Talk:1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals)

I hate it when vandalism is blatantly obvious
The article says that "Aboriginal people became Australian citizens in 1947" - just wondering why then it is said that Albert Namatjira became Australia's first Aboriginal citizen in 1957. Cfitzart 09:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what that is refering to. The Citzenship Act (1947) contained no racial exclusions and indigenous Australians were therefore Australian citizens from that date. They had previously been, like all other Australians, British subjects. Until the 1960s, however, they continued to be subject to various restrictions under state laws and (in the Northern Territory) under regulations made under Commonwealth law. Possibly Namatjira was released from these restrictions in 1957 but I am not an expert on his life. Adam 09:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * He was allowed to purchase alcohol after this time, that was one of the restrictions. Also here: "This meant they could vote, enter a hotel and build a house anywhere they chose."  Most biographies of Namatjira mention that he was the first citizen but I cant find what the official law or whatever was that made this so Cfitzart 09:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

This whole topic is so encrusted in mythology that I would very cautious in believing anything I read unless it is in a recent and well-referenced academic source. I think this must be a reference to the various restrictions in indigenous Australians in the Territory at that time. But these had nothing to do with citizenship as such. Adam 10:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

People may be citizens, but their rights can also be limited, based on race or otherwise. The idea that Aborigine's became citizens in 1967 is widespread and hard to erase, but is of course quite wrong.JohnC (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Heading
Should the heading be Aboriginals or Australian Aborigines? Technically Aboriginal is an adjective, although it is used as a noun for the Australian people. These days it is probably preferable to use Indigenous People BUT we should probably use the terminology more appropriate to the time and I think 'Aboriginals' was not the preferred way to describe them. Sterry2607 08:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand Maori used to be called "Aborigine's" as well (as in "New Zealand Aborigines"). "Australian Aborigines" has been abbreviated to just "Aborigines" over time, just as "news media conference" has become "news conference" or "media conference". The abbreviations may be common, but in all cases are wrong. I suggest that both words - "Australian Aborigines" -must be used together. Alternatively we could refer to "Australian Natives" (old-fashioned) or "Indigenous Australians" (which may offend the later arrivals, since all Australians were immigrants at some stage).JohnC (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The heading should be either "Aborigines" or "Australian Aborigines" as "Aboriginals" is the adjective. Maybe someone should change this...Jaw123 —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

Sounds good. I'll transfer the name to Australian referendum 1967 (Aboriginal people) if no one objects WotherspoonSmith (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Ahh... I've corrected the name of the legislation to "Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967" and referenced it. I agree that the language of the article title is outdated, but to make it (say) "Aborigines" or "Aboriginal people" would create a question-begging inconsistency. We would also have to consider whether to change "Aboriginals" in Referendums in Australia. I wouldn't like to echo here the noise going on at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters and elsewhere. I'm in at least 2 minds here, but am generally inclined to leave this title alone. Wikiain (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite for clarity
I read first two sections and was quite confused. I think it needs rewriting, eg reordering some information, beginning with constitutional excerpts 220.240.110.221 (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)User:brh418

POV of Sovereignty section
While I am all for Reconciliation, I must admit I find the language of this section inflammatory and incredibly biased, not to mention the author's claims are unverified. I am not disputing whether or not it is wrong, just the language used and the verifiability of what's said. -LichYoshi (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of this article is very political and POV. Talk of recalcitrant state governments, for instance, is hardly objective.JohnC (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Murder of Aboriginals first criminalised?
--Wikiain (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously not an RS, but, if the following is true, it should be possible to source it, if only as an "urban myth". Seen in this blog "I've noticed that pro-settler Australians visiting Hebron seem to be particularly racist and aggressive, even relative to the high pro-settler norms in those areas. I've wondered whether this is due to Australian anti-aboriginal racism that translates easily to Palestinians, which theory came up in a discussion with a Kiwi couple a couple of nights ago. They thought my theory seemed pretty plausible, and told me that Australian aborigines were still classified under the Flora and Fauna Act(!), and could be legally hunted(!!), until passage of a 1967 Referendum(!!!)." 86.159.187.157 (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's bs and POV - particularly the last sentence. The constitutional amendment was purely to include Indigenous Australians in census figures and allow the Commonwealth to legislate on Aboriginal issues. FYI Abo is considered derogatory when used in reference to Aboriginal people. Hack (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This relates to the above discussion as well, but according to this source Indigenous people were considered Flora and Fauna. The argument is that the citizenship of Indigenous people made them no different to Flora and Fauna, as the government had no power under s 51 to pass legislation relating to Indigenous people and they were not to be counted in the census for fear of distorting numbers. Just because they were 'British subjects' does not mean they were 'citizens of Australia'. You also have the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 which specifically excluded Indigenous people from the vote. Then there's these comments by Linda Burney -

