Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The Voice and the Constitution

By Ian Keese - posted Monday, 1 May 2023


In 1901 it was just assumed that the colonial system would remain, and the Governor General would require the approval of the British Monarch to be appointed. Until the appointment of Richard Casey in 1965 (with the one, at the time controversial, exception of Sir Isaac Isaacs (1931-1936)) it was assumed that our Governor General would be some minor British aristocrat.

The other issue, that is currently in debate, is that of recognition of the Indigenous people who have developed a rich culture over 60,000 years and who still suffer from colonisation.

In the original Constitution the Federal Government was specifically excluded from making laws for Indigenous Australians. In the Legislative Powers of the Parliament Sub section 26 originally read that the Federal Parliament could make laws for:

Advertisement
The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race, in any State for whom it is deemed necessary to make laws

The phrase 'other than the Aboriginal race' was removed through the 1967 Referendum as was the whole of Section 127:

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.

In the 1967 Referendum the majority of Australians (91% overall and, as in the 1945 referendum, a Yes vote in all the States) accepted these changes to the Constitution. However, a by-product of removing 'aboriginal' was that of removing any mention of Indigenous Australians and their history in the Constitution.

To treat the passing of this Referendum as some threat to the Constitution is a failure to see the Constitution as a living document. If the Referendum is passed, some Constitutional complexities may be discovered, but that has always been the role of the High Court to resolve.

I see this Referendum as an opportunity to make an 'imperfect' document less imperfect and more representative of our Nation.

Advertisement

 

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

55 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Ian Keese has degrees in Science and the Arts. He has been a secondary school history teacher and is a Fellow of the Australian College of Educators. He lives in Melbourne and writes on history and education or anything else in which he becomes interested. www.iankeese.com.au

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Ian Keese

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Ian Keese
Article Tools
Comment 55 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy