Being a Ten Pound Pom, I knew nothing of the history of massacres and dispossession of this continent’s first peoples when I arrived here in 1965.
At that time, First Nations people were not even counted in the Census, and barely recognised as human, let alone equals.
The White Australia policy was still in place. That wasn’t officially renounced until 1973, by the Whitlam government when it established a policy of multiculturalism.
My first personal encounter with racism against First Nations people was in Southern Queensland in the late ’60s. I had picked up an Aboriginal hitchhiker and, when I dropped him off at his destination, it was getting dark.
I asked him where he would spend the night and suggested the motel across the road. He replied, ‘They won’t let me stay there’.
I was shocked. I went to the motel reception and paid for a room for him. As I handed the keys to my hitchhiker friend, the receptionist gave me a truly disgusted look.
Over the years since then I collected old Aboriginal artefacts, bringing a number back from overseas, and a library of books. These books, several published in the 19th century, opened my eyes to the extraordinary richness of the ancient Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures.
The coming of Europeans was devastating. The oldest continuous living culture on Earth was swept aside. Ancestral lands were seized and cleared. People were slaughtered and rounded up to live in camps, children were taken away from their families, and not even allowed to speak their ancient languages or practise customs. This led to intergenerational trauma. The truth of this must be told.
There has never been a treaty, even though Prime Minister Bob Hawke promised one in 1988, but it didn’t happen.
I was elected to the NSW Upper House that same year, on the preferences of The Aboriginal Team, headed by Wiradjuri woman, Millie Ingram. I vowed I would represent her people during my term in parliament and worked hard to do just that.
Acknowledgement
Now we have an opportunity with this referendum to finally acknowledge First Nations people in the outdated Constitution, put together by a group of white men one hundred and thirty years ago.
There was no input from women, who couldn’t vote federally until 1902, and no input, of course, from First Nations representatives, who had to wait until 1962 to be able to vote.
The referendum also includes a Voice to be set up by a subsequent act of parliament that ‘may make recommendations to the Parliament and Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’.
This Voice is not required to be guaranteed in the Constitution, and could be established with identical functions and powers by an act of parliament.
Being in the Constitution simply means there will always be a voice of some sort, and it can’t be denied by any incoming government. By opposing having the Voice in the Constitution, Peter Dutton is signalling he wants to be able to take that legislated Voice away altogether, if he is elected prime minister.
Some have misinterpreted the proposal to read into it, falsely, that there is an obligation on the government to act on the representations made by the Voice.
Constitutional expert, Professor Anne Twomey, has endlessly tried to explain that ‘representations’ cannot be regarded as ‘advice’ that must be followed.
Some First Nations representatives have expressed fears about sovereignty being affected. It cannot. Sovereignty can only be ceded by a nation agreeing to it.
Other ‘No’ voters have said ‘Would you sign a blank cheque?’ There is no blank cheque.
‘Where are the details?’ some ask. The fine details of the Voice will be debated at length in parliament. There will be extensive consultation right across Australia. Then parliament will vote on it.
If a majority of Australians votes down the referendum, there’s nothing stopping the federal government introducing exactly the same legislation. In fact, NSW Premier Chris Minns has already announced he is open to introducing a state Voice to parliament regardless of the outcome.
Scare campaign
This should never have been a political scare campaign. Moderate former Liberal leaders John Hewson and Malcolm Turnbull and other compassionate Liberals support it.
In my view, it is quite immoral that Peter Dutton, the man who walked out on the stolen generations apology, has created a divisive scare campaign without any authentic justification, just to score political points. He is supported by others on the hard right.
Sadly, if it does fail for no genuine reason, Australia’s international reputation will be in tatters.
Let’s hope the people of our region can show the rest of Australia and the world that we really do care.
Local Bundjalung woman, Delta Kay, will be voting ‘Yes’, as will at least an estimated 80 per cent of First Nations people.
Vote ‘Yes’ for Love ❤️
♦ Richard Jones is a former NSW MP, and is now a ceramicist.
Thank you Richard
Come on people who are unsure : if unsure, find out. Don’t fall for the negative campaign of misinformation and basically nonsensical claims. Think how is the voice going to affect you and you will find out that it will not. Do you want us to end up like the Brit’s and brexit, regretting falling for a campaign run by people who politicised the referendum.
