museum of Australia Canberra. Web. 22 Mar Available at: National petition campaign, Indigenousrights.net.au. National Museum of Australia Canberra. Web. 22 Mar Available at: Attwood, Bain, and Andrew Markus. The 1967 referendum: race, power and the Australian Constitution. Canberra: AIATSIS, Google Books. Web. 22 Mar p Winterton, George, and H. P. Lee. Australian constitutional landmarks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Google Books. Web. p. xxiii. 43

44 Australia In 1967, Prime Minister Harold Holt 103 introduced the Constitution Alternation (Aborigines) 1967 Bill which proposed the removal of the words other than the Aboriginal race in any State from s. 51(xxvi) and the deletion of s The Constitution Alternation (Aborigines) 1967 Bill passed both Houses of Parliament with no opposition and this meant that the Referendum would be carried out with the date set on 27 May The Bill had no opposition in the Parliament so only a yes case was presented with all the parties supporting the proposed changes. Shortly after the Bill 1967 passed the Parliament, the Government issued an official document, commonly referred to as The Case for YES which supported the constitution alternation and which was in favour of the proposed law. The first page of this document clearly stated that: The purposes of these proposed amendments to the Commonwealth Constitution are to remove any ground for the belief that, as at present worded, the Constitution discriminates in some ways against people of the Aboriginal race, and, at the same time, to make it possible for the Commonwealth Parliament to make special laws for the people of the Aboriginal race, wherever they may live, if the Commonwealth Parliament considers this desirable or necessary. To achieve this purpose, we propose that two provisions of the Constitution be altered which make explicit references to people of the Aboriginal race. 105 The document then described both sections in question and explained what the proposed alternation of these sections will do. It also tried to explain why these sections, especially section 127, were included in the constitution in the first place and why it 103 Harold Holt was elected Prime Minister after Robert Menzies and was in office from 26 Jan to 19 Dec Quoted from: Harold Holt. Naa.gov.au. National Archives of Australia. Web. 22 Mar Available at: French, Robert. The Race Power: A Constitutional Chimera. Australian constitutional landmarks. Ed. George Winterton and H. P. Lee. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Google Books. Web. 22 Mar p The Government Case for Yes. Indigenousrights.net.au. National Museum of Australia Canberra. Web. 22 Mar Available at: 44

45 was the right time to get rid of them. Then it continued by stating how strongly the Government and Parliament support their case: All political parties represented in the Commonwealth Parliament support these proposals. The legislation proposing these Constitutional amendments was, in fact, adopted unanimously in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. We have yet to learn of any opposition being voiced to them from any quarter. Just as every available Member of the Commonwealth Parliament voted for the proposals outlined above, we believe that the Australian electorate as a whole will give strong support and endorsement to them. We urge you to vote YES to both our proposals as to Aboriginals by writing the word YES in the square on the ballot-paper. 106 Not only the Government itself but also Aboriginal organisations were campaigning for the YES in the Referendum. The Vote YES campaign organised by the FCAATSI was led by the member of the parliament and the president of the AAL Gordon Bryant who was also the chief of its national Vote YES directorate. 107 The FCAATSI also supported the politicians in their electorates to support a YES vote and explained the general public the possible effect of a YES or NO vote. The FCAATSI was helped by the Church which also supported a YES vote, distributed how-to-vote cards and tried to explain to voters what it was all about. The Aborigines recognition and equality was obviously the most distinctive argument during the Vote YES campaign but also the image of Australia was in jeopardy in case of a NO vote and it was often used as one of the campaigners arguments. A political commentator Bruce Grant explained for The Age newspaper on 7 Apr. 1967: Abroad, our rejection of the referendum, which has the support of both Government and Opposition at Federal level, will be seen as popular proof that, however much he has learned to dissemble his prejudices, the 106 The Government Case for Yes. Indigenousrights.net.au. National Museum of Australia Canberra. Web. 22 Mar Available at: Horner, Jack. Seeking racial justice: an insider's memoir of the movement for Aboriginal advancement, Canberra: AIATSIS, Google Books. Web. 22 Mar p

