You do not seem to understand the constitutional context of Section 51(xxvi), it was created because at the time India was under British rule and the Framers of the Constitution didn’t want to have the Commonwealth of Australia flooded by British subject of India, as they were entitled to enter, and for this created the special provision for the Commonwealth to legislate against a specific race. Further, it was also to keep in check the Afghans, Chinese, etc. And they held that if a special legislation was enacted against a specific race then it had to apply to all persons of that race and they would all AUTOMATICALLY lose their franchise (political rights).
On 2-3-1898 it was made clear that Section 127 was unfair against Aboriginals but it was held better to do so because of the burden upon the newly formed States having to pay taxes per head of population. If Aboriginals had been included then this may have resulted to a mass extermination just to save a lot of money payable on taxes, and so in the overall it was better to have Section 127 and at the time few Aboriginals voted, as being the best all around.
The right to vote for an Aboriginal was with the States as like that of anyone else.
Subsection 51(xxvi) excluded any legislation against the general community. And while the High Court of Australia claims that the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is not within Subsection 51(xxvi) but within external affairs powers, this cannot be so because the Framers of the Constitution made clear that “external affairs" powers only related to the given legislative powers!. The RDA 1974 is and remains to be unconstitutional.
Subsection 51(xxvi) PRIOR TO THE 1967 AMENDMENT protected Aboriginals against racial discrimination!

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the Commonwealth aboriginal natives shall not be counted.
Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this colony, and I suppose in some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives who are on the rolls, and they ought not to be debarred from voting.
Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the aboriginal population is too small to affect that in the least degree.
Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota.
Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they ought not to be deducted.
Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.
Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in reckoning up the people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals vote.
END QUOTE
.
Again;
QUOTE
The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.
END QUOTE
.
This related to s.41 where adult electors of a State (including Aboriginals) who were entitled to vote in State elections also were entitled to vote in federal elections.
.
And s.41 specifically denied the Commonwealth to exclude any person who had the right to vote in a State election and being an "adult" from voting in a federal election!

Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders.
Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
.
Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized subject of the Queen is co-extensive with the ordinary definition of a subject or citizen in America. The moment be is under any disability imposed by the Parliament be loses his rights.
Dr. QUICK.-That refers to special races.
END QUOTE
.
Again
QUOTE
The moment be is under any disability imposed by the Parliament be loses his rights.
END QUOTE
s.51(XXVI) PROVIDES SUCH DISSABILITY! Since the 1967 amendment of s.51(xxvi) ( to include Aboriginals) then Aboriginals therefore constitutionally have lost their vote once the Federal Parliament legislated in regard of them!

So, on some distant planet, Indigenous people now do not have the national vote but they did have the national vote between Federation and the 1967 Referendum ? Are you saying that they do not have the vote now ? That might come as a surprise to Indigenous people.

Don’t blame me for the rot they put onto themselves.
All I do is to set it out what is constitutionally applicable!
Again, in the 1950’s the lawyers warned the then Federal Government against using s.51(xxvi) when it then contemplated to amend this section that it would rather harm Aboriginals.

For your information, late last year I was asked to assist in a case as a CONSTITUTIONALIST, where up to 20 lawyers were involved in the case all ganging up against this about 62 year old man and they already had declared him mentally unfit and appointed an Administrator and the judge made clear she could imprison him for up to 5 years for CONTEMPT.
So, I came along and explained that he was the only sane person in the litigation and the rest all were mental. I then explained at two different hearings that this man had done no legal wrong but the lawyers had it all fabricated. The trial judge ordered a permanent stay of the proceedings but I also have the administration orders to be defeated. What was proved was that with all those lawyers involved not a single one of them was aware that actually the man had done no legal wrong.

Like that I found the same in other court cases where I defeated the crown lawyers on 19-7-2006 because after a 5-year epic legal case on numerous constitutional matters. It is that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I pursue the proper application of the Constitution and it is up to the Aboriginals and others if they desire to rectify the error of amending s.51(xxvi) or not. They chose to amend it in 1967 and so they cannot complain about it that it isn’t what they wanted.

As with this man where the lawyers wanted him to be imprisoned I know pursue that they cop it now themselves for perverting the course of JUSTICE by CONSPIRACY. What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander.

One of my daughters is aunty of 5 Aboriginals and therefore do not assume I am against Aboriginals!

On what research and analysis do you base your opinion piece? Are you aware of every Aboriginal person and their use of outstations? Your statements are unfounded and ridiculous.

My family come from two communities and often use our urban dwelling to access hospital and other services. Yes, I have worked since I was 14 and own a car and house.

My mob don't have any government homes let alone two dwellings, they can hardly afford food. Sometimes they have to fork out hundreds of dollars to travel to town due to limited types of available access. However they won't bear a victims label, they just keep working hard and improving their lives. One day at a time, despite the blatant racist comments spewed out on public forums like this.

I fail to see how Online opinion would allow this to be uploaded on their site. Fact-less and racist is the only way to describe this piece. I won't be reading any further comments so save your breath