Australians to learn from 1967 referendum before Voice to Parliament

Victorian Barrister Stuart Wood discusses with Sky News host Amanda Stoker the lessons for Australia to take from the 1967 referendum on Indigenous affairs and apply it to the Voice to Parliament.

[@justice1902]

If you love Australia and your children, then vote No.

[@Prognosis__]

Vote no, we don’t need more interference in parliament

[@Aaronwhatnow]

Again misinformation

[@Super_Mario128]

@@Aaronwhatnowwaffle

[@Prognosis__]

@@Aaronwhatnowyou live in Germany, why would you care?

[@Aaronwhatnow]

​@@Prognosis__you live on Canada why would you care?

[@whiskeygamer9402]

The Voice will send Australia Dead Broke and divide the country straight down the middle.

[@seandelap8587]

Vote no Australia

[@peterbarnhoorn7879]

I think the people of Australia are sick of govts, State & Federal, both are destroying Australia 🇦🇺 😢

[@matthansberry5795]

We also had a referendum on recognising councils as third tier government resounding, no yet they still done it

[@mikespike2099]

Aussies of all colours say no to Albanese Apartheid!!

[@ohasis8331]

Perfectly valid argument right there for a no vote. That said, it begs the question of the validity of this voice bs.

[@rogermckinnon5738]

One people One Australia vote no to the voice

[@rhyno1740]

JJUST VOTE NO. SIMPLE.

[@bryceettwell9537]

NO is the ONLY way to go!!!!

[@plukkaduck8347]

clearly if the government already has the power to do what the voice is meant to do, then their proposed voice is not about helping Aboriginal people and is certainly not what Albo is claiming.

[@PK51X]

100% correct

[@blox82]

Yep correct. Mechanism to run ATSI affairs already well established & working. True motive of voice is an activist power & $cash grab. VOTE NO!

[@dildoswaggins2907]

@@ozmaniac101and usher in communism via the backdoor

[@paulhall170]

It's about the Prime Minister trying to elevate himself into the pantheon of Labor greats with Hawke, Whitlam, etc....

[@NoChannelChannel]

It's all a distraction while our country falls apart,

[@matthewphillipps475]

I’m voting no A lot of people I know will vote no

[@dominicgalante9753]

VOTE NO VOTE NO NO NO NO TO THIS VOICE

[@nigelmorgan3449]

Vote NO Learn Albo will never learn

[@dietmarventzke5327]

Vote no

[@andreaconnelly3799]

Bingo! Another voice that makes sense. Yeah Linda Burney do your job because nothing is stopping you. We don’t need a referendum we need Linda Burney and the Government to do there jobs for all Australians. And Anthony please take the misinformation and disinformation bill and shred that thing.

[@janicevasey4038]

He spreads the most misinformation and disinformation by not even knowing what the Uluru statement is!

[@andreaconnelly3799]

@@janicevasey4038this isn’t about the statement, it’s about the misinformation and disinformation about to be enshrined into the constitution. The government already has the power to help the small disadvantage Indigenous communities. Here is my just a vibe truth telling: I came from the dream-time From the dusty red-soil plains I am the ancient heart The keeper of the flame I stood upon the rocky shores I watched the tall ships come For forty thousand years I've been The first Australian I came upon the prison ship Bowed down by iron chains I bought the land, endured the lash And waited for the rains I'm a settler, I'm a farmer's wife On a dry and barren run A convict, then a free man I became Australian I'm the daughter of a digger Who sought the mother lode The girl became a woman On the long and dusty road I'm a child of the Depression I saw the good times come I'm a bushie, I'm a battler I am Australian We are one, but we are many And from all the lands on earth we come We'll share a dream and sing with one voice "I am, you are, we are Australian" I'm a teller of stories I'm a singer of songs I am Albert Namatjira And I paint the ghostly gums I'm Clancy on his horse I'm Ned Kelly on the run I'm the one who waltzed Matilda I am Australian I'm the hot wind from the desert I'm the black soil of the plains I'm the mountains and the valleys I'm the drought and flooding rains I am the rock, I am the sky The rivers when they run The spirit of this great land I am Australian We are one, but we are many And from all the lands on earth we come We'll share a dream and sing with one voice "I am, you are, we are Australian" We are one, but we are many And from all the lands on earth we come We'll share a dream and sing with one voice "I am, you are, we are Australian" "I am, you are, we are Australian"

[@jimgraham5221]

This needs to be told the Australian people, Albo and labour will divide this country

[@gail9906]

Vote No Australia! ❤️🇦🇺🦘

[@geoffbrown1518]

Glad to see some of the myths surrounding the 1967 referendum being shown up as myth.