46 ordinary Australian is a blood brother of the white racists of the world. So far we have been able to blame the old-fashioned prejudices of out founding fathers, with their obsessions about Kanakas and Chinese labourers, and the timidity of our politicians for the principle of racial discrimination in our constitution. The referendum next month gives the Australian citizen an opportunity to speak out on the issue. 108 The campaign had virtually no opposition and it was led to have an overwhelming result because it was believed that the higher number of YES votes would persuade the federal government that it had a responsibility to use the power provided by the amendment. 109 When the Referendum was finally held on 27 th May 1967 the result was really overwhelming with more than 90 per cent of YES votes. The overall result was more than 90 per cent but there were differences in percentage among the states with the lowest percentage of only 80 per cent in Western Australia and generally lower percentage of YES votes in the electorates with racial problems. 110 The result was a great success nonetheless. The professor Bain Attwood from Monash University of Victoria and his colleague Andrew Markus point out that: Of the 44 attempts to amend the Constitution only eight have succeeded, and the vote in 1967 is the highest ever achieved. This referendum is commonly regarded as the outcome of a major political campaign for change in Aboriginal affairs, and it is frequently cast as an event of considerable import in Australia history. 111 The historical success of the referendum was unambiguous and the result was obviously welcome by the FCAATSI as well as by the whole Aboriginal community but the referendum itself did not change the Aboriginal situation overnight. By voting 108 Grant, Bruce. What a No vote would mean. The Age 7 Apr. 1967: Web. 23 Mar Available at: Campaigning for a YES vote. Indigenousrights.net.au. National Museum of Australia Canberra. Web. 23 Mar Available at: The 1967 referendum history and myths. Aph.gov.au. Parliament of Australia. Parliamentary Library. Web. 24 Mar Available at: Attwood, Bain, and Andrew Markus. The 1967 referendum: race, power and the Australian Constitution. Canberra: AIATSIS, Google Books. Web. 24 Mar p. vi. 46

47 YES the Australian society showed they were ready for the changes regarding the Aborigines and the referendum did in fact give enough power to the Government to carry them out. The amended Constitution meant that Aborigines were to be counted in the national Census and that there was power to make any special laws regarding Aborigines. It was the Government that was held responsible to take action. Over the years it has been popularly claimed that the referendum gave Aboriginal people the vote, granted equal citizenship, repealed racially discriminatory laws, transferred Aboriginal affairs from the states to the Commonwealth, or that it did all of these things. Indeed, this was how the referendum was represented at the time. 112 The referendum only led to amendment of s. 51(xxvi) and deletion of s. 127 from the Constitution but the equality status of Aborigines and/or their full citizenship was not mentioned in the Constitution at all. Dr. John Chesterman and the professor Brian Galligan from the University of Melbourne explain: The Constitution did not exclude Aboriginal people from citizenship in the new Australian nation. Such exclusion was achieved through parliamentary legislation successive governments and administrators, through legislative and administrative practices, routinely extended and embellished this exclusion of Aboriginal people from citizenship rights and entitlements. The exclusionary regime was not required or sanctioned by the Constitution, so it could be dismantled by simply changing legislation and administrative practices The 1967 referendum was enormously significant as a symbolic act It did not, however, restore Aborigines to citizenship because the Constitution had never excluded them. 113 Getting majority in the referendum was in fact only the first step towards the full recognition and integration and it was integration not assimilation that became the official policy. Even though the Constitution was amended and the Government so strongly supported the Vote YES campaign there was no immediate action and thus it 112 Attwood, Bain, and Andrew Markus. The 1967 referendum: race, power and the Australian Constitution. Canberra: AIATSIS, Google Books. Web. 24 Mar p. vi. 113 Chesterman, John, and Brian Galligan. Citizens without rights: Aborigines and Australian citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Google Books. Web. 24 Mar p

