Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to acknowledge the 50th anniversary of the referendum that took place on 27 May 1967—a referendum that did two very important things: it amended section 127 of the Constitution to count Aboriginal people in the census for the first time and it also amended section 51(xxvi) to give the Commonwealth power to make laws with relation to Aboriginal people.

I note that this was a referendum that was supported by both sides of politics, but, in my contribution, I particularly want to note the involvement of Liberal members in this issue. That is not to downplay the bipartisanship, but just to note that Liberals should be proud of the role that we played and that, in 1967, it was a Liberal Prime Minister in Harold Holt that put this referendum. It has become fashionable in some circles on the left to believe that all progress happened in 1972 with the election of the Whitlam government, but as Donald Horne in, probably, his best book, A Time of Hope, points out, the period between 1965 and 1972 was a great period of reform in Australian history, and one of those key reforms was this referendum. The Liberal Party, of course, is the party of Neville Bonner, Joanna Lindgren and Ken Wyatt, and the party that put forward the referendum in 1967.

Indeed, Sir Robert Menzies is often criticised for not having done this, but in November 1965, he put forward a proposal to amend section 127. He told the parliament on Remembrance Day in 1965:

… the matter can be simply put by saying that section 127 is completely out of harmony with our national attitudes and with the elevation of the Aborigines into the ranks of citizenship which we all wish to see.

In cabinet, Bill Snedden, who had been his Attorney-General at the time, also tried to put forward a proposal for the amendment of 51(xxvi), but he was unsuccessful. At the same time, Billy Wentworth and Dudley Erwin had put forward a private member's bill, not only to amend section 127 and 51(xxvi) but also to put forward a proposal that spoke about the advancement of Aborigines. It would have been a version, in some respects, of the one-clause bill of rights—the anti-discrimination clause proposal, which is currently put forward. Wentworth's contribution is in this whole debate is so interesting. Wentworth was a virulent anti-communist, one of the most anti-communist members of our party, but he had a very intimate and personal interest in Indigenous policy and he, of course, became the first Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Wentworth pointed out, as my friend the member for Barton did, that Aborigines already had the right to vote before this referendum. He said of the Menzies government:

In this matter of Aboriginal welfare the present government has a good record. It has given Aborigines the right to vote, it has extended the social services accorded to them and it has reduced discrimination. I believe that by establishing the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies the Government has recognised the importance of the background and culture of these people and has restored to them something of their inherent dignity. This is perhaps only a psychological factor, but I believe that it is of great importance if we are to make these people fully participators with us in the benefits of Australian citizenship.

That was Bill Wentworth talking in the 1965 proposal to amend section 127.

Menzies retired at the beginning of 1966, and Harold Holt became Prime Minister. In cabinet discussions, the Attorney-General, Nigel Bowen, put forward his submission not only to amend section 127 but also to amend section 51.26. Bowen said that there would be 'a large area of dissatisfaction' if the Commonwealth failed to improve include an amendment to section 51(xxvi) in any referendum, and that removing 'words alleged to be discriminately against Aboriginal people' would do meet the demands of those 'urging action with respect to Aborigines' and 'would be welcomed by a very large section of the Australian people'.

Putting forward the referendum proposal in March 1967, Harold Holt told the House of Representatives:

The simple truth is that section 127 is completely out of harmony with our national attitudes and modern thinking. It has no place in our Constitution in this age.

In relation to 51(xxvi), he said:

In coming to this conclusion, the Government has been influenced by the popular impression that the words now proposed to be omitted from section 51(xxvi) are discriminatory.

And that popular impression had been largely created by the work of the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, which was led by Faith Bandler.

Wentworth, speaking on the 1967 referendum proposal, said:

I think we in this parliament should realise our responsibilities to the Aboriginal people. If the referendum proposal is adopted and this Bill becomes law, we have to realise that responsibility even more fully.

