The 1967 referendum was NOT to enable Commonwealth make laws treating Australians differently on grounds of race, indeed the opposite, the referendum aimed stop such discrimination practiced by Commonwealth and States.

The 1967 referendum aimed particularly to benefit Australians who happening to be Aboriginal by declaring they also held same rights, same responsibilities as their fellow Australians, these rights and responsibilities denied by Commonwealth and State governments.

The 1967 referendum re-affirmed desire of federation that ALL Australians held same rights, same responsibilities as their fellow Australians regardless of racial ancestry.

Referendum results demonstrated overwhelming demand from Australians all denial of rights and responsibilities by racial testing be Constitutionally outlawed, so as to Constitutionally stop all those actions and inactions taken by Commonwealth and States stripping fellow Australians of their rights and responsiblities as Australians by racial test.

Each time Justices of High Court permit a Commonwealth or State action which qualifies rights or responsibilites on racial grounds are failing their Constitutional duty to defend the Constitution of Australia AS AGREED TO BY THE PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA.

In Northern Territory families are still segegregated, still seperated on basis of decisions as to racial ancestry. Similar antics around the states, all under popular welfare catch cry: we are here to help you...

Alice Springs based Central Land Council denies Traditional Owner's living within their Traditional Homelands right for spouse or members of family live with them, or visit them, unless obtained is permission from CLC.

CLC objects to federal requirement homes funded using Commonwealth monies provide a valid lease to tennants, many Traditional Owner's living within their Traditional Homelands in housing funded from Commonwealth funds.

CLC concern is simple, giving leases gives rights.... such as right to members of family live with them, or visit them, right have others come visit or assist them, without needing obtain permission from the Central Land Council.

Overwhelming desire of Australian's that no Australian's rights and responsibilities qualified on racial grounds is thwarted, defeated, by racists with support from Parliament greedy for powers to divide Australians...

What galaxy are you people coming from? The 1967 referendum was an attempted con on the Australian people that backfired. The real desire of the government of the day was to break the nexus, a provision in the constitution that ties the size of the Senate to that of the House of Reps. They thought that if they put up two referenda, one on a subject that no-one could object to, and the other to break the nexus, the people would obligingly approve both. Of course the people took the bait and not the hook, by overwhelmingly passing the aboriginal one and rejecting the one on the nexus.

People such as myself, who are totally opposed to any extension of the power of the Commonwealth government under any circumstances whatsoever, and have to watch as both parties inexorably increase that power, without ever obtaining the approval of the people, can only hope that the wariness shown by the people will continue.

Plerdsus asks "What galaxy are you people coming from?" Umm, that'd be the ACILTasman Economic Consulting Galaxy. ACIL Tasman's clients include "Alcoa, Boral, WMC, Rio Tinto" http://www.aciltasman.com.au/Expertise/expertise_environment.html .

I can't shake the nagging feeling that Johns' objections to "interventions such as collectivisation and self-determination" have more to do with the business needs of his clients than with any great concern for Indigenous welfare. Much easier to deal with individuals than with unwieldy organisations. As a friend who deals with Indigenous organisations complains that they just "talk, talk, talk and don't decide anything". Just like Parliament.

When he Gary Johns says that "the 3,000 Aborigines squatting in camps around Alice Springs have escaped from the prison of collectivised land rights", I feel we have entered an alternative reality. Does Gary really know so little about town camps? That people regularly travel to and fro between the camps and remote settlements. That some come in to town from dry communities to go on benders.

So Gary Johns is President of the Bennelong Society? More like President of the Ignorant Self-Interest Society.

Gary Johns, failed ex Laborite and mediocre intellectual.

I have no desire to indulge this effort other than to say -

Gary, its time you got a real job and life.

We blackfella's and our issues have propped up your failing political career for long enough.

Bugger off! You’re a dud

Knock off! The 40th Anniversary does not need rubbish such as this. I'm afraid Johns who has made quite a career out of his participation in the "Aboriginal industry" he is such a critic of. He needs to open his eyes to the systematic disadvantage faced by Indigenous peoples and on the flip side the all-pervading advantage and privilege of Whites before we can actually take him seriously. Johns, you're one of those - lets bring back assimilation because we (the benevolent government and associated intellectual fringe-dwellers) have tried self-determination and it hasn't worked. I'm waiting for the article that provides an analytical and sophisticated framework for understanding the highs and lows of post-1967, please!

I think the only point of agreement with Johns is that the 1967 referendum result has not been front, centre and foremost with federal and state lawmakers since. Who can forget deputy PM Fischer talking 'bucketloads' of extinguishment on High Court native title rights post Wik. Incidently how do you get an application form for the Bennelong Society? Couldn't the Cadjagal people of Sydney Cove slap a prior patent or trade mark on such a local landmark?

We are Backward - we are powerless while the spin of government pay MILLIONS on MEDIA to self elect - when just a few million is required to set up an infrastruture that attacks the base problems we experience at ground levels in CAPE YORK.

What can we do when the RESPECT required negates the historical road we have travelled, to get the right policies - to understand common HUMAN NEEDS and what is meant for our joint progress.

Self-determination what is it?

