tThe effectiveness of the 1967 referendum in securing civil rights for Aboriginal

people. NO

What it did NOT do

● It did not give them voting rights ( Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Act
1983 )
● It did not give them citizenship rights
● It did not include them in the census

What it DID do
● It counted aboriginal people for constitutional purposes, e.g. electoral boundaries, tax
revenue.

Why was it ineffective

The referendum was heralded as a milestone in the struggle for civil rights, however, all the
changes it has been credited with achieving were already in place or were achieved later.

It was not compulsory for them to vote until 1983

They did not get citizenship without strings attached until 1971
They were already counted in the census, but separately to the population

THE ONLY CHANGES WERE SIMPLY SYMBOLIC AND BUREAUCRATIC

Represented public desire to increase rights - We Agree but it did not give it to them.
Reconciliation and self determination - how
Positive progressive change -

Asserted that the referendum was the one and only cause for change, and asserted that it
was effective

OPening Statement
The 1967 referendum did not improve indigenous civil rights or improve quality of life, but rather,
led to virtue signalling policy that mad

In 1966, a referendum was put forth by the government to solve indigenous inequalities. Marketed
as an emotional vote, the Australian population wrote it into the constitution. This vote led to,
degrading sense of accomplishment and a lack of on the ground change.

Celebrated as a major accomplishment

Stopped people making further change
Led to a ‘park the bus there’ attitude

Census - just a number

No real change, just political change

The referendum was an effort to avoid further action against indigenous people and led to more
inaction.
Has it changed anything today.

The referendum did not abolish discrimination incentives or address various socio-economic
disadvantages. Issues such as poor health, low educational attainment, unemployment, and lack of
housing continued to affect Indigenous and Torres Strait islander people communities.
After the referendum, there was no immediate action following the referendum. There was a lag
between the referendum and the legislative policies that were implemented later on.

BARTELME’S ARGUMENTS and other additional arguments

● Symbolic rather than substantive ( it did not include specific measures to improve living
conditions or address inequalities)
● Persistence of discrimination and inequality.
● Limited Scope of Constitutional Change.
● Federal and State inaction
● Expectation vs Reality
● Focus shifted away from grassroots activism.
● Only enabled the federal government to make laws for Aboriginal people.
● Many issues remained under state jurisdiction, resulting in inconsistent reforms across
different states.
Argument FOR the Ineffectiveness of the 1967 Referendum in Securing Civil
Rights for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

The 1967 Referendum is often celebrated as a significant milestone in the fight for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights in Australia. It resulted in the amendment of
the Australian Constitution to allow the federal government to make laws for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander peoples and include them in the census. However, many argue
that the referendum did not effectively secure civil rights for these communities for
several reasons:

1. Symbolic Rather Than Substantive Change:

o Legislative Impact: While the referendum allowed the federal government to

legislate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, it did not automatically
translate into improved civil rights or living conditions. The removal of Section 127 and
the modification of Section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution were largely symbolic and did
not mandate specific policy changes.
o No Immediate Rights or Protections: The referendum did not grant any immediate new
rights or protections to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It simply provided
the federal government with the power to legislate, which could potentially be used for
both positive and negative purposes.

2. Persistence of Discrimination and Inequality:

o Continued Discrimination: Despite the referendum, systemic discrimination

against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continued in various forms,
including in areas such as employment, housing, health care, and legal justice.

o Ongoing Social and Economic Disparities: The socio-economic conditions of Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander communities did not significantly improve post-referendum.
Issues like lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality rates, poorer educational
outcomes, and high levels of incarceration persisted and, in some cases, worsened.

3. Limited Scope of Constitutional Change:

o No Address of Land Rights: The referendum did not address crucial issues

such as land rights. The legal recognition and protection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander land rights remained largely unaddressed until the 1990s with the Mabo decision
and the subsequent Native Title Act of 1993.

o Lack of Cultural Recognition: The constitutional changes did not recognise the unique
cultural identity and rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, nor did they
ensure the protection of their cultural heritage and practices.

4. Federal and State Government Inaction:

o Slow Policy Response: After the referendum, there was a lack of immediate
and effective action from both the federal and state governments to implement policies
that would materially benefit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

o Resistance and Neglect: In many cases, state governments continued to resist federal
intervention or neglected to address the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples adequately. For example, states retained control over many areas affecting daily
lives, such as health and education, where significant disparities persisted.

5. Expectation vs. Reality:

o Disappointment in Outcomes: Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and
communities had high hopes that the referendum would lead to substantial changes.
However, the reality was that the expected improvements in rights and conditions did not
materialize, leading to frustration and a sense of betrayal.

o Unrealised Aspirations: The aspirations for greater autonomy, self- determination, and
cultural respect that were hoped for by many in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
communities were not achieved as a direct result of the referendum.

6. Focus Shift Away from Grassroots Movements:

o Undermining Local Initiatives: The focus on the federal government's role

post-referendum may have inadvertently undermined local and grassroots initiatives that
were crucial in advocating for and achieving practical changes in civil rights and social
justice.
o Centralised vs. Decentralised Action: The shift towards centralised legislative power did
not always translate into effective local action or improvements, as the federal
government often struggled to address the specific needs and contexts of diverse
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across Australia.

Conclusion

While the 1967 Referendum was a landmark event that symbolized the desire for greater
inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Australian polity, its
immediate and direct impact on securing civil rights was limited. The referendum's
changes to the Constitution were largely symbolic and did not result in immediate
improvements in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Significant
issues such as ongoing discrimination, socio-economic disparities, land rights, and
cultural recognition remained largely unaddressed in the wake of the referendum.
Consequently, it can be argued that the 1967 Referendum was not effective in securing
civil rights for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.