Diverse Groups and Individuals in the Australian Community and the Constitution Flashcards

1
Q

What was the composition of Australia’s non-Indigenous population at the time of Federation?

A

90% irish-catholic

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

How were rights assumed to be protected at the time of Federation?

A

residual powers would ensure the states retained the right to create and protect rights.
This failed to address the rights and needs of many individuals and groups.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Were Indigenous Australians formally recognised in the constitution upon federation?

A

No, and there were no Aboriginal delegates at the conventions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Is the Constitution a rights document?

A

No

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Where were Indigenous Australians mentioned in the Constitution at the time of federation?

A
  • Section 51 (xxvi)
  • Section 127
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What are the 4 main problems with the constitution for Indigenous Australians?

A
  • S51 (xxvi)
  • S 127
  • S 25
  • The preamble
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is S 51 (xxvi) of the Constitution?

A

The Race Power which made Indigenous affairs a prohibited power of the commonwealth and therefore a residual power of the states.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What was the consequence of making the ‘race power’ a residual power?

A

The blatant racism of S51 (xxvi) was not necessarily intended. However, it meant that states could deny Indigenous people access to their civil and political rights/

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What were the original intentions behind S51(xxvi) (race power)?

A

It was designed to give the Commonwealth power to control ‘alien races’, particularly Chinese people.
It was not intended to be discriminatory towards Aboriginal peoples, however the states did very little to assist Aboriginal Australians.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What is the original wording of s127 of the Constitution?

A

‘in reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, Aboriginal natives shall not be counted’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is the rationale for section 127 of the Constitution?

A
  • Original reason was discriminatory.
  • Intended to read in conjunction with s24 which determined the number of elected representatives each state would have in the Lower House. The framers did not want states with large Indigenous populations to gain additional members in the House at the expense of the other states.
  • Parliament also used this section when deciding financial grants for each state, which were calculated per capita.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Was there concern about S127 when the constitution was being drafted?

A

Yes, there was concern that the wording of Section 127 would prevent Indigenous people from voting in federal elections.
Dr Cockburn, progressive politician and supporter of the women’s suffragette movement expressed concern in relation to this.
Sir Alfred Deakin reassured him that this was not what the section was intended to achieve.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

When did Indigenous people get the right to vote?

A

Many people believe that the 1967 gave Indigenous people the right to vote. This is incorrect.
Indigenous people were actually given the right to vote in May 1962, as a result of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1962 (Cth).
The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1962 (Cth). allowed all Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders the right to vote at Federal election.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What were the rules around Indigenous people voting before the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1962?

A

Prior to this different states had different laws concerning the rights of Indigenous people to vote in state elections.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Is voting compulsory for all Indigenous Australians?

A

Voting became compulsory for all Indigenous Australians in 1983 with the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Act, 1983 (Cth) requiring all Indigenous Australians to enrol.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What was an issue that Indigenous Australians had in regards to funding prior to the 1967 referendum?

A

Federal government funding was only available for the country’s non-Indigenous population.

States could only offer very limited services to Indigenous communities.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What was the result of the 1967 referendum?

A

A decade of campaigning for Aboriginal rights and the absence of a ‘No’ campaign resulted in the highest ever ‘yes’ vote at a referendum.

90.77 percent of Australians voted in favor of changing these sections of the constitution, believing that it signified the end of racial discrimination.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What were the effect of the 1967 changes on the constitution?

A

Sec 51 (xxvi):
- The words “…other than the aboriginal people in any state…” were removed giving federal parliament the power to make laws in relation to Indigenous people (became a concurrent power)
Sec 127:
- Whole of section 127 was removed allowing for Indigenous people to be included in the census.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What was the rationale behind changing sec 51 (xxvi)?

A

Consistency:
- Making laws for Indigenous people was the responsibility of the states, and laws varied greatly from state to state. For example, Indigenous Australians could own property in New South Wales and South Australia but not in other states.
Improvements for Aboriginal People:
- Advocates for the Referendum believed that if federal parliament was granted the power to legislate for Indigenous people, it would act in their best interests, leading to better conditions for Indigenous people.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What are some common misconceptions about the 1967 Referendum?

A
  • That it provided Indigenous peoples the right to vote
  • That it provided citizenship rights
  • That it guaranteed equal rights
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Were Indigenous people granted citizenship in the 1967 referendum?

A

By 1967, Indigenous people were already legally considered citizens, although many experienced discrimination in their everyday lives.

22
Q

Did the 1967 referendum guarantee equal rights?