'' "This is not ancient history," says the state's first Aboriginal minister. "I was a child. It still staggers me that for the first 10 years of my life, I existed under the Flora and Fauna Act of NSW." ''

''Then came the 1967 referendum, when Australians voted to extend full citizenship to Aborigines. Now, just days before the 40th anniversary of that vote, Ms Burney has described the referendum as a high tide in both the nation's history and her own - the moment when her status was elevated from fauna to citizen.'' -- smh.com.au/news/national/when-i-was-fauna-citizens-rallying-call/2007/05/22/1179601412706.html --58.169.227.36 (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the forerunning: The statement using the rather colorful language about the Flora and Fauna Act being "complete BS" is not accurate, but neither, strictly, is the statement of your Kiwi friends. The second part of the 1967 Referendum repealed section 127 of the Australian Constitution, which allowed for special legislation to be made for Aboriginal People and excluded them from the Census. It is true that many people (including Ms Burney) will refer to a Flora and Fauna Act that was repealed in 1967. In fact, these are two different things. The Flora and Fauna Act was not Australia-wide, but is the name of state of New South Wales (NSW) legislation. In fact, this particular piece of legislation, Aboriginal culture and heritage was managed by the same branches of government that dealt with National Parks, flora, fauna, etc. In fact, this particular governing practice was only recently repealed! http://tracker.org.au/2012/11/no-longer-flora-and-fauna-nsw-govt-commits-to-heritage-legislation/

It is becoming a truism, then, to say there was a national "Flora and Fauna Act" and this statement is often followed by the statement that this "Act" was revealed in 1967. This is a bit confused. I do think people need to get their facts straight, as when we don't it allows the right wing historians to deny a great deal of Australia's more negative colonizing history. Having said that, when people make these errors, the spirit of what they are attempting to convey is, in my view, essential accurate: ie, that Aboriginal people were treated as subhuman under Australian legislation and that 1967's referendum was a key step in overcoming that constitutional, and therefore, policy discrimination.

