It's 50 years since Indigenous Australians first 'counted'. Why has so little changed?
Guardian (UK), Paul Daley,
18 May 2017
https://www.theguardian.com/inequal...ted-why-has-so-little-changed-1967-referendum
' . . . Indigenous people had never previously been officially included among the Australian citizenry, nor counted in the Commonwealth census – so the federal government could not legislate for them. But on 27 May 1967, more than 90% of the Australian electorate voted at the “citizenship” referendum to effectively bring Indigenous people into the Commonwealth.
'“After the referendum, though, it was like the work was done for the rest of the country and governments – when it was actually just the bloody beginning,” [Sol] Bellear says. “Every little thing we’ve won since, we’ve had to fight for.” . . '
.
.
' . . . He [Sol Bellear] talks about the recent damning interim report by the UN special rapporteur Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, and another by Oxfam, both scathing assessments of – among many other things – rates of Indigenous child removal, incarceration, the lack of government commitment to self-determination, health, education and employment. . . '
.
.
' . . . He [Gary Foley] wrote: “The young people were told to assist in the campaign for a ‘Yes’ vote as that would be the answer to Aboriginal people’s ongoing oppression and marginalisation. Then, when the referendum resulted in the biggest ‘Yes’ vote in Australian history, the old guard of the Aboriginal movement effectively declared the battle won, but nothing really changed.
'“In fact, in New South Wales things got significantly worse, as the state government repealed the Aborigines Welfare Board and withdrew administration for reserves around the state, effectively abandoning tens of thousands of Aboriginal people who were then left in limbo. This led to disillusionment and discontent on the part of the younger generation, whose white counterparts were challenging the white political mainstream over issues to do with imperialism and neo-colonialism (Vietnam), and personal freedom.” . . '