48 was the FCAATSI who demanded some action to be taken and urged the Government to establish Council for Aboriginal Affairs. It took the Prime Minister Harold Holt five months to establish the Council for Aboriginal Affairs which was the first Government action regarding Aborigines from the referendum. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister Holt died shortly after and the new Prime Minister John Gorton did not subsidize the Council the way Prime Minister Holt intended which meant that the Council for Aboriginal Affairs never became a statutory body. 114 Thus it took five more years and yet another Prime Minister, William McMahon, to establish the first separate Ministry and Department of Aboriginal Affairs with Gordon Bryant, former president of the AAL and member of the FCAATSI, as the first Minister of Aboriginal Affairs Policy of self-determination and land rights movement In the early 1970s Aborigines realized that it is only them that can determine what is best for their community and it is only them that can manage their own affairs. The previous Government policies and programs did not work and policy of assimilation meant that Aborigines would abandon their own cultural heritage and adopt the values of the dominant society. The policies of assimilation and, after 1965, integration lasted until It is widely recognised today that these policies were a failure. 115 Self-determination was demanded by Aboriginal organizations and the FCAATSI for Aboriginal people from the 1967 referendum and in 1972 the policy of self-determination, sometimes also referred to as the policy of self-management, was introduced as an official policy of the Australian Government. Self-determination allowed Aborigines to decide their own development and it gave them the freedom to take matters into their own hands. Dr. Sally Babidge from the University of Queensland mentions: The self was Aboriginal people and small amounts of funding from government began to be channelled into locally-run Aboriginal organisations Self-determination retained assimilationist ideology 114 Council for Aboriginal Affairs. Indigenousrights.net.au. National Museum of Australia Canberra. Web. 24 Mar Available at: Jupp, James. The Australian people: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, Its People and Their Origins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Google Books. Web. 26 Mar p

49 through state funding of Aboriginal organisations directed at the kinds of programs that would produce an Aboriginal self acceptable to rural town neighbours. 116 Self-determination policy meant that Aborigines had the right to maintain their cultural and linguistic heritage but it also meant the right to management of natural resources on Aboriginal land. 117 In fact, land became one of the main issues in the early 1970s because Aborigines wanted to pursue their land rights. In 1972 the Government announced that instead of giving Aborigines their land on the bases of the historical and traditional ownership it would give Aborigines general purpose leases on the land which meant that Aborigines were declined their land rights and their traditional ownership of the land was denied. When this new Government land policy was introduced by the Prime Minister William McMahon the national land right movement was set into action and the most focal point of this movement became the so-called tent embassy, commonly referred to as Aboriginal Tent Embassy, in front of Canberra Parliament House. Originally as a protest against the Government decision, three young Aboriginal men erected a beach umbrella on the lawns outside Parliament House in Canberra on Australia Day 1972 and put up a sign which read 'Aboriginal Embassy'. In a few months there were over 2,000 supporters. The site of the protest action became eventually known as the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. It was a powerful symbol. The original owners of the land set up an 'embassy' opposite the parliament, as if they were foreigners. This act showed compellingly the strength of their sense of alienation. They were landless. 118 This demonstration was in fact only one of the protests against the new Government land policy and according to Dr James Jupp, a director of the Centre for Immigration and Multicultural Studies at the Australian National University, the land rights movement in fact continued throughout the whole 1970s when he explains: 116 Babidge, Sally. Aboriginal Family and the State: The Conditions of History. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited, Google Books. Web. 26 Mar p A Walk Through White Australia. Nma.gov.au. National Museum of Australia. Web. 26 Mar Available at: _australia/a_walk_through_white_australia_black_and_white/files/13005/studies_nma.bw.pdf 118 Aboriginal Embassy. Indigenousrights.net.au. National Museum of Australia Canberra. Web. 26 Mar Available at: 49