[@donaldwingent547]

The Australian Constitution was not designed to empower individuals or groups on a Racial Bases . Australians are and must remain as equals in terms of rights and responsibilities in order for our country to survive as a model of private enterprise that is both strong and resilient..

[@barryjulianwaldron3656]

The great Aussie Referendum 2023 voice proposition is not limited to being an “Advisory Body”only. Where in the referendum proposition can one read the words “advisory body” or the words “no power of veto”. Nowhere! One can only read the word “a body”. This means the proposition is not a closed question but an open ended question to ensure that the function and purpose of the body can change in the future or even at the very moment the referendum passes. It would be such that a government who commands a majority vote in the Parliament could grant the body for being only “a body” a new power or powers from a simple parliamentary consent and thereby changing the function and purpose of the body in the future. If the “yes” mob were sincere about the body being only an “advisory body” then the words “advisory body” and not “ a body” would be embedded into the wording of the referendum proposition making the proposition a closed question. Beware. This is the trick in the trap! Mr. Albanese says it’s only an advisory body. A modest request. Just a small change. But Why? Why aren’t the referendum alarm bells ringing? 🇦🇺💯%

[@MarkForbes-dr4ie]

Just vote no, the minister for aboriginal affairs just needs to do her job,if that person can't replace them that's how it happens in industry,why is poor performance tolerated in government

[@nigelmorgan3449]

Sleezy Albo has never worn a hard hat I don’t think he knows what 12 mm open end spanner looks like

[@robertfonovic3551]

If so, then, how can he be such a tool?😅

[@123452315]

Dna testing for race grifters.

[@666dualsport]

the voice is a decoy for albos incompetence

[@flyonthewalltheatre]

vOTE NO!

[@warrenedser1996]