A

Even though the Referendum revealed a desire to extend equal rights to Indigenous people, the referendum did not guarantee equality. The Referendum gave the federal government the power to make laws for Indigenous people, but it did not require that those laws would ensure equality and would not be discriminatory

23
Q

What did the 1967 referendum reveal about living standards?

A

The referendum did draw attention to living standards in Aboriginal communities and allowed for more funding for states with large Indigenous populations.

24
Q

What are the consequences of the 1967 referendum changes on the Commonwealth?

A

The commonwealth began to actively intervene both administratively and legislatively.

25
Q

What are some examples of the administrative actions the Commonwealth took following the 1967 referendum?

A
  • Department of Aboriginal Affairs 1968
  • 1989 ATSIC created
26
Q

What are some examples of the legislative actions the Commonwealth took following the 1967 referendum?

A

Racial Discrimination Act 1975 which was a response to the federal government entering into the UN treaty International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Provides legal protection against governments discriminating against Indigenous people in some (but not all) circumstances.

27
Q

What was the aim of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975?

A

make discrimination on the basis or race (or cultural or ethnic background) illegal.

28
Q

What was the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997 (Cth)?

A

Aim- to assist with the building of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge at Goolwa.
This construction was opposed by Indigenous groups as the proposed site was of significant importance to local Aboriginal people.
Following delays, court challenges and a South Australian Royal Commission, the Act was passed allowing construction.
The Act is controversial as it deliberately removes the construction of the bridge from protection under the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth).
This prevents people from challenging the construction of the bridge on these ground.
This legislation was central in Kartinyeri v Commonwealth 1998.

29
Q

What was the Northern Territory Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth)?

A

Aim-> response to a parliamentary report regarding abuse of Aboriginal children in the NT.
Intended to improve child protection in the NT and improve living circumstances of Indigenous people.
There was a lot of community criticism for the way this law was implemented.
It was argued that it infringed on the civil rights of Indigenous people in the NT.
The law:
* Restricted consumption of alcohol and kava
* Placed pornography filters on public computers
* Removed customary law and cultural practices from bail applications and sentencing
* Quarantined portions of welfare payments to families accused on neglecting their children.
An area of particular concern was the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act.
This lasted until an amendment was made by Indigenous Affairs minister Jenny Macklin in 2010.
This Act was repealed by the Gillard government 2012, and replaced with Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012 (Cth).

30
Q

How can Native Title be extinguished?

A

Native Title can be extinguished by;-
Valid exercise of sovereign power (legal recognition of freehold title, appropriation of land for the Crown (roads, railways, other public purposes).
Voluntary surrender or Native Title to the Crown.
Relevant clan or group ceasing to acknowledge laws and customs, losing the connection with the land, or the death of the last member of the clan.

31
Q

What was parliament’s response to Mabo v Queensland (No 2) 1992 HCA?

A

To accommodate the flood of claims following Mabo (No 2) the Federal Government negotiated with Indigenous leaders, industry, State and Territory governments to create legislation to allow an orderly, uniform and workable approach to Native Title claims.
Native title Act 1993 (CTH)
Established a National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT)
Set criteria to approve applications for Native Title claims and mediate disputes involved in their resolution.
Federal Court to give effect to any native title agreement reached between interested parties.
Introduction of a ‘tripartite’ test to determine Aboriginality.

32
Q

What is involved in the ‘tripartite’ test to determine Aboriginality?

A

Test involves the following:-
Person is biologically descended from the Indigenous People of Australia.
Person identified as Aboriginal; and
Person is recognised as an indigenous person by Elders of their community or by other community members with authority.
Test has been applied many times since Mabo (No 2) including Love v Commonwealth.

33
Q

What is the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Case?

A

Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337
Chapman family wanted to build a bridge from the mainland to Hindmarsh Island to replace ferry service.
This was opposed by a group of Ngarrindjeri women who argued the area was sacred- for reasons they wouldn’t share.
The Aboriginal Affairs Minister initially banned the construction of the bridge for 25 years.
Ban was overturned when challenged by the Chapman family in the High Court.
Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997 (Cth) passed allowing bridge to be built.
Kartinyeri on behalf of Ngarrindjeri women challenged this Act in the High Court.
Argued the act was invalid and could not be supported under Section 51 (xxvi) as it created discriminatory legislation against one race of people.
Held- Federal Government has ability to make laws for specific races of people.
However, it does not specify that those laws have to be for the benefit of that particular race.
Government has right to make laws to the detriment of a race.
Many indigenous people felt betrayed by this having voted for the changes in the 1967 referendum in good faith.
SA Government made a formal apology to the Ngarrindjeri people in 2010.

34
Q

What is Love v Commonwealth and Thoms v Commonwealth [2020] HCA 3?