50 The land rights movements lobbied state and national governments for land rights on the grounds of traditional associations, historical associations, compensation for the loss of economic, social and spiritual base, and socio-economic need. Land rights claims emphasized cultural uniqueness and historical reparations. Moreover, demands for a veto over access to Aboriginal lands and over exploration and mining on them amounted to a demand for community control over productive resources and social development. 119 The official land policy of the Prime Minister William McMahon s Government thus triggered the whole land rights movement because it failed to recognize the preexisting land rights of Aboriginal people and carried out only a small number of land purchases. This was a disappointment for Aboriginal community but when McMahon s Government lost office later in 1972, the new Government with the Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was elected on a platform that promised self-determination and land rights to Indigenous peoples. 120 The new government thus introduced the whole new approach to Aboriginal land rights which in 1974 resulted in establishment of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission (ALFC) responsible for buying land for Aboriginal corporate groups. This basically meant that all Aborigines whose lands were now under non-indigenous title could ask the ALFC to purchase their land back on their behalf and then hand them the title. Many properties were acquired this way throughout the whole Australia within the 1970s. The Aboriginal Land Fund Commission lasted until 1980 when it was replaced by the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC). 121 Two years after the establishment of the ALFC the Government passed the Commonwealth Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 which recognized traditional Aboriginal owners and traditional land claim for the first time in Australian Law. 122 The Act 1976 thus legally recognized and approved the traditional Aboriginal system of land ownership providing 119 Jupp, James. The Australian people: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, Its People and Their Origins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Google Books. Web. 26 Mar p Jupp, James. The Australian people: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, Its People and Their Origins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Google Books. Web. 27 Mar p Aboriginal Land Fund Commission. Nsfa.gov.au. National Film and Sound Archive Australia. Web. 27 Mar Available at: Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth). Foundingdocs.gov.au. National Archives of Australia. Web. 27 Mar p. 6. Available at: 50

51 that there was an evidence of their association with the particular lands. The subheading of the Act 1976 clearly stated that it provided for the granting of Traditional Aboriginal Land in the Northern Territory for the benefit of Aboriginals, and for other purposes. 123 The Act 1976 was amended several times since 1976 but eventually the full Aboriginal native title to their traditional lands was recognized in 1992 following the Mabo High Court Decision which recognized the concept of the native title on the basis of traditional connection and/or occupation of the land. The Mabo Decision 1992 did in fact reject the Terra Nullius 124 concept and recognized the pre-existing system of (unwritten) Aboriginal laws. Max Griffiths, an advocate for Aboriginal rights who developed health, education and welfare services for Aborigines, explains in his book the significance of the Mabo Decision: The judges rejected the doctrine of terra nullius and declared that a form of native title existed which was recognisable in the contemporary common law of Australia The High Court virtually rewrote the common law of Australia with respect to land title The year of the Mabo Decision, 1992, was a landmark year in the history of Aboriginal affairs, among other things being the twenty-fifth anniversary of the referendum of The policy of self-determination did not concern only land and Aboriginal land rights but also the political activism of Indigenous people. There were several different Aboriginal agencies and commissions established in the 1970s and 1980s to pursue the self-determination principle of being involved in decision-making of their own affairs. The two most significant organizations were National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (NACC) and the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) and both 123 Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth). Foundingdocs.gov.au. National Archives of Australia. Web. 27 Mar p. 1. Available at: Terra nullius is a Latin expression deriving from Roman law meaning land belonging to no one which is used in international law to describe territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty. Sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius may be acquired through occupation, though in some cases doing so would violate an international law or treaty. Quoted from: Terra Nullius. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 26 Mar Web. 28 Mar Available at: Griffiths, Max. Aboriginal affairs : seeking a solution. Sydney: Rosenberg Publishing Pty Ltd, Google Books. Web. 28 Mar p

52 these organizations were addressing issues like development-oriented programs and/or loans and grants for Indigenous housing and business enterprises. 126 There were calls for a national body which would replace regional agencies and cover the administration of Aboriginal affairs. The Government s proposal was the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Commission (ATSIC), a replacement body to combine both representative and executive roles. The ATSIC was eventually established in 1989 with its roles and functions including ensuring maximum participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in government policy formulation and implementation and coordination of Commonwealth, state, territory and local government policy affecting Indigenous people. 127 Among other key roles and functions there was promotion of Indigenous self-management and self-sufficiency and support of Indigenous economic, social and cultural development. 128 William Sanders, Research Fellow at the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research at Australian National University, explains in his research paper: Since the early 1970s Commonwealth Governments have been pursuing policies of self determination/self-management in relation to Aborigines. In 1987, the Hawke Government announced its intention to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) to further this policy goal. During the debates over ATSIC s formation, the issue of public accountability in the existing administration of Aboriginal affairs came to public prominence. The result was some extensive reworking of the ATSIC proposal, which in 1989 re-emerged with a strengthened emphasis on public accountability The end of ATSIC and the future administration of Aboriginal affairs. Aph.gov.au. Parliament of Australia. Parliamentary Library. Web. 28 Mar Available at: The end of ATSIC and the future administration of Aboriginal affairs. Aph.gov.au. Parliament of Australia. Parliamentary Library. Web. 2 Apr Available at: The end of ATSIC and the future administration of Aboriginal affairs. Aph.gov.au. Parliament of Australia. Parliamentary Library. Web. 28 Mar Available at: Sanders, William. Reconciling public accountability and Aboriginal self-determination/selfmanagement: is ATSIC succeeding? Discussion Paper. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research Australian National University, Web. 28 Mar p. 2. Available at: 52