Hope is all we have to hope for... where no government cares!

I am Proud of (NSW) Linda Byrne and I wish she worked up here in Cape York!

Australia needs to take some responsibility at BASE level. Cape York is going from bad to somewhere else.... Commit to Care I think is all I can say. Lobby for TAFE and all the basic COMMUNITY services and a governannce that "gets involved" with people.

http://www.miacat.com/Media_Pan_One/REGIONAL_Pacific_News/Local_Cape_York/CouncilReform.asp
.

Most problems experienced pre1967 came from being identified and treated as Aboriginal whilst ignoring and or diminishing also being Australian.

Most problems experienced post1967 came from being identified and treated as Aboriginal whilst ignoring and or diminishing also being Australian.

Advances seen were where efforts to identify and treat as Aboriginal whilst ignoring and or diminishing being Australian were ignored.

These advances occurred where people were seen and treated first as Australians with equal rights and responsibilities.

What do these civil rights or civil responsibilities as Australians got to do with the racial and or religious identification of Australians ?

Absolutely nothing except in the minds of raicsts.


All Australians are entitled to identify themselves by whatever blend of racial ancestry they perceive to be theirs, exists no role for these in determining civil rights and or civil responsibilities.

Social responsiblities, whether racial, philosophical and or religious responsibilities, Australians, people, choose to maintain and exercise from their heritage is their business, is their right, where their doing this does not impair others exercising their rights and or responsiblities..

Great posts here. Just shows you how easy it is to outflank Wanabe Gaza.

Johns is obviously not a student of history.

While 1967 referendum is celebrated by many as a coming of age it did not deal with fundamental issues of law.

Unlike all other commonwealth nations no treaty has ever been entered into with Indigenous peoples here in Australia.

The status of Indigenous people recognised as 'Indigenous people' has never been addressed at law. Mabo avoided it like the plague and the high court avoided engaging this common law issue the few times it has been raised.

The unresolved status and non recognition continues to leave this legal conundrum up in the air with no resolution in sight.

Labor promises an apology but this will not address it either.

See: http://www.answers.com/topic/paul-coe

As a “constitutionalist” I can only agree with “plerdsus” that the 1967 referendum was a con-job, as I have stated so time and again in my various books.
Aboriginals voted already in the first Federal election in 1901, where they had State franchise as Section 41 of the Constitution protected those rights. The commonwealth (contrary to John’s argument) did not grand rights in 1962, rather had unconstitutionally robbed Aboriginals of their rights.
The con-job referendum provided however that rather that Aboriginals became equal, they by subsequently legislation lost their “citizenship”. Constitutionally, they were equal since federation, the fact that the Commonwealth had unconstitutionally robbed them of this equality is a different matter. As such if the “social security” was wrongly denied to them prior to 1966 then this is to no avail to purportedly amend the constitution and obtain precisely the opposing effect as what was intended.

In my various INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books I have extensively canvassed this issue and likewise so on my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com, perhaps Gary Johns could do some real research and learn that the 1967 con-job referendum had nothing to do with equality for Aboriginals as in fact it was robbing them of it.
And worse, was to rob all Australians also of their constitutional rights in an unconstitutional manner, but that is another lengthy issue to address.
Subsection 51(xxvi) was specifically to DISCRIMINATE against “coloured races” and by the 1967 referendum Aboriginals were robbed of their equality and were reduced to not even second class citizens but no citizens status at all.

Subsection 51(xxvi) was specifically to DISCRIMINATE against “coloured races” who were British Subjects, but not Australians.

The 1967 referendum Aboriginals was abused claiming it legitimised the denial, the robbing of equality, by the Commonwealth which s.51(xxvi) specifically denied the Commonwealth and which the people certainly did not vote to support !

Sole purpose of carpetbaggers promoting racial rights consistently has been to reduce, deny, qualify, for all Australians all their otherwise held rights and responsibilities, with authorisation claimed for these demotions and denials being done by racial testing to help us... while keeping their snouts in the trough

As I have extensively canvassed in my books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series, the 1967 CON-JOB REFERENDUM was sold to the Aboriginals and other electors to be for their better but as my blog http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH also sets out afterwards it became clear that it sought to be used for anti discriminatory purposes such as homosexuals even so this got absolutely nothing to do with “coloured race”.

On my blog I have also set out why constitutionally John Howard’s SHOCK & AWE upon Aboriginals is unconstitutional.

Australians are constitutionally “subjects of the British Crown” and it doesn’t matter if they are Aboriginals or not in that case.

When I came into Australia in 1971 I had never heard about Aboriginals, and certainly have no guilt feelings to say sorry to them, however, I do not accept the unconstitutional conduct now avenged against them, seemingly under the cover of dealing with child abuse, but robbing them of their land for mining.
In my view, any lawyer representing Aboriginals using the material published on my blog should have sufficient material to prevent such an UNCONSTITUTIONAL/ILLEGAL take over.

Laws that are unconstitutional are no laws at all and do not provide any legal rights or protection for the Federal Government!

As is set out on my blog there are other ways to deal with child abuse without robbing the Aboriginals of their dignity and property, etc.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®