Therefore, what your Kiwi friends were trying to say was essentially accurate in spirit: before 1967 (and arguably at certain moments afterward) Aboriginal people were regulated under special legislation that only applied to them. This was a means of controlling Aboriginal people and often contained paternalistic language that depicted them as in need of care or protection, or filed this special legislation alongside parks, wildlife, natural resources type legislation, implying that Aboriginal people were subhuman and merely a part of the natural landscape (Aborigines and Fisheries Department (WA, till mid 1920s). Mg3349 (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Without seeking to dissent from Mg3349, regarding New South Wales the legend of Aborigines being actually classified as "fauna" or some equivalent seems to be very far from the legislative history. The potentially relevant statutes that I have found in AustLII are: Native Animals Protection Act 1903, Birds and Animals Protection Act 1918-1930 and Fauna Protection Act 1948. Each of these defines its categories of subject matter, e.g. "fauna", and lists in a schedule what is to come into each such category. In every case, both the definition and the list are confined to non-human creatures. There is no mention of Aborigines. The 1948 list is: dingo, ferret, fox, fruit bat or flying fox, hare, rabbit and wombat;  each with their Latin name - e.g. wombat, vombatus hirsutus. However, the statutory offences concerning possession of protected species may have - carelessly or deliberately - conflicted with Aboriginal traditional practices. --Wikiain (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it is exceptional and objectionable that Aboriginal heritage items have been dealt with under the National Parks Act in NSW when these items are in national parks. This seems to be a circular argument.  If there was something like a "Flora and Fauna Act" that governed Aborigines, then the National Parks Act could be a survival of this.  But this rests on the assumption that there was something like the "Flora and Fauna Act", which is false.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Right to Vote
I browsed through this page with a person of Indigenous Australian descent who commented that although technically Aboriginals were permitted the right to vote before the 1967 referendum, it was only under the condition that they [as my colleague stated] "signed a piece of paper that said that they denied their Aboriginal decent and then they were permitted to vote". I think this is an important quantification that should be commented on by an authority closer to subject than I, and perhaps addressed in the article. Jabrody24 (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide a reference for the suggestion that Aboriginals were not allowed to vote? Incidentally if this was the case, the 1967 referendum would not have changed itRoyalcourtier (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the section explains this ok. There were always some Aborigines who could vote;  the issue was to establish voting status equal with everyone else.  I've added another Blackshield & Williams ref.  Wikiain (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * PS - can anyone find a citation (to confirm or deny) for the suggestion by Jabrody24 (talk) that Aborigines had to make such a declaration? Wikiain (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

In WW1 and WW2 aboriginals did join the military, and citizenship was a requirement. The 1901 Constitution did define citizenship and Aboriginals always were citizens, despite the claims by Henry Reynolds and his idiot mate Looes. State govts were less charitable in native policies. The Fed govt had no power to overrule them. The '67 Ref fixed that. The '67 referendum effectively made it compulsory for individual Aboriginals to answer the Census, and that total numbers be counted for seats and cutoff quotas in the Senate. The colonial Censes, starting in 1841, did attempt to estimate the numbers of Aboriginals in each district by asking farmers to estimate the numbers on their property. In 1901 most natives were still living nomadic lives and thus the electoral commision was alleviated of the chore of tracking them down at census time. Other conspiracy theories naming QLD and WA as the reason for exclusion from the Census, are just humbug. If that was the case, Tasmania would not have been given 10 senators, as it was and still is the most inequitable part of the Constitution.61.68.161.48 (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The "1901 Constitution", as you term it, unfortunately says nothing about citizenship. It assumes that all who are legally resident in Australia are "British subjects" and good luck with the changing terminology. Aborigines who joined the military in WW1 or WW2 would presumably have done so as British subjects.  If you have documentation, I expect that it would be welcomed by the National Museum of Australia, which (last time I was there) displays a collection of such documents. Wikiain (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Attribution of changes
On 29 March 2011, user 121.221.193.45 naughtily changed the two references to "1967" in the first para to, respectively, "1962" and "2011". On 4 April, user 122.148.82.204 rightly changed "2011" back to "1967". Today I have changed "1962" back to "1967". Before doing this, I noticed that WP was attributing the change to "1962" to me, but I hadn't done that. --Wikiain (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Flora and Fauna Act
I have removed the following:
 * [This statement is not correct,] though it does reflect aspects of the way Aboriginal hunting, land use and heritage rights were managed.... A number of Australian states did indeed often manage Aboriginal cultural affairs through departments also concerned with flora, fauna, and wildlife. Such legislation did exist, though not uniformly or federally. In New South Wales, for instance, Indigenous Australian hunting and land use rights, as well as their material culture, were managed under a wider National Parks portfolio; this practice only gained attention in 2009 and a process for its reversal was initiated the following year.

