The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The nature of Australian citizenship > Comments

The nature of Australian citizenship : Comments

By Patricia Jenkings, published 18/12/2006

Tracing the history of Australian citizenship since the first Act came into force in 1949.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
You beat me to it AKA, good on ya!

Patricia Jenkings provides us all with a wonderful illustration of how 'terra nullius' was not just a legal myth but also a state of mind, a disremembering on a grand scale, a’whitefella’ amnesia lost in its own toxic forgetfulness. And it appears this author has a Phd in social policy and education. How embarrassing is that !!??

For a much more informed opinion on the 67 referendum (its 40 years next year!) -
See this excellent explanation penned by Dr John Gardiner-Garden which is a Background Paper 11 from 1996-97 titled - “The Origin of Commonwealth Involvement in Indigenous Affairs and the 1967 Referendum”

Follow this link;

http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/Pubs/bp/1996-97/97bp11.htm

Here is an insightful quote from this paper. It states:

“Many popular notions associated with the 1967 Referendum belong in the category of myths. The referendum was not whole-heartedly supported by both sides of politics, did not end legal discrimination, did not confer the vote, equal wages and citizenship on indigenous Australians and did not permit for the first time Commonwealth government involvement in Aboriginal Affairs”
Posted by Rainier, Monday, 18 December 2006 9:45:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are so many myths about the 1967 referedum, but what was the actual question that was asked?

It was:

"Question: Do you approve the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled 'An Act to alter the Constitution so as to omit certain words relating to the people of the Aboriginal race in any state so that Aboriginals are to be counted in reckoning the population?"

The effect was to make the Commonwealth, rather than the states, have responsibility for indigenous affairs.

Aborigines in most states had the vote already, they were already considered British citizens, see:

http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/when/history/ab_vote.htm

The 1967 referedum was important for Aboriginal rights, but it must be placed into a different perspective than simply saying that it gave Aboriginals the rights of other citizens.

For another source see

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/web/common.nsf/key/HistoryEarlyFederalPeriod
Posted by Hamlet, Tuesday, 19 December 2006 5:42:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hamlet, Yes thats right, we did have legal entitlement to vote on the basis of British citizenship (not that we were ever asked if we wanted to adopt a second citizenship) but other laws and regulations impeded and denied access to this supposed 'right' of citizenship.

1897 Queensland Aboriginal Protection
and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act
provides for Superintendents to direct
Aboriginal people where to live. No right of
appeal.

1904 Queensland Torres Strait Islanders
under the control of the Chief Protector and
subject to the same legislation as Aboriginal
people in Queensland

1905 Western Australia Aborigines Act
provides for management of reserves
and some medical care and rations as well
as employment relations.
Protectors (who were police officers) were
established in various districts.
Provisions stopped cohabitation between
Aboriginal and others.
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 19 December 2006 5:52:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The by-line to the topic "Tracing the history of Australian citizenship since the first Act came into force in 1949" places the spot-light right on the major deficiency of this article. How is it that Patricia Jenkings, a former political advisor, has not commented upon the most significant aspect of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948, its apparent un-Constitutionality?

Section 44 of the Constitution, in its second paragraph, makes express reference to two classes of persons as being exempt from the disqualifications for membership of the Parliament set out in its first paragraph. Those two classes of persons are Officers or members of the Queen's navy or army (ie. of the UK forces) in the one case, and Officers or members of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth in the other. Clearly both classes of person, being resident within Australia, are recognized by the Constitution as possessing equivalent status with respect to the very pinnacle of the expression of citizenship, legal fitness to be chosen as a member of either House of the Parliament. Equally clearly, both classes of persons do not possess this status as something deriving from their official positions, but as representatives of a much wider class of persons in each case, adult subjects of the Crown by right of birth in the UK now resident in Australia on the one hand, and adult subjects of the Crown by right of birth in Australia or from naturalization under its laws, on the other, all of whom share common nationality and rights under the Constitution. The only thing peculiar to the Officers or members of the respective forces is that they are in receipt of pay from the Crown, which in any other case would disqualify them from being chosen to sit in the Parliament.

Section 44 has never been altered since Federation. The Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 (renamed 1973 the Australian Citizenship Act 1948) would therefore seem un-Constitutional. The new affirmation appears to lack proper foundation in law. Those having made it may be not yet properly Australian.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 4:14:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy