The 1967 and 2023 Referendums: First Nations Peoples and Constitutional Reform

The Significance of the 1967 Referendum

Background to the Referendum

• Prior to 1967, the Australian Constitution contained discriminatory clauses relating to First Nations people.
• Section 51(xxvi), the “race power,” allowed the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws for people of any race, except Aboriginal people.
• Section 127 stated that Aboriginal people should not be counted in the census.

The Proposed Changes

The 1967 referendum proposed two changes to the Constitution:

1. To remove the words “other than the Aboriginal race in any State” from Section 51(xxvi).
2. To repeal Section 127 altogether.

Reasons for the Referendum

• Recognition: To formally recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as part of the Australian population.
• Commonwealth Power: To grant the Commonwealth Parliament the power to legislate specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Previously, this power largely resided with the states.
• Equality: To remove discriminatory clauses that were seen as unfair and a barrier to effective policy-making.
• Social Justice: Growing awareness of the disadvantage faced by First Nations people and a desire for greater social justice.

The Result

• The referendum was overwhelmingly successful, with approximately 90.77% of voters supporting the changes.
• This was the highest “yes” vote ever recorded in an Australian referendum.
• Every state and territory voted in favour of the changes.

Impact of the Referendum

• Symbolic Significance: The referendum represented a significant shift in public opinion and a greater willingness to recognise the rights and needs of First Nations people.
• Increased Commonwealth Power: The Commonwealth gained the power to make laws specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, leading to national policies and programs in areas such as health, education, and land rights.
• Census Inclusion: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were included in the census, providing more accurate data for policy development.
• Land Rights Movement: The referendum contributed to the growing land rights movement and the recognition of native title.

KEY TAKEAWAY: The 1967 Referendum was a landmark event, granting the Commonwealth power to legislate for First Nations people and including them in the census, symbolizing a shift towards recognition and equality.

The 2023 Referendum: The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

Background to the Voice Proposal

• Following the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart, there were calls for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people through a Voice to Parliament.
• The Uluru Statement called for a First Nations Voice to be enshrined in the Constitution, providing advice to the Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The Proposed Constitutional Amendment

The 2023 referendum proposed to alter the Constitution to insert a new chapter (Chapter IX) with the following wording:

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

Key Elements of the Proposal

• Constitutional Enshrinement: The Voice would be enshrined in the Constitution, providing it with permanence and stability.
• Advisory Role: The Voice would advise the Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
• Self-determination: The Voice was intended to empower First Nations people to have greater control over their own affairs.
• Closing the Gap: A key aim of the Voice was to improve outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in areas such as health, education, and employment.

Arguments for the Voice

• Recognition: Constitutional recognition would acknowledge the unique status and rights of First Nations people as the first peoples of Australia.
• Empowerment: The Voice would give First Nations people a greater say in the laws and policies that affect their lives.
• Improved Outcomes: By providing advice to the Parliament and the Executive Government, the Voice would help to ensure that policies are more effective and culturally appropriate.
• Reconciliation: The Voice was seen as an important step towards reconciliation between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the wider Australian community.

Arguments Against the Voice

• Division: Critics argued that the Voice would create a separate class of citizens and divide the nation.
• Bureaucracy: Some argued that the Voice would be another layer of bureaucracy and would not be effective in improving outcomes for First Nations people.
• Unnecessary: Opponents suggested that existing mechanisms, such as parliamentary committees and advisory bodies, were sufficient to represent the views of First Nations people.
• Lack of Detail: Concerns were raised about the lack of detail regarding the composition, functions, and powers of the Voice.

The Result

• The referendum was unsuccessful, with approximately 39.9% of voters supporting the changes and 60.1% voting against.
• No state achieved a majority “yes” vote, meaning the double majority requirement was not met.

Factors Contributing to the Result

• Lack of Bipartisan Support: The referendum was not supported by both major political parties, which made it more difficult to achieve a successful outcome.
• Complexity of the Issue: The proposal was complex and difficult for many voters to understand.
• Misinformation: There was a significant amount of misinformation circulating about the Voice, which may have influenced voters.
• Concerns about Division: Some voters were concerned that the Voice would create a separate class of citizens and divide the nation.

Impact of the Referendum

• Disappointment: The result was a significant disappointment for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and their supporters.
• Setback for Reconciliation: The failure of the referendum was seen as a setback for reconciliation.
• Continued Debate: The debate about how best to recognise and empower First Nations people is likely to continue.

EXAM TIP: When comparing the 1967 and 2023 referendums, focus on the context, the specific changes proposed, the arguments for and against, the results, and the overall impact on First Nations people and Australian society.

Comparison of the 1967 and 2023 Referendums

COMMON MISTAKE: Students often assume that the 1967 referendum gave Aboriginal people the right to vote. This is incorrect; Aboriginal people had already been granted the right to vote in federal elections before 1967. The referendum was about constitutional recognition and legislative power.

STUDY HINT: Create a timeline of key events related to First Nations rights in Australia, including the 1967 and 2023 referendums, to better understand the historical context.

REMEMBER: The “double majority” requirement for a successful referendum means that a majority of voters nationally and a majority of voters in a majority of states (at least four out of six) must vote “yes.”

APPLICATION: Consider the role of the media and public opinion in shaping the outcomes of both referendums. How did media coverage and public discourse influence the way people voted?

VCAA FOCUS: VCAA often asks about the factors that contribute to the success or failure of referendums, so make sure you understand these factors in the context of both the 1967 and 2023 votes.