It is an attempt to justify the misinformation through weasel words. There was no Flora and Fauna Act. Aborigines were not counted as fauna.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And, if Aborigines had been treated as flora and fauna, they wouldn't have been subject to the criminal law.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The myth of Aborigines being subject to a Flora and Fauna Act is discussed extensively, with contributions by several searchers, in the blogsite Club Troppo, "Were Indigenous (Aboriginal) Australians regulated by the Flora & Fauna Act?". I myself have searched ComLaw and did not find such an act by the Commonwealth - but that is OR. I can't find a reputable published source - good on Club Troppo for that discussion, but I don't think WP relies on blogsites. Wikiain (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is also quite a good blogpost by Professor Helen Irving at the University of Sydney which deals with myths surrounding the referendum. I think her post would count as a reliable source, even if it was published on self-proclaimed "blog", given her academic standing.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  05:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on Helen Irving's academic standing. Nonetheless, this is only a blog. Has she or anyone else stated this view in a scholarly publication?  I think we're on the same wavelength:  why would a scholar bother to give oxygen to a myth?  However:  what do others think about citing a blog, on a blogsite of a front-rank university, by a well reputed scholar of Australian law and history? Wikiain (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Balance
The "Legacy" section seems rather long and remote in comparison to the actual topic of this article. I suggest that anything not directly relevant to the Constitutional amendment be removed to a more relevant article. For example, I cannot quite see how there is any firm connection between this amendment and the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. --Pete (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

My edits
It is inaccurate to claim that "activists" were behind the changes in attitudes. If people want to stop "activists" from achieving something they can - look at the failure of the Communist Party of Australia to challenge the established order or spark a socialist revolution. Or, in more modern times, the failure of the Australian Greens to achieve much of their agenda in the face of Labor and the Liberals routinely combining against them.

"indigenous Australians" was a term not in use in the 1960s and only came into wide use in the 1990s, less than 20 years ago. Not only is it an anachronism, for 1967, is it very left-wing POV to treat it as an eternal always-correct term.

the notion of what is "rights" is malleable and changes over time so, again, treating them as eternal and always-correct is an anachronism and POV.

Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with Australian dialogue on this topic, but I don't see a problem with using anachronistic terms if they are clear and descriptive to a modern reader. It would be strange if our lead for Augustus said he created "cohortes urbanae and vigiles urbani" rather than "police and fire-fighting services," for example. Layzner (Talk) 05:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

PBA, thank you for Talking. 1. It is a fact that the 1967 referendum came about after and largely due to a long political campaign by (how else to characterise them?) activists. What may have happened on some other issue is irrelevant. 2. There was a campaign for land and other rights such as to vote and that is how it was termed. 3. Discussing history (merci, Layzner), one's own analysis has to use one's own terminology while, where appropriate, mentioning the terminology used by the actors. 4. The tactic of accusing someone of absolutism - by definition inadmissible - is inadmissible. Wikiain (talk) 08:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that the term "activists" is not limited by whether or not they suceeded. do you have any authorities for your statements? The reason I ask is that references to indigenous people date to at least the 1957 ILO Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Populations while Les Johnson referred to "Indigenous Australians" in the Australian Parliament on 16 October 1962. Similarly Neville Bonner spoke of the "indigenous people of Australia" in his maiden speech to the Senate on 8 September 1971. You are correct that the notion of rights changes over time, but it is not clear to me how the article treats them as "eternal and always correct". Find bruce (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Article name
moved the article 1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals) to Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967 Act with the edit summary "The actual name of the act". I have reverted this move because every referendum in Australia has a consistent name: "YEAR Australian referendum (SUBJECT)". Find bruce (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. ThanksBacondrum (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Aboriginal Australians vs Indigenous Australians
Do we know if the term used in the amendment, "aboriginal", refers to just Aboriginal Australians, or to broader Indigenous Australians? I'm not particularly well-versed in constitutional interpretation, so it'd be great if there is a source (High Court? ComLaw? PEO?) that gives a definitives reference. ItsPugle (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I had missed your comment previously. I don't think you will find a definitive source because prior to 1967 there was no Commonwealth legislation nor High Court case on who was or wasn't an aboriginal person - there is a good briefing paper on the issue published by parliament. It would seem that Torres Strait Islanders were treated as falling within the description of Aboriginal - in 1899 the report of the Northern Protector of Aborigines in Queensland shows that Torres Strait Islanders were within his "protection" - see for example page 12. The colour of their skin was sufficient grounds for racism in the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 Disqualification of coloured races. No aboriginal native of Australia Asia Africa or the Islands of the Pacific except New Zealand shall be entitled to have his name placed on an Electoral Roll unless so entitled under section forty-one of the Constitution Torres Strait Islanders were covered by separate legislation in Qld from 1939 (Torres Strait Islander Act 1939). In 1962 a parliamentary committee recommended that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people be given the right to vote in Commonwealth elections but the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1962 lumped them together by the description "aboriginal native of Australia". Importantly I am not aware of a reliable source that deals with the question. --Find bruce (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for doing that research! I think going forward we can interpret "Aboriginal" as meaning "Indigenous" (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians) in a modern context. ItsPugle (please use&#32; on reply) 08:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 August 2020

