"Traditionally, the Australian Electoral Office (AEO)..."

Its actually the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). An error that makes one wonder about the rest of the piece.

"But says nothing of the fact that the indigenous question in the 1967 referendum did not include a "no" argument, just a "yes". That is the convention."

The legislation to start the referendum process was passed unanimously by the parliament ie no one opposed the referendum. That is why a "no" case wasn't funded by the government. That is the convention.

That won't be the case this time around and if the government funded a "yes" case it'd be forced to fund a "no" case also. But giving both sides isn't in the left's DNA so it is going to fund neither side and allow its $1b mouth-piece (the ABC) to make the "yes" case instead.

Many in agencies like ASIO, the AFP and State Police forces believe the runup to the Voice referendum and results from it will lead to an increase in sectarian and political motivated violence in Australia.

That is from some pro-Voice Left and some anti-Voice Right.

Also of concern are those who may resist the unrolling of new powers of the Commonwealth justified by the Voice.

More incidents like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wieambilla_police_shootings is one of the concerns.

Dear mhaze,

There was a universal support for the changes by all politicians back then which is why I enjoy making the point.

There seemed very little chance given the current state of politics that this would happen this time.

Reading the Hansard from 65 and 67 it is obvious how the better nature of our representatives came to the fore. The was a genuine reluctance to turn the referendum into a divisive political bun fight, even if there were some reservations:

“In coming to this conclusion, the Government has been influenced by the popular impression that the words now proposed to be omitted from section 51 (xxvi) are discriminatory - a view which the Government believes to be erroneous but which, nevertheless, seems to be deep rooted.”
Harold Holt CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL 1967 Second reading.

Whitlam’s message was on point as well.

“This is a very valuable Bill. There can be no question of our attitude as a party in the Parliament or outside it. It is sufficient for me to say that back in 1 959 the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party made it Party policy to repeal both section 127 and the relevant words of paragraph 26 of section 51 of the Constitution. I apprehend that there will be no opposition in the Parliament to this Bill or to this referendum, and. while we can never take such things for granted, we will certainly hope that for the honour of this country and the welfare of the Aboriginal citizens of it this referendum proposal will receive overwhelming acceptance. I trust that all members of this House will fulfil their duty in the public arena by urging an overwhelming vote in favour of this referendum proposal.”

Cont…

Cont...

And Bob Katter Snr was doing his bit in a Katter fashion:

“1 warn briefly and simply to express my appreciation of the proposal before the House. I am perturbed at the various ways people approach the Aboriginal question. 1 rise tonight not to sing any sanctimonious hallelujahs, but merely to say that at long last another step is being taken to give these people appropriate status. In my town we simply live with these people. I am 48 years old and I have been associated with them all my life. I have been to school with them, grown up with them and mixed with them. Psychologically we can never see any difference. This may sound a little silly to people who live in the cities but it is perfectly true.”

Kim Beazley Snr was as well:

“The Commonwealth should have this power because it is the Government which is confronted with the conscience of the world on this issue. 1 believe that we ought to transform our Aboriginal policies because it is right to do so. I am not speaking about a lot of sentimental policies; I am speaking about policies which are right.”

And Bill Wentworth who later became Aboriginal Affairs minister for the Liberals was quite pointed and really set the scene for the current referendum:

“Some people say - I think wrongly - that no discrimination is necessary in regard to the Aboriginal people. I think that some discrimination is necessary. But I think it should be favourable, not unfavourable.”

All are available on Hansard.

Dear Maverick,

Utter garbage. How about you provide a reputable link to this ridiculous assertion.

Yes SR that's what I said - in far fewer words. There was no one to make the "no" case therefore one wasn't made. That is the only 'convention' that came out of 1967. It has nought to do with the current situation and , despite your insinuation.

The convention is, on this type of issue at least, that in the past our politicians refer to their better nature and come together to advance the cause of our indigenous folk thus not requiring a 'No' argument to be made.

I backed that up with quotes from members from both sides of politics.

Why is this a problem?