The Brexit referendum also lacked details. Turns out they never got rid of the EU crap, they simply converted it into UK law and kept doing it. That’s why the UK is getting the same problems as Europe, and dishonest people blame it on the Brexit that was never actually enacted. When No wins, they will do ‘voice, truth, treaty’ by other means, because your vote never counts if you hadn’t noticed. But at least we can give them the middle finger as they sink the ship.
As a “ten pound pom” Richard Jones should be aware of the fact that any ‘atrocities’ carried out in Australia were carried out by the pommies and it is England that is totally responsible for everything here before the 1/1/1901, when the entity known as the Australian government , was granted limited control on a ‘progressive’ basis. Still, it is the English ‘King’ to whom the police, the armed services and the judiciary must swear their allegiance to, not the people of Australia nor Australia as a country but only the pommies.
So, obviously the population of Australia owe no apology to Aborigines.
The European population were bought here as slaves, were in chains, and occasionally flogged to death, for daring to stand-up to the pommy overlords. It is arguable that they suffered much greater hardship than the natives who were elevated from stone-age existence, with a life expectancy of about 30 yrs, to what can only be seen as one of the highest standards of living on the planet.
Aboriginal people are treated at least as well as any other citizen and deserve equality .
And..NO, nothing more.
Cheers , G”)
Cheers, G”)
Check our constitution ken and you will see it was the basis of the old white australia policy and that the indigenous were classed with fauna until 1967. To think that these have no lasting affects on equality then to quote a movie, “ your dreaming”.
More YES disinformation. Aboriginals were granted Australian Citizenship at the same time all White people were. Aboriginals were never considered fauna under any state nor federal legislation. Aboriginal voting rights were granted state by state starting in the late 1800s. There were Aboriginal Men voting in elections before White Women could. You were saying you were a school teacher Rod? The state of the nation.
I don’t know how they could be granted “state by state” Christian, because there were no states just British colonies with their own systems of self government. Franchise federally seemed to depend on the franchise a citizen already had in their home colony.
The AIATSIS website, aiatsis.gov.au explains: “Under the Constitution, individual states had the right to legislate the definitions of who was considered to be an Aboriginal and or Torres Strait Islander person. These definitions could be used to determine who was and who was not eligible to vote.”
“Contrary to popular misconceptions, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples did not gain the vote in the 1967 Referendum. In fact, before Federation in 1901, some Aboriginal people had been entitled to vote in a number of Australian colonies.
“… Aboriginal women in South Australia were able to vote in 1894, years before non-Indigenous women could vote in either Sydney or Melbourne.
“While in Queensland and Western Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were barred from voting in elections from the end of the nineteenth century until the 1960s.”
There’s lots of interesting history behind this topic so thanks Christian for sending me in this direction:-
“During the first half of the twentieth century, changes to the definitions often led to further restrictions on voting rights. Because of these policies, many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were excluded from participating in the politica process.” a
“In 1949, the Electoral Act was amended to extend the federal vote to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who had served in the armed forces …”
What I found extremely interesting were the arguments advanced in the debate about who should be eligible to vote in the elections and whether this should include ATSI people. These ranged from the view that it would be “ repugnant and atrocious” to the speech that opined: –
“ ‘It would be a monstrous thing, an unheard of piece of savagery on our part, to treat Aborigines, whose land we were occupying, to deprive them of any right to vote in their own country simply on the grounds of their colour.’ (1902)”
It seems that the question of the status and rights of the continent’s original inhabitants has long been a polarising issue.
The two most polarising issues around voting at federation, were that only landowners could vote, as we are stakeholders, and that men voted on behalf of their family. White people do indeed have constant moral reflection that keeps us up at night, as 4000 years of our philosophy text shows. But we were the ones that abolished slavery globally at great cost, invented chivalry followed by the enlightenment, etc. But this makes us an easy target, and we are prone to being guilted into anything, based on behaviours that were ubiquitous globally at the time.
Further info from the same website on universal suffrage for First Nations people:
“ In 1961, following sustained campaigning by activist groups such as the Federal Council for Aboriginal Advancement, the Federal Government convened a Select Committee on Voting Rights of Aborigines. The Committee’s Report estimated that approximately 30,000 people living in the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia were excluded from the vote.
“ As a result, the Commonwealth Electoral Act was amended in 1962 to give all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults the right to vote in federal elections …”
I would contend that in the early 60s, in many areas of NT, QLD, and WA, there were a large number of White people that didn’t vote. Did they mention why they were excluded from voting? Like, not every little remote place had a polling center back then, and most people weren’t going to travel the large distance to get to one. The people of my town had that problem. Beware of deceptive wording written by activists. They didn’t say Aboriginals, and they didn’t say ineligible. What’s the truth?