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. After extended time for discussion, and with several options put forward, there is no clear consensus for any move at this time. BD2412 T 00:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals) → ? 1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginal Australians) – This move brings the article title in line with Aboriginal Australians and the conventionally accepted terminology used throughout Wikipedia. ItsPugle (please use&#32; on reply) 04:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit to RM tag, 6 August 2020 Since there are several options for alternative page names, I've updated the requested move tag to not define any specific destination. All replies from before this reply are in support or objection to my initial suggested target, . Apologies for any confusion! ItsPugle (please use&#32; on reply) 12:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Both the Referendum question and the Act involved referred to "Aboriginals" and "People of the Aboriginal Race" (Not Aboriginal Australians). So it could be argued we should be retaining that language. However, in the half century since, language has definitely changed, so I would support the move. HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose: the proposed law was the the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967 & the current name reflects that & the historical context of the referendum - the campaign material was along the lines of "vote yes for Aboriginal rights" & "right wrongs vote yes for Aborigines". Aboriginal Australians is called that to disambiguate it from the indigenous people of other places. In what way will it improve wikipedia by duplicating Australian? If we were looking to reflect appropriate language I would be supporting a reference to first people or first nations, but that would separate the referendum from its historical context. --Find bruce (talk) 06:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If the proper name for the referendum was the Constitutional Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967, then surely that should be the title of this article instead then instead of this one? If not, then surely the title should reflect today's terminology and linguistics since it's not a proper noun then? And in terms of the cultural and social material generated, well, over 50 years ago, that doesn't necessarily mean that the terminology used in them is reflective of today's terminology. While I understand the importance of historical context, that's what we detail in the article's content, not the article's title - otherwise you'd be calling the article on the Holocaust. "the final solution" because that was its historical cultural context (excuse the rather extreme example, but I think it's the most effective in what I'm saying). On a secondary note, and as exemplified by my discussion above, "Aboriginals" isn't really appropriate here in describing the population groups subject to the change, since Aboriginal Australians are those with familial heritage to mainland Australia, while Indigenous Australians (which is what the referendum covered) is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. I'm happy for an alternate wording such as Constitutional Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967 or 1967 Australian referendum (Indigenous representation), or something along the lines of that. ItsPugle (please use&#32; on reply) 08:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I'm sympathetic to the oppose !vote above citing the official name, but in this case we do not seem to be using a this title based on the official name but rather with a parenthetical disambiguation. Given that, I think it's reasonable to use commonly used language today.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Duplicating the word Australian. The current name reflects the title of the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967 Bill and the subsequent Act. The alternate suggestion of Constitutional Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967 is not consistent with referendum titles "yyyy Australian referendum ". The Act gave the Commonwealth power to make laws for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and separately to include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders populations in the determination of Section 24 (voting population) which is not encapsulated in the other alternate title 1967 Australian referendum (Indigenous representation).