Description
This article is from the soc.culture.australian FAQ, by Stephen Wales
with numerous contributions by others.
7.4.2 Aboriginal Voting [JM]
* 1900
The original constitution *guarantees* the Federal vote to anyone
who has it at State level (refer Section 41). Because
aboriginals had the vote in all states except Queensland and
Western Australia, they were able to vote in Federal elections in
those states (and have always been able to do so.)
There was also no *specific* exclusion of aboriginals from voting
at Federal Elections in Queensland and WA, and some actually did.
The major hurdle, however, was that state officials maintained
both state and federal rolls and in most cases illegally blocked
attempts by aboriginals in those states to enroll for Federal
elections.
The effect of section 30 (to which you refer) is to ensure that
those aboriginals who *did* have the vote, also got counted when
determining the size of electorates thereby skirting the
provision of section 127 which said they weren't to be counted.
(Confused? Well, so am I, but they spent 10 years in the 1890's
writing this thing.)
* 1918
In 1918, the Electoral Act formalised voting procedures for
Federal elections. This however was a setback for aboriginals in
Queensland and WA because it contained provisions that brought
State and Federal rolls into line. This meant they could *not*
vote in Federal Elections unless they also had the vote in State
elections.
Another apparently innocent provision of the Electoral Act was
used for many years in the Northern Territory to deny the vote to
large numbers of aboriginals. Although aborigines were compelled
to enroll like all other voters, local officials often had them
declared wards of the state. Wards of the state were prohibited
from voting at that time, possibly because wards were usually the
mentally ill.
* 1948
UN Declaration on Human Rights passed and ratified by Australia in
1949. At this point, the Federal Government had perfect moral grounds
for reenfranchising aborigines in WA and QLD, but failed to do so.
* 1957
ILO Convention on the Rights of Indigenous People passed and ratified
by Australia the following year. This was another lost opportunity to
reenfranchise aboriginals in WA and QLD.
* 1958
However, a parliamentary committee was convened which was to
recommend changes to the Electoral Act, repeal of Section 127 of the
Constitution and transfer of responsibility for aborigines from the
States to Canberra (basically because QLD and WA weren't to be
trusted). This is basically the agenda of the 1963 Electoral Act
amendments and the 1967 referendum (see below).
Throughout the 1950's members from both sides of Parliament made
attempts to amend the Electoral Act. These included Gough Whitlam who
made several speech and introduced amendments on several occasions,
and Malcolm Fraser who centered his first speech on apartheid and
touched on Australia's treatment of its own people.
* 1963
The Federal Government amended the Electoral Act to enfranchise
aborigines in WA and QLD at Federal Elections. However they were
still unable to vote in State elections.
Some of the background to this event was only revealed recently when
the cabinet papers were released under the 30 year rule. It appears
that the Attorney General Garfield Barwick recommended that the
constitution *also* be amended at this time. The PM Robert Menzies
overruled his cabinet and rejected this, accepting only the Electoral
Act changes. Garfield Barwick had apparently also tried the previous
year to get these changes through.
* 1966 Robert Menzies retires, and legislation is passed for the 1967
referendum under the new PM Harold Holt.
* 1967 Referendum is passed overwhelmingly:
Highest result: 95% yes in Victoria
Lowest result: 71% yes in WA
It was defeated in only *one* of over 1200 electoral subdistricts. No
referendum has ever been more convincingly passed. As a result of
this referendum aboriginals: (1) gain the vote in WA and QLD *State*
elections, and (2) become citizens. Also power for their welfare
passes to the Federal government which is able to initiate spending on
health, education and housing programs (and later land rights).
Summary.
1. Aborigines had the Federal vote in 1900 in all states and
territories (bar the shenanigans of local officials), but could not
vote in WA and QLD State elections. They have always had the vote in
all other States and Territories at both State and Federal level.
2. They lost the Federal vote in 1918 in WA and QLD
3. They regained it in WA and QLD in 1963
4. They became citizens in 1967, and gained the right to vote in WA and
QLD state elections.
The transfer of responsibility for aborigines to Canberra also allowed
Canberra to implement the UN Declaration of Human Rights and initiate
improvements in living conditions.
It is apparent that the long post WWII delay was due to the attitude
of Robert Menzies. Despite broad, cross party support for aboriginal
enfranchisement and improvement of their plight, *no* action was taken
during most of the Menzies era (from 1949 to 1966). The sole action
of granting the vote in 1963 was undertaken against his wishes and
only after much prodding.
Before 1967, the effect of Section 51 (xxvi) was to *prevent* the
Federal Government from spending *any* money on aboriginal programs.
Post 1967, it has allowed the Federal Government to undertake these
programs (remember that the Australian Federal Government is
constitutionally able to undertake *only* those activities specifically
allocated to it.) The section does not really allow apartheid either.
The Mabo decision specifically excludes the use of this section to
override the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act (which itself
implements obligations placed on us by the UN Declaration of Human
Rights via the External Affairs power.) Given that the Mabo decision
firmly establishes a non-racial basis to Australian common law, it is
very unlikely they would turn around and undo things. (It is also
useful to remember that Mabo is not a "bolt from the blue", but simply
a relatively minor consequential decision based on many others over
the previous 30 years.)
A lot of anti-Mabo argument runs the line that all special legislation is
racist by definition, however:
- the Racial Discrimination Act allows positive discrimination,
- the High Court was invited to consider a racist interpretation namely
that while Eddie Mabo et al. where entitled to native title, that
mainland aboriginals were "more primitive" and therefore could not
benefit from the same entitlements. The court specifically
rejected this conclusion as "obnoxious".
- the ILO and UN conventions outline *minimum* standards, and specifically
state that they cannot be used to reduce or eliminate existing rights
which exceed their requirements. This in itself would make racist
laws unconstitutional.
Continue to:
Share and Enjoy
Bookmark this story so others can enjoy it:
Tags
travel, vacation, australia, visa, immigration, live, rent, standard, car, study, money, weather