Unless you think the AEC is an activist institution its website outlines it all including:
1962 : Commonwealth Electoral Act was amended to extend the right to enrol and vote in Federal elections to all Indigenous Australians, regardless of State law or military service.
1962 Western Australia extended the State vote to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
1962 Voter education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people began in the Northern Territory. 1,338 Indigenous Australians enrolled to vote in Northern Territory elections.
1957 Under the Northern Territory Welfare Ordinance, almost all Indigenous people in the Northern Territory were declared to be “wards of the state” and denied the vote.
1949 The right to vote in federal elections was extended to Indigenous people who had served in the armed forces, or were enrolled to vote in state elections. Indigenous people in Queensland, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory still could not vote in their own state/territory elections.
Interestingly it wasn’t until 1965 that Queensland allowed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to vote in State elections. Queensland was the last State to grant this right.
Website:aec.gov.au/indigenous/milestones.htm
Yes, you are historically correct Christian, the old “Funa” propaganda dies hard doesn’t it ?
Much of the goodwill of the 1967 Reffo has died with the exponential rise of ‘Yes’ gravy-train ‘Pretenders’ – very similar to the author of this well-meaning piece.
As a real Nation we should look forward united, rather than backwards segregated.
It’s a myth but its emergence is understandable and somewhat beside the point. There is a case to be made for any claim that in colonial times – and beyond – the indigenous population were treated practically, psychologically and metaphorically as akin to fauna.
How many of us are old enough to remember the graphic representations of European and indigenous first contact where the Europeans are fully formed figures while the indigenous population are black stick figures (replete with the odd spear or boomerang) with perhaps black silhouettes of kangaroos in the foreground?
I remember being hugely impressed by the story in my primary reader of Grace Bussell, a sixteen year old Western Australian girl, who in 1876 was said to have observed a shipwreck off the coast and ridden her horse backwards and forth into the surf to rescue all on board. There was a minor mention of the help she received from her “faithful native companion”.
Dramatic historical press reports convey a similar story and Grace was said to have been awarded a silver medal by the Royal Humane Society, and a gold watch and chain from the British Government.
I always assumed that the “companion” was unidentified in the fuss but it seems he was actually known and had a name: Sam Isaacs, a stockman. However it seems he didn’t make it to school readers, the press, the attention of the Royal Humane Society nor the British Government. This is just one example of typical historical attitudes and ‘60s education.
When individuals are not counted in the census and afforded basic human rights like being paid for their work, raising their own children unless demonstrated neglectful, murdered with the impunity of the blind eye or policy, summarily executed without trial, rounded up and put in missions/reservations, it’s hard to make a case that they are considered “human”.
Yes there’s much in history that’s regrettable!
” indigenous were classed with fauna until 1967″
What utter rubbish.
Just FAKE News
Try checking the RMIT/ABC Factwatch.
They are amongst the many who have debunked this myth!
Ken, this is a typical “Ken” comment, if you were to actually look up some real facts instead of peddling your usual righty nonsense, you would find out that the “poms” didn’t commit the worst atrocities against First Nations Australians, those were mainly committed when the “poms” went home and after the States were formed and established their para-military police forces, this was undoubtedly was when most of the dispossession and massacres occurred; sorry old son you can’t just blame the “poms” us Aussies are responsible for what happened, so deal with it.
The Commonwealth of Australia didn’t exist until 1901, and there were no Australian Citizens until 1948. Lot of White People hanged in the 1800s for daring to kill an Aboriginal. Lot of Aboriginals shot for killing White People. Common Law is pretty harsh. But apparently you were there, Keith, and thus know what it was ‘really’ like.
NO, (I’m just practicing that word),
But no, Keith wasn’t there and it is useless to cite the facts, as it appears, he and Rod get their understanding of history from “movies” or perhaps that failing rock band Midnight Oil, which was forced to appeal to populist ‘black armband ‘versions of reality in order to lift their flagging fortunes.
I do wonder when it was, in Keith’s reckoning, that the poms went home, it seems to me plenty of them are still calling the shots ( unfortunate pun ) in Canberra.
The only credit attributable to the poms conquest of the tribes here was that compared to every other colony they subjugated, China, Africa, America etc. etc., the aboriginals were positively mollycoddled and fared exceedingly well.