--Melbguy05 (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the Act and the bill are the same - the bill is the text submitted to Parliament, the Act is the bill once passed. And if you really wanted to preserve consistency, you'll note that the only change is in the subject between the brackets. And on the Act, this article about the second element of the referendum about Indigenous representation in the Census. Would you agree with 1967 Australian referendum (Indigenous Census representation)? I'm happy with variations in the wording of the subject, as long as it reflects that this section of the referendum was about Indigenous Australians, not just Aboriginal Australians, and that it allowed for their representation in the Census of Population and Housing. ItsPugle (please use&#32; on reply) 06:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ItsPugle you appear to have entirely missed that the referendum removed two passages from the constitution - the prohibition on the Commonwealth making laws for the the aboriginal race in any State and the prohibition on counting aboriginal natives in reckoning the population - the primary purpose of which was for deciding the size of a quota for seats in the House of Representatives. --Find bruce (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the process in which the outcome was achieved, the end result of the second question was that Indigenous Australians are represented in the Census of Housing and Population. In fact, the claim in the article that it was done to modify the allocation of seats in the House of Representatives doesn't have any evidence. Of the two references in the paragraph, the first one makes no mention of the referendum being a mechanism for the sole purpose of increasing seats in the House, and the second source can't be accessed, so I'll be removing that claim. Anyways, I don't see how my apparent oversight of the fact that the referendum repealed parts of the Constitution plays into this RM - the outcome, Indigenous representation in the Census, is the same. ItsPugle (please use&#32; on reply) `
 * The "Amendments to the Constitution" section was about the process. The source that you deleted "A Guide to the Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia" stated "...not to be counted for the purpose of determining the size and distribution of electorates for the federal Parliament." and goes on in reference to seats "... to gain extra seats in the Federal Parliament" with the evidence being "large Aboriginal populations". At the time of the referendum, the only section that had "any present operational importance" to section 127 was section 24. Indigenous Australians were already represented in the census information prior to the referendum as the second source which can be accessed details. Whilst not specifically referring to section 51(xi), it details the census information collected on Aborigines from 1925-1944 under 51(xi). From Arcioni "Section 127 meant that 'full-blood aborigines' were excluded when determining the number of 'the people' for specific constitutional calculations" but it "did not impose a limitation on the census power of the Commonwealth in the sense of prohibiting an enumeration of Indigenous Australians". —Melbguy05 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment and suggestion. This is a tricky one and I can see arguments for both, although lean slightly in favour of the status quo (oppose) because of the relationship to the Constitution naming, and the lack of a satisfactory renaming option. Having thought about this quite a bit though, I have a new suggestion. Based on the fact that
 * (a) the 1967 Australian referendum page really serves as no more than a de facto DAB page,
 * (b) nobody goes there to look at both outcomes or has any need to compare them,
 * (c) this page is repeatedly linked to by editors who really intend to link to the 2nd question (I've just had to fix a few more), and
 * (d) let's face it, in common parlance, and according to the NLA and many other reputable sources, the term "The 1967 Referendum" applies to the most significant one (most people either don't know about or don't care about the other)...

