NURSING RESEARCH ONLINE
The Journey to Reconciliation On the 27th May we recognise the 50th anniversary of the referendum on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967. Over 90 per cent of Australians voted in the referendum and a majority in each state approved two constitutional amendments relating to Aboriginal Australians. One amendment resulted in the inclusion of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in the census and the other enabled the Federal Parliament to make laws relating to them. There is still a long way to go, but it is worth recalling the background to this significant milestone in our continuing journey toward Reconciliation. Wave Hill walk-off, 1966-75 In August 1966, Aboriginal pastoral workers walked off the job on the vast Vesteys cattle station at Wave Hill in the Northern Territory. At first, they expressed their unhappiness with their poor working conditions and disrespectful treatment.
Conversations between stockmen who had worked for Vesteys and Dexter Daniels, the North Australian Workers’ Union Aboriginal organiser, led to the initial walk-off. The next year the group moved to Wattle Creek, a place of significance to the Gurindji people. They asked the author Frank Hardy to ‘make a sign’ that included the word ‘Gurindji’– their own name. Their disaffection was deeper than wages and working conditions. Although these stockmen and their families could not read, they understood the power of the white man’s signs. Now their name, written on a sign, asserted a claim to Gurindji lands. Following the walk-off by Aboriginal pastoral workers employed on Vesteys’ Wave Hill station, the Gurindji men had important conversations amongst themselves and with both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal supporters. Vincent Lingiari, Mick Rangiari (also known as Hoppy Mick), Lupna Giari (also known as Captain Major), Pincher Manguari (also known as Pincher Nyurrmiyari) and others voiced their discontent at working for Vesteys. They decided they would not return. Among the supporters to speak with these stockmen were Dexter Daniels, the Aboriginal organiser for the North Australian Workers Union, Brian Manning, a founding member of the Northern Territory Council for Aboriginal Rights, the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and some unions. In addition, the communist author Frank Hardy went to the Northern Territory in June 1966. He spent time with the strikers camped at the welfare settlement and became involved in trying to understand their grievances. At this stage, most white supporters were unionists, members of the Communist Party of Australia, or others engaged in addressing economic injustice. These Aboriginal workers were not eligible for the safeguards provided to other workers through the industrial relations system. However, the focus on economic injustice initially prevented many white supporters from understanding the deeper matters that concerned the Gurindji. http://indigenousrights.net.au/land_rights/wave_ hill_walk_off,_1966-75
‘ We bin here longa time before them Vestey mob.’ — Vincent Lingiari Australia’s 1967 Referendum In the 1960s Faith Bandler was a leading activist for Aboriginal rights. She describes a long and wellorganised struggle for the 1967 referendum and the reasons for it. http://splash.abc.net.au/home#! media/29241/?id=29241
Freedom Rides Living Black s2015 Ep2 Freedom Rides revisits the journey made 50 years ago by a group of university students led by Aboriginal activist Charles Perkins, who set off on a bus ride around regional NSW to expose racism and prejudice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS3YJN3WED4
Campaigning for a YES vote The usual practice when a question is put at referendum is for the arguments for and against the change to be set out for voters. In this case, however, the changes were supported by all major parties so no opposing case was presented. Churches came out in favour of a YES vote. Aboriginal spokespeople gained effective media coverage throughout the campaign. The government supported the passage of the referendum but it had no plans for change. Their campaign was driven by the view that the vote for change needed to be overwhelming in order to persuade the federal government that it had a responsibility to use the power provided by the amendment. http://indigenousrights.net.au/civil_rights/the_ referendum,_1957-67/campaigning_for_a_yes_vote THE LAMP MAY 2017 | 43