Wentworth's contribution in this space was quite important. Although not a member of my party but a member of the Country Party, Bob Katter senior urged the following:

I am 48 years old and I have been associated with them all my life. I have been to school with them, grown up with them and mixed with them. Psychologically we can never see any difference. This may sound a little silly to people who live in the cities but it is perfectly true.

… … …

There is consideration of international importance in this legislation. This Bill will do something to counteract the very bad reputation we have among people overseas who have heard of the White Australia policy.

… …

We are showing tonight in a very decisive way that we are doing something about the matter. I am very proud to be associated with the House in what it is doing on this issue.

In his final plea to voters the day before the referendum, Harold Holt told people:

Anything but a Yes vote to this question would do injury to our reputation among fair-minded people everywhere.

That was the very important contribution of Liberals to this vote.

As the member for Barton pointed out, this was a historic referendum in terms of the result that has achieved. 90.77 per cent of Australians voted yes. It is unheard of. I was saying to the member for Barton the other day that I was surprised in my own electorate that the vote had been even stronger. Berowra did not exist as an electorate in 1967 but the booths that make up Berowra today voted very strongly in favour of it. In Beecroft, the yes vote percentage was 96.9; in Castle Hill, it was 95.1; in Dural, it was 92.9; At Normanhurst, it was 96 per cent; at Pennant Hills, it was 94.8 per cent; At Berowra, it was 94.3 per cent; at Hornsby, 94.3 per cent; and only at Wiseman's Ferry did the vote fall below the national average at 89.1 per cent. Those booths now making up the electorate of Berowra voted in total 95.1 per cent as a yes vote in the referendum. I think that says something about my electorate. Sometimes people think that my electorate is a purely conservative electorate. My electorate was more progressive on this issue than the rest of the population. It is worthwhile noting that the youngest people to vote in that referendum are now 71 years old today so it is a long time since people voted yes on that referendum.

The 1967 referendum took place during a liberal age. It was the post-war period, a period after which Australia had fought wars against two powers—Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany—which had fundamentally race-based policies based on racial superiority. It was a time of the civil rights movement in the United States—the Great Society and the Winds of Change speeches—and, although some of those things had consequences that were not seen by their proponents at the time, it was, in Donald Horne's phrase, 'a time of hope and optimism'.

The proposals that Australians voted on in 1967 were very specific: the power to make laws about Aboriginal people and to have Aboriginal people counted in the census—and that was very important. Today, the atmosphere around our politics is more angry, more individualistic and less tolerant, so a referendum is much more difficult.

I want to put on record the fact that I support Indigenous recognition. Although I am a person who has voted no to and would campaign against most changes to our Constitution, I think there is something special about this. Indigenous people are unique to Australia. They are our only indigenous people. Their culture, heritage and traditions have survived and prospered for 60,000 years. They have a remarkable continuity and remarkable culture. The purpose of Indigenous recognition is to make the culture of Indigenous people the culture, heritage and traditions of all Australians. I think it is incumbent upon us to find a way forward to achieve this.

I want to say something about the Uluru Statement from the Heart because I see the Uluru statement as being very significant. A lot of the debate and discussion on this issue have previously focused on having some form of recognition in the preamble to the Constitution or a racial non-discrimination clause. I have written elsewhere about why these particular ideas are unsuitable. I think it is particularly important and we should take note of the fact that Indigenous people at Uluru are saying to Australians, 'These are things that we are not interested in.' What they are giving us instead is a direction, an important direction. They are telling us that they want to be consulted and have a voice in the way in which policy is developed, and consultation is good. When you consult, you are less likely to have unintended consequences. You are more likely to get buy-in. You are more likely to have better quality public policy. Fundamentally, I think that is what this needs to be about, because, of course, among Indigenous communities we have suicide rates and incarceration rates which are too high and life expectancy rates which are too low. If we can do something through the recognition process that can address these things then we are well and truly serving the memory of 1967.

See this speech in context