Why don't we apply WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:2DABPRIMARY and just use 1967 Australian referendum to lead to this page, with a redirect template hatnote to the other one? Each article's intro already explains the two parts (just the links would need adjusting), and it would make it a lot easier for future users and editors, IMO. They could each have redirects from the "Constitution Alteration (Parliament) 1967)" and "Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967" respectively, and any other redirects could be adjusted accordingly. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly happy with this solution. ItsPugle (please use&#32; on reply) 14:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose the change to "Aboriginal Australians", on the grounds that the current title more accurately matches the referendum name, and that the duplication of "Australian(s)" is unnecessary in this context. However we should clearly state in the lead section – with appropriate references so it's not WP:SYN – that "Aboriginals" at the time included all Indigenous Australians. (Example, but it should be in the body text, not a footnote.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What about any of the other possible options, or any other rewordings? As I said, the RM target is just an idea - you could have (Indigenous representation) if you wanted to avoid doubling up etc. ItsPugle (please use&#32; on reply) 14:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I could support a change that accurately reflected the referendum's explicit name or purpose, eg to "... Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) ...", but "Indigenous representation" was not the explicit purpose of the referendum. Neither of the changes to the Constitution's wording mentioned "Indigenous" (although see my previous comments re adding something to the lead section about terminology) or "representation" or voting rights. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I totally get your point, but if I understand the outcomes of the referendum correctly, didn't it end with Indigenous Australians being represented as part of the population in the Census of Population and Housing? If "representation" is the issue (which I can understand), what about something along the lines of (Indigenous population count) or (Indigenous [C/c]ensus inclusion)? ItsPugle (please use&#32; on reply) 04:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * didn't it end with Indigenous Australians being represented ...? — only in the very general sense that a number represents the things it counts, but that's too abstract (and possibly misleading) for an article title, and in any case ...
 * what about ... count ... or census inclusion ... — The referendum covered more than just the census inclusion; the changes to Section 51(xxvi) had nothing do with the the census count.
 * what about ...Indigenous... — Is there any reliable source that calls it the "Indigenous referendum"? Everything I've seen refers to it as "Aboriginal", because that's what it called at the time. Yes I know the terminology has changed, but we are talking about a specific historical event that - so far as I can tell - is generally referred to its historical name. (By comparison the previously mentioned Final Solution/ Holocaust is commonly referred to in modern literature as the Holocaust.)
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, and its forms are probably not the best terms to use to describe the referendum. inclusion is probably a better term, but I'll defer that judgement onto you for any other term that you think best represents this. And again, I'm not saying it has to be my exact wording - I'm just trying to find some version that you might be happy with; please do suggest some yourself too! And again, yeah, the referendum includes more than census inclusion, my bad. In terms of the wording, even though we are describing a historical event, we're not living in the 1960s - non-technical audiences/the general public are unlikely (and don't need to) to arrive at a Wikipedia article already understanding that "Aboriginal" means "Indigenous" in the context of this specific amendment, and accuracy to today's audience is more important then matching exact linguistics from text that's 60 years old, that we're paraphrasing from. I haven't seen any sources that explicitly calls the referendum either the "Indigenous referendum" or the "Aboriginal referendum", but I don't think that was exactly what you meant since I'm not suggesting renaming this to "1967 Indigenous referendum" or something like that. In terms of reliable sources describing Aboriginal Australians vs Indigenous Australians, the Parliament of Australia, Australians Together organisation, State Library of Victoria, National Museum of Australia, ABC, and even Reconcilliation Australia all synonymise "Aboriginal" and "Indigenous" in their discussions and references to the referendum. This is consolidated in Australian common law in High Court Chief Justice Harry Gibbs' deliberation in Commonwealth v Tasmania. The sources in 's reply above provide a reasonably significant conclusion that "Aboriginal" in this context, does in fact mean Indigenous Australians, on account of skin colour. ItsPugle (please use&#32; on reply) 11:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that these changes reinforce my statement that the we should clearly state in the lead section – with appropriate references so it's not WP:SYN – that "Aboriginals" at the time included all Indigenous Australians. The references that I used here may be appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. References Parliament of Australia paper and Chief Justice Harry Gibbs (from Commonwealth v Tasmania). ItsPugle (please use&#32; on reply) 11:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that a reference that defines something as "the Australian Aboriginal people generally" (as opposed to "Indigenous" or "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders") is particularly helpful in defining "Aboriginal" in this case. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The Parliament of Australia paper is a secondary source that in turn presents the modern legal interpretation of Commonwealth v. Tasmania, so I don't really see where the issue is. The Chief Justice's deliverance was still presented in 1983, meaning that the cultural assumptions and assumptions of the time are still represented in his linguistics, which is why the modern interpretation is included as corroboratory evidence for the claim. Anyways, what I would imagine to be the crux element is be a reference to the Australian Aboriginal people generally rather than a reference to any particular racial sub-group. Then again, I'm not a lawyer and I assume neither are you, which is why the parliamentary paper is cited. ItsPugle (please use&#32; on reply) 12:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC).