53 5.3. Bringing Them Home report 1997 The ATSIC was eventually abolished after only fourteen years of its existence mainly due to some misconceptions connected with its funding. There was an intense public and political scrutiny over its spending and financial accountability and there were also discussions about how much could or could not have been done for Aboriginal communities with its money. 130 Nonetheless the ATSIC played one of the key roles on the path to Aboriginal self-determination and it is important to note that the ATSIC did in fact successfully reach its goal because by the end of its existence Aborigines self-determination, or their self-management, was not even considered the main issue in terms of the official policy. That is why the ATSIC, in cooperation with other Aboriginal organizations, started to use a new term in connection with Aborigines in Australia. There was time for the new approach which was to be the reconciliation. It was as early as in 1991 when the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (CAR) was established and it was also in the early 1990s when there was a shift concerning the official Government policy from the policy of self-determination to the new policy of reconciliation. The CAR was established by the Government to head a reconciliation process between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-indigenous society. 131 The policy of reconciliation has been active since then and in 2001 the CAR established the Reconciliation Australia which is non-government organization promoting the Aboriginal reconciliation in Australia. 132 The reconciliation process has been linked with many issues concerning Aborigines but the two main important issues have been the Aboriginal land rights and their aspiration to their original lands, which were mentioned in the previous chapter, and redressing for the stolen generations. The most important role in redressing for the stolen generations was played by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which is called the Australian Human Rights Commission nowadays, because of the report released in 1997 called the Bringing them home: National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait 130 The end of ATSIC and the future administration of Aboriginal affairs. Aph.gov.au. Parliament of Australia. Parliamentary Library. Web. 2 Apr Available at: Short, Damien. Reconciliation and colonial power: indigenous rights in Australia. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, Google Books. Web. 2 Apr p From Dispossession to Reconciliation. Aph.gov.au. Parliament of Australia. Parliamentary Library. Web. 2 Apr Available at: 53

54 Islander Children from Their Families, generally referred to as the Bringing Them Home report. 133 Dr. Damien Short from the Institute of Commonwealth Studies in London explains in his book: The publication in 1997 of Bringing Them Home, the National Inquiry into the separation of indigenous children from their families, ensured that the issue of the Stolen Generations became inextricably linked with the notion of reconciliation. Aborigines in general consider the Stolen Generations one of the most serious issues in their lives, and as such, it is regarded as an issue that must be addressed in a genuine attempt at reconciliation. 134 The Bringing Them Home report was tabled to the Parliament on 26 th May 1997 and its key findings included information that nationally, between one in three and one in ten Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and communities between 1910 and When a child was forcibly removed that child s entire community lost, often permanently, its chance to perpetuate itself in that child. Indigenous children were placed in institutions, church missions, adopted or fostered and were at risk of physical and sexual abuse. Many never received wages for their labour. The Inquiry has concluded that this was a primary objective of forcible removals and is the reason they amount to genocide. 136 Apart from the previously mentioned findings the Bringing Them Home report included the recommendations for possible compensations for Aborigines affected by the policy of forced removal but on the other hand it clearly stated: 133 Sorry : the unfinished business of the Bringing Them Home report. Aph.gov.au. Parliament of Australia. Parliamentary Library. Web. 2 Apr Available at: Short, Damien. Reconciliation and colonial power: indigenous rights in Australia. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, Google Books. Web. 2 Apr p Sorry : the unfinished business of the Bringing Them Home report. Aph.gov.au. Parliament of Australia. Parliamentary Library. Web. 2 Apr Available at: Sorry : the unfinished business of the Bringing Them Home report. Aph.gov.au. Parliament of Australia. Parliamentary Library. Web. 2 Apr Available at: 54

