1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals)

[9] Strong activism by individuals and both Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups greatly aided the success of the 1967 referendum in the years leading up to the vote.[11] On 7 April 1965, the Menzies Cabinet decided that it would seek to repeal section 127 of the Constitution at the same time as it sought to amend the nexus provision, but made no firm plans or timetable for such action.In the meantime, his Liberal colleague Billy Wentworth had introduced a private member's bill proposing inter alia to amend section 51(xxvi).This citizenship was conditional on adopting "the manner and habits of civilised life"[34] and not associating with Aboriginal people other than their parents, siblings, children,[c] or grandchildren,[d] and could be taken away at any time.[47] Ninety percent of voters voted yes, and the overwhelming support gave the Federal Government a clear mandate to implement policies to benefit Aboriginal people.It was some five years before any real change occurred as a result of the referendum,[15] but federal legislation has since been enacted covering land rights,[48][49] discriminatory practices,[50] financial assistance,[51][52] and preservation of cultural heritage.The real legislative and political impact of the 1967 referendum has been to enable, and thereby compel, the federal government to take action in the area of Aboriginal Affairs.One week after gaining office, the Whitlam government (1972–1975) established a Royal Commission into land rights for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory under Justice Woodward.[61] It is significant however that this legislation was implemented at all, given the political allegiances of the Fraser government, and shows the level of community support for social justice for Aboriginal people at the time.On reserves in Queensland, Aboriginal people were forbidden to gamble, use foul language, undertake traditional cultural practices, indulge in adultery, or drink alcohol.One of the pieces of legislation enacted to protect the Gordon River catchment used the race power but applied it to all people in Australia.[70] In the 1992 Mabo judgment, the High Court of Australia established the existence of Native Title in Australian Common Law.[72] In granting the Commonwealth a broad power to legislate in regards to Indigenous Australians, responsibilities for areas traditionally the purview of the states (such as housing, education and healthcare) was shared between both branches of government.[73] As a result, both levels have sought to blame the other for the continuing disadvantage of Indigenous Australians, while seeking to place the cost and responsibility to manage these issues on the other.[75] The Ngarrindjeri challenged the new legislation in the High Court on the basis that it was discriminatory to declare that the Heritage Protection Act applied to sites everywhere but Hindmarsh Island, and that such discrimination – essentially on the basis of race – had been disallowed since the Commonwealth was granted the power to make laws with respect to the "Aboriginal race" as a result of the 1967 Referendum.