Cheers, G”)
Ken, it’s pretty obvious that when the Colony’s became Sovereign States the “poms” basically handed over control and “went home”, anything else you need to know?, I do realise you righty’s push this “white blindfold” version of history where no-one is responsible for anything bad.
That is actually untrue. It wasn’t until the 70s or 80s (depending who you ask) before we had what you mean by sovereignty. There is a talk that covers that and more…
youtube: The White Australia Policy (feat. Matthew Grant)
We do have historical primary sources like the official journals of various colonial governors.
From australian.museum
“I have directed as many Natives as possible to be made Prisoners, with the view of keeping them as Hostages until the real guilty ones have surrendered themselves or have been given up by their Tribes to summary Justice. – In the event of the Natives making the smallest show of resistance – or refusing to surrender when called upon so to do – the officers Commanding the Military Parties have been authorized to fire on them to compel them to surrender; hanging up on Trees the Bodies of such Natives as may be killed on such occasions, in order to strike the greater terror into the Survivors.”
Governor Lachlan Macquarie, Governor’s Diary & Memorandum Book Commencing on and from Wednesday the 10th Day of April 1816.
And Macquarie was considered one of the more enlightened ones.
I’d suggest anyone hanged for “daring to kill an Aboriginal” probably received an evidence based trial beforehand.
So how many White women and children did the tribe rape and kill? I went back into the records from a little earlier, and the moderator wouldn’t like me to say how I would have responded.
I think the issues largely emerged from the indigenous population’s resistance to being driven from their land. If driven from you harm how would you “respond”.
The aftermath of this 1816 action was 14 indigenous deaths, including women, children and the elderly. How would you respond to this?
Given the ‘lowland clearance’ my family went through, the Aboriginals got off lightly. The English used cannons to blast us out of our castles, then proceeded to write my family out of the history books after they drove us from our homeland. When you look at the history of Earth, this stuff has been going on forever, and every race did it, even Aboriginal Tribes. It still goes on now. I don’t blame my 10 pound pom neighbour for Culloden.
My response was to Ken’s, “Keith wasn’t there and it is useless to cite the facts, as it appears, he and Rod get their understanding of history from “movies” or perhaps that failing rock band Midnight Oil …” simply suggesting that we have historical primary resources to gain a picture of “the facts”.
Then there was an exchange that seemed to be about the reasons behind the actions of Lachlan Macquarie – minus the primary documents.
This latest seems to have a bit off track but is it meant to be a justification of Macquarie? Or was it meant to be a “so there!”
What was under discussion was the reliability of versions of history. Let’s stay on track.
A. Never. I’ll do you a deal, we don’t have £pounds anymore. However, I’ll sling you $20 so you can go back to Pommy land, and take a friend with you.
Maybe the indigenous population think the same about you!
Interesting ‘what if’. What would happen if the White People who pay taxes, staff the military/police, and run the economy, suddenly disappeared. Are there any readers from Zimbabwe here?
Interesting hypothetical but it’s not going to happen. I thought it was patently obvious that my comment was pointing to the irony of someone, in the context of this debate, telling someone to go back where they came from.
Such a lazy retort – much harder to engage with the ideas.
I agree it is lazy, but so was your retort. We have all picked it up from one commenter that likes to use it all the time. His name starts with a K. Mark was however making a valid point about foreigners not assimilating, then pontificating.
I didn’t tell anyone to go back where they came from, I just suggested that through the history of this continent many of the indigenous population would have cause to wish the Brits would go home.
Who says it’s not ‘assimilating’ to advocate a particular vote. That’s called participating in the democratic process.
I suggest that throughout the history of this continent, many of the Anglo-Celtic population did have cause to demand the Brits go home. I have a Eureka stockade flag on the wall next to me, and the Australian Natives Association wants me to become a member.
Typical from the negative campaigners. Afraid they will loose something, not sure what, but can’t see what will be gained voting yes.
Because you are trying to sell us a unicorn. We aren’t sure what would actually turn up exactly, but we suspect it would involve a pony and animal cruelty. No thanks.
A clear, concise insight into The Voice . So necessary in our current Penal Colony. Many thanks Richard.
Penal Colony ? Jo Faith where is such a place
Inwich state !
Imagination?
If the Commonwealth of Australia makes you feel trapped, you should run away while you can!
Jo Faith. Really?. Becoming a little dramatic aren’t we?. We are all waiting for your brilliant contribution that will change our minds.