 * My point is that "the Australian Aboriginal people generally" is not necessarily the same as "Indigenous Australians" or "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people", so using the former is pointless - the article is already titled "... Aboriginal ..." (with "Australian" implied by Australian referendum), not "particular Aboriginal racial sub-group". A reference that defines "Aboriginal" to mean "... Aboriginal ..." without mentioning Indigenous or Torres Strait Islander people tells us nothing in the context of the original question of "does 'Aboriginal' in the Constitution / referendum question include other Indigenous or Torres Strait Islander people?" Mitch Ames (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to feel like we're just going in circles, so I'm going to step away from this discussion and let someone impartial close this discussion eventually, but I did want to just reply to this. Regardless of your or my interpretations of the Chief Justice's deliberation, we're not lawyers, and more so, I think we're losing sight of the need for evidence. I feel as though I have provided a reasonable and authoritative secondary source which explicitly supports the modern interpretation of the court findings in the article. In fact, I've also just added another source to support that claim - the ABS, which says . If you want to contest that, I would absolutely support you, provided that you can demonstrate with more compelling (both in quality, quantity and authority) reliable sources that the term, when used in 1967 (the referendum) and 1983 (Commonwealth v. Tasmania), purposefully excludes Torres Strait Islanders from representation. I'm going to unwatch this page since I think I've already given my spiel, but if you want to reengage me, feel free to drop me a message on my talk page. Last thing, but another possible wording could be - I actually prefer that over "Aboriginal Australians" considering the duplication of "Australia(ns)", too. ItsPugle (please use&#32; on reply) 12:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is a historical article, and the importance is historical. The amendment was carried by an overwhelming majority - vanishingly rare in Australian constitutional amendments - and must be seen in the light of the reformist Holt Government making long overdue changes after the stagnation of the Menzies era. Changing the name away from the historical terms used in the legislation would be a mistake. Given appropriate wording in the article, none of our readers are going to be confused or misled. Reframing historical events in modern language loses some of the flavour and impact of the times. This was a big deal at the time, and diluting the impact as if those Australians of 1967 held the views and hindsight of those of us in 2020 and (hopefully) beyond, diminishes the significance. Skyring (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support original move, to 1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginal Australians). As far as I can see, the principal argument for the status quo, is that the term "Aboriginals" was used in the official name of the document from the 1960s. What a load of cobblers. We don't form our disambiguators by cherry picking dated terms from the official name. Either use the official name in its entirety, or choose a disambiguator which reflects modern usage. In this case it's appropriate to do the latter which also brings WP:CONSISTENCY with the main article on that subject. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Why don't we use a descriptive title instead, such as 1967 referendum on Australian Aboriginal rights or similar? We seem to be quibbling about what is basically a disambiguator. No such user (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be inconsistent with WP:NC-GAL. Number   5  7  12:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think so per IAR, but even a strict reading of point 1 of WP:NCELECT would yield 1967 Australian Aboriginal rights referendum (year country type referendum). Nonetheless, I think your proposal below is better. No such user (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Why not merge 1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals), the very short 1967 Australian referendum (Parliament) and the DAB page 1967 Australian referendum into a single article titled 1967 Australian constitutional referendum. The vast majority of articles on national referendums combine questions asked on the same day in a single article, and the proposed article title would not be problematic. This would also fit with the proposal below to split out some text from this article, which reduced the amount left to merge. Number   5  7  12:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be the best solution in my opinion. No such user (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Splitting recognition sections into new article proposal
I propose that sections Proposed new referendum in the 2010s and Referendum Council and Uluru Statement from 1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals) be split into a separate article titled Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians. The two sections are moving off-topic discussing holding another referendum in relation to other Constitution sections and not the effect of amending section 51(xxvi) and repealing section 127 by the 1967 referendum. The new article could also incorporate the Indigenous recognition and voice section from the Constitution of Australia article. The sections from the two articles should be large enough to make their own article. There are related articles Uluru Statement from the Heart and Indigenous voice to government, and Australian Aboriginal sovereignty briefly mentions the subject, but no article specifically on Constitutional Recognition. Melbguy05 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposal. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * New article created Constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians with split sections.--Melbguy05 (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)