A

Daniel Love and Brendan Thomas were awaiting deportation, as recent prison terms meant they failed the character test under Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
Both men identified as Aboriginal.
They argued due to their cultural racial background and heritage they couldn’t be deported as they were beyond the reach of the ‘alien’ power.
Neither had Australian citizenship as they were born overseas, (despite Aboriginal heritage and living in Australia for most of their lives).
Held (Majority 4:3)
Under Triparted test developed in Mabo (No 2) Aboriginal Australians not able to be classified as ‘aliens’ under Section 51 (xxiv)
Federal government does not have the power to make laws about them
Majority couldn’t agree if Mr Low was an Aboriginal man under the law so referred matter back to the Federal court to determine

35
Q

What were the consequences of Love v Commonwealth and Thoms v Commonwealth [2020] HCA 3?

A

Creates a third category of people- “non-citizen non-alien” under the law.
Recognises that Aboriginal identity supersedes their status under citizenship law, as majority of High Court Justices recognise Aboriginality based on spiritual, cultural and historical connection with the land which was not erased with white settlement.
Not a recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty.

36
Q

As amended, can Sec 51 (xxvi) still be used to pass discriminatory legislation?

A

The intention of the amendment appears to have been to allow the Commonwealth to enact laws to benefit Aboriginal Australians
High Court in Kartinyeri v The Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337 (Kartinyeri), provides a source of power for the enactment of racially discriminatory laws.

37
Q

What is Section 25 of the Constitution?

A

Provision as to races disqualified from voting

38
Q

What was the original rationale behind section 25 of the Constitution?

A
  • The real reason this section was included was because in the 1890s Queensland and Western Australia did not allow full-blood Aboriginals to vote in state elections.
  • The framers of the Constitution wanted a measure to bring both states into line with all the others, where Aborigines did have the franchise. The section was designed to penalise, by reducing their federal representation, states that did not conform.
  • In other words, rather than denying them the franchise, the framers of the Constitution supported giving all Aborigines that right from the very outset. It was originally derived from the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution designed to protect civil rights.
39
Q

What was voted on in the 1999 referendum?

A

It was the Australian Republic referendum, but voters also decided whether to add a new preamble to the constitution.

40
Q

What is a preamble?

A

A Preamble is an introduction to the Constitution and is not a legal part of the Constitution. The Preamble in the Constitution is the preamble to the British Act not the preamble to the Constitution.

41
Q

What are some key dates of the Federal Government’s progress on indigenous rights since the failed 1999 referendum?

A
  • 2015 Kirribili Statement
  • 2015 Creation of Referendum council in december
  • 2016 Joint select committee formed
  • 2017 Uluru Statement of the Heart
42
Q

What are the pros of repealing section 25 of the constitution?

A
  • s25 is clearly racist
  • Archaic and outmoded
43
Q

What are the pros for repealing s51 (xxvi)?

A
  • intention was to benefit Aboriginal people
  • repealing a beneficial law may be invalid
44
Q

What are the cons for repealing s51 (xxvi)?

A
  • Could be used for the detriment of Aboriginal people
  • How is ‘benefit’ interpreted? e.g. Nt intervention
45
Q

What are the pros for symbolic recognition of Indigenous Australians in the preamble of the constitution?

A
  • Provides symbolic acknowledgement
  • Likely to be supported
46
Q

What are the cons for symbolic recognition of Indigenous Australians in the preamble of the constitution?

A
  • preamble is not part of the constitution
  • how might it be used in the future?
47
Q

What are the pros for inserting a new power to make laws for Aboriginal people?

A
  • Would give constitutional protection to Aboriginal People
48
Q

What are the cons for inserting a new power to make laws for Aboriginal people?

A
  • It could be used to make laws to the detriment of Aboriginal People
  • Why single out one group?
49
Q

What are the pros of introducing s116a (a constitutional prohibition on racial discrimination)?

A

Give constitutional protection

50
Q

What are the cons of introducing s116a (a constitutional prohibition on racial discrimination)?

A
  • Why just on grounds of race?
  • How will a court interpret it?
51
Q

What was the Uluru Statement from the Heart?

A

National Indigenous statement on constitutional recognition that came out of the First Nations National Constitutional Convention in May 2017.

The statement followed robust consultation at 13 regional forums across Australia featuring 1200 delegates. It was the most proportionately significant consultation process undertaken to date with the nation’s 600,000 Indigenous Australians.

52
Q

What are the 3 main points of the Uluru Statement of the Heart?

A

Voice- refers to the all for a First Nations voice enshrined in the Constitution,

Treaty and Truth refer to an agreement making process between governments and First Nations people, and truth-telling.