A regularly repeated claim in public debate is that Indigenous Australians were covered by a flora and fauna act, which did not classify them as human beings, and that this only changed when the constitution was amended following the 1967 referendum.
Ms Clanton's claim is a myth. Aboriginal people in Australia have never been covered by a flora and fauna act, either under federal or state law. But despite several attempts by various people to set the record straight, the myth continues to circulate, perhaps because, as one academic told Fact Check, it "embodies elements of a deeper truth about discrimination". Although the claim has been repeated more frequently during the past 10 years, there is evidence to suggest the myth originated in the early 1970s. Both an expert consulted by Fact Check and a museum website in Western Australia suggest several factors have given rise to the notion that a flora and fauna act once existed. Also, a widespread and energetic campaign for a yes vote in the 1967 referendum played a crucial role in setting the conditions for the myth to emerge. Experts told Fact Check that the referendum involved "dry" technical amendments to the constitution relating to Indigenous Australians. As these were difficult to explain in a campaign-friendly way, campaigners for a yes vote instead pushed the idea of equal rights and justice for Aboriginal people. The hugely successful referendum was thereby imbued with a symbolism that further enriched the conditions for the myth to take root; that before the constitution was amended, Indigenous Australians were classified according to a flora and fauna act — a completely incorrect conclusion.
Fact check: Were Indigenous Australians classified under a flora and fauna act until the 1967 referendum?
['None']