55 The loss, grief and trauma experienced by Aboriginal people as a result of the separation laws, policies and practices can never be adequately compensated. The loss of the love and affection of children and parents can not be compensated. The psychological, physical and sexual abuse of children, isolated among adults who viewed them as members of a despised race cannot be adequately compensated. The trauma resulting from these events have produced life-long effects, not only for the survivors, but for their children and their children s children. The loss of Aboriginal identity, culture, heritage, community and spiritual connection to our country cannot be adequately compensated. 137 Even though some things can never be compensated for, the Bringing Them Home report did recommend some possible monetary compensation as well as measures for restitution and it also called for guarantees against repetition but one of the key recommendations was the official Government apology. 138 In fact there was also a recommendation for a Sorry Day to be held every year which would commemorate the history of removals of Aboriginal children and its effect, a day on which the rest of the Australian population should not only express their sorrow but also apologise to the Aboriginal people. This was seen by the Aborigines as an important step along the road to reconciliation which by now had become the keynote word in Aboriginal policy. 139 The first National Sorry Day was held on 26 th May 1998 on the first anniversary of the Bringing Them Home report being tabled in the Parliament and since then it has been celebrated every year. Nonetheless it took Australian Government ten more years to formally apologise to Stolen Generations but when the Prime Minster Kevin Rudd s delivered his parliamentary speech on 13 Feb. 2008, it was considered to be one of the most significant steps in the healing and Aboriginal reconciliation process. The word sorry is the most important word because it has great meaning in our community and it 137 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Bringing them home: National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families. Sydney: GPO, Print. p Sorry : the unfinished business of the Bringing Them Home report. Aph.gov.au. Parliament of Australia. Parliamentary Library. Web. 2 Apr Available at: Griffiths, Max. Aboriginal affairs : seeking a solution. Sydney: Rosenberg Publishing Pty Ltd, Google Books. Web. 3 Apr p

56 means having empathy and compassion and understanding. 140 The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd himself not only formally apologised but also emphasised the importance of the apology as such by saying: There comes a time in the history of nations when their peoples must become fully reconciled to their past if they are to go forward with confidence to embrace their future. Our nation, Australia, has reached such a time. That is why the parliament is today here assembled: to deal with this unfinished business of the nation, to remove a great stain from the nation s soul and, in a true spirit of reconciliation, to open a new chapter in the history of this great land, Australia Conclusion The Indigenous peoples of Australia had lived on their continent for thousands of years and their way of life did not change much during this period of time. They were closely connected to their land with their ritual places and they developed rich cultural and spiritual traditions speaking in more than 200 languages. The arrival of white man had far-reaching consequences on Aborigines regarding most aspects of their lives. Initially the most visible impact was the racial and cultural clash and different attitude to the lands. Europeans showed no respect for Aboriginal land ownership and had no respect for Aboriginal culture either because Aborigines were immediately considered to be an inferior race. It was the land that played one of key roles during the initial contact because for Aborigines land was not private property and they did not comprehend the way white people took it. The whites claimed more and more Aboriginal lands and their settlement spread throughout the new country because the wool trade became more and more lucrative. This land exploitation as well as diseases 140 Sorry : the unfinished business of the Bringing Them Home report. Aph.gov.au. Parliament of Australia. Parliamentary Library. Web. 3 Apr Available at: Rudd, Kevin. Apology to Australia s Indigenous Peoples. Australian Parliament. Canberra. 13 Feb Parliament Speech. Web. 3 Mar Available at: 56

57 brought by the new settlers devastated not only Aboriginal traditional life but also their populations. Even though Aborigines occasionally took to arms the inevitable result was that they lost their lands and were subjected because living their traditional tribal lives, they did not stand a chance against the British Empire. In fact, it is estimated that the population of Indigenous peoples of Australia dropped by more than 200,000 during the 19 th century. Another scar on the Aboriginal community in Australia was left when the policy of protection was introduced as the official government policy in the second half of the 19 th century. The protection was not aimed at protection of Aborigines but rather at possibility to control their lives in terms of their residence, occupation as well as their marriage and social lives. The protection policy, executed through the Protection Acts, especially applied to Aboriginal children of mixed descent, the so called Half-Castes. These children were removed from their original families to get white upbringing and education and some of these children were in fact removed for good. This is why they are called the Stolen Generations and it is clear that the impact on these children as well as their families is irreversible. An enquiry was carried out and some records of the removed children were found but some of these children were lost without trace. An important issue to analyse regarding the situation of Aborigines proved to be the 1901 Constitution because the new nation of Australia completely ignored that the Aborigines even existed and failed to mention Aborigines in its Constitution at all. Basically, they were not mentioned for two simple reasons; the first one was that it was believed that the full-blood Aborigines would not survive as an inferior nation and the second one was that the Half-Castes would eventually be assimilated into the white society and thus Aborigines would cease to exist. Such ideas and practices can be compared to genocide in other parts of the world in different time periods because the impact on Aboriginal peoples has been global as well as irrevocable. The second half of the 20 th century did bring some improvement of Aboriginal status and their rights; in fact the unofficial turning-point might be considered the Day of Mourning in as early as in Even though the situation of Aborigines in Australia has improved dramatically since then and even though the Government officially 57

58 apologised to the Stolen Generations and completely re-considered its official policy towards Aborigines, the period of time from the arrival of the whites to the half of the 20 th century is deeply rooted within the Aboriginal society and will need long time to heal. Another aspect which is worth taking into account is whether Aborigines did in fact win back their rights or whether they were Europeanized after all because only the minority of Aborigines lives their traditional way of life they used to live before the arrival of white man. Nowadays, they mostly live at the edge of the society and their situation is still very questionable and remains one of the main current issues in Australia. 58

59 Attachments: Table 1: Historical population of Australia Historical population of Australia Year Indigenous Population Non Indigenous Population Total ,000 (up to 750,000) 0 350, ,000 (up to 750,000) 1, , ,000 5, , , , , , ,000** 3,687,000 3,780, , ,000** 8,150,000 8,300, ,000* 18,820,000 19,200, ,000* 19,700,000 20,100, ,000* 20,750,000 21,200,000 All the data in the table are estimates, especially the historical data. *Identify themselves as Aborigines **Population estimates differ a lot as there were no data kept for the indigenous people and until today there are no statistics regarding the number of removed Aborigines (Half-Caste). Source: About Australia. dfat.gov.au. Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, n.d. Web. 15 May

60 Table 2: Estimates of Aboriginal children removed to 1969 Number of children Placed at Warangesda dormitory and subsequently in services before 1909 (a) 300 Under the Aborigines Protection Act: Aborigines Protection Board placed between (a) 400 Aborigines Protection Board placed between (Board s records) 2300 Kinchela and Cootamundra Homes combined: total children, Other official denominational homes (e.g. Marella, Boystown etc) (a) 300 Other official non-aboriginal institutions (e.g. Mittagong Homes, training ship Sobraon) (a) 200 In Aboriginal Welfare Board foster homes (in 1959, there were 120) (a) 300 Under Child Welfare Legislation: Uncontrollable children committed to non-aboriginal institutions (e.g. Mt Penang, Parramatta) (a) 400 Delinquent children committed for offences to non-aboriginal corrective institutions ( ) (a) 400 Children of light caste committed to the Child Welfare Department as wards, placed in non-aboriginal homes, foster homes ( ) (a) 800 Table revised 2006 (a) = approximate figures due to lack of records Sources: Minutes of the Aborigines Protection Board, State Records, NSW Managers and Matrons Reports Kinchela and Cootamundra Homes, State Records, NSW Aborigines Welfare Board General Correspondence Files, State Records, NSW. New South Wales Department of Youth and Community Services Survey of Aboriginal Children, G.R. Caton, Source: Read, Peter. The Stolen Generations: The removal of Aboriginal children in New South Wales 1883 to th ed. Sydney: New South Wales Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Print. 60

61 Fig. 1. Half-Caste child in the movie Australia. Brandon Walters (Nullah). Bigpondmovies.com. BigPond, 23 Sep Web. 12 May