nnn The first Parliament. The first federal elections for the new Australian Parliament were held on 29 and 30 March 1901. The first Governor-General of Australia, Lord Hopetoun, proclaimed the Commonwealth of Australia at a special ceremony in Centennial Park, Sydney, 1 January 1901. “The Commonwealth/people of Australia” was registered as a “sovereign nation” (which is legally NOT the same as a sovereign country). The corporation known as the "Commonwealth of Australia" then existed from 1934 to 1973. The term of then 'Indigenous' was very popular before the politically more correct 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander' replaced it in the referendum of 1967. But all these terms were coined by non-Indigenous people. Until now. The new term that is emerging in Australia now is 'First Nations people(s). *********** Since the Whitlam Labor Government Australia has been registered as a Corporation. We have lost our sovereignty. We are no longer subjects of HM Queen Elizabeth the Second. Nor are we a part of the Commonwealth under the Crown. Instead, we have been sold out and we are now dictated to by the United Nations. The political parties, led by the LIB/ALP cartel registered a Corporate Government under a UN ‘CORPORATION REGISTERED NUMBER’ in the USA, using a corporate structure called the “Brigalow Corporation”. Today, our so-called Government is nothing more than the caretaker to sell off all public owned assets such as: ‘Water’ ‘Electricity’ ‘Rail and transport’ ‘Ports and Shipping’ - etc. before UN takeover and the proclamation of the NEW laws which will take effect immediately. If you don’t like it, you’ll get locked up. ALL AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS HAVE BECOME A CARETAKER FOR THE UN: THESE ARE THE CORPORATE REGISTRATION NUMBERS In the December 8, 2009 writ the applicants demanded that the executive government of Australia ‘cease all operations that are carried out under the Commonwealth of Australia ABN 122 104 616 and registered with the United States American Securities and Exchange Commission : No. 000 080 5157 and further command them to dissolve their subsidiary companies being: Anyone getting the picture that the voice is a distraction to make this corporation a republic and then the rewriting of the Constitution: Mr Albanese said if he were to 'write the constitution again', 'he wouldn't advocate for three levels of government'- He attacked the differing education, health and justice systems and said Australia should have 'a singular economy', not six. Anthony Albanese says he 'wouldn't mind abolishing states in Australia'-There it is, 'the Republic will be reorganized into an Empire' 'ruled by this august body and a sovereign ruler chosen for life. An Empire ruled by the majority, ruled by a 'new Constitution.' What does the PM want to add to the constitution? ********* History the key players don't want you to know. The Department had its origins in the Office of Aboriginal Affairs (OAA), which was established by the Holt government in 1967 following a constitutional amendment that granted the federal government new powers. The Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts was an Australian government department that existed between May 1971 and December 1972 that was created by the McMahon government Formed: 31st May 1971; Dissolved:19th December 1972. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs was an Australian government department that existed between December 1972 and Dissolved: 5th March 1990. In 1990, the Hawke government merged the functions of the Aboriginal Development Commission with those of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to create the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission ( ATSIC), which became formally responsible for overseeing government programs such as health and education. ATSIC was established by the Hawke government through the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 (the ATSIC Act), which took effect on 5 March 1990. The body ATSIC Formed 5 March 1990:the body will provide neither rights nor effective governance for Indigenous peoples. Dissolved: 30 June 2005. Dismantling ATSIC: Howard government: The body ATSIC Formed 5 March 1990:the body has not provided neither rights nor effective governance for Indigenous peoples. Dissolved: 30 June 2005. Voice to Parliament a ‘new ATSIC’ of activists who weren’t elected: Bolt: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z3OXZYiQbNJ_hs0 a new name here for Subject/Title- The Voice to Parliament is a “new ATSIC” of 24 activists who weren't elected and a body which can’t be sacked by the government- once enshrined, you can never get rid of it- it is there forever. @jamesmatheson5115 1 month ago John Howard demolished ATSIC in 2005 because of the rorting from the Aboriginal Elites. If this was in the Constitution they would still be rorting the system and Aboriginal communities. @philipstallwood9813 1 month ago For anyone who actually has an understanding of history ATSIC wasn't running within the law, it's leader had some serious legal issues and because of that it was decided that it didn't perform its function for indigenous people appropriately. @leanneverrier2124 1 month ago Time for a full investigation of all the rorting before any other body is set up, and most definitely NOT to give the likes of Langton and Pearson, Mayo that amount of control over the rest of us. Outrageous. After ATSIC a new body was formed The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) July 01, 2019 Jurisdiction: Australian Government: Minister responsible: Linda Burney, Minister for Indigenous Australians: 4.9 Billion goes to this Agency per year. The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) is committed to improving the lives of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The NIAA recognises that each community is unique. Our team includes people across Australia who work closely with communities to make sure policies, programs and services address these unique needs. We work to support Minister responsible: Linda Burney, Minister for Indigenous Australians. Now Linda Burney wants to have another body inside the parliament to conduct their rorting without even being sacked "once enshrined you can never get rid of it". If those reading this comment are getting the full picture from 1967 they have constant bodies and now 2023 this body The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) in Canberra Postal address National Indigenous Australians Agency PO Box 2191 Canberra ACT 2600 where the key player want to have a protected body enshrined into the Australian Constitution forever. ********************************************* We are all being played -but this time as did those in the wars fought for our freedom and right to be alive today, we shall fight a different war- a stealth war.

[@sharynwillis8920]

Thank you for clearing this up, and explaining it so well

[@GrandmaShirley-p5m]

Vince remembers the year of 67 well and at the time i thought it was 1969 so i wrote a classic song 🎵 summer of 69.

[@k20t30pl]

Communism can still be legislated while the people are ignored. Currently there is a debate on whether the Liberal Party will entrench a Voice to Parliament by legislating it in. It would be backstabbing deceitful if the Liberal Party did that. Hope in parliament will be lost.

[@jujumaccas]

If it can be legislated in, it can be legislated out. Not so if it’s ‘established’ by Albo into the Constitution. And if the Yes gets up, they’ll never allow another referendum to remove it.

[@k20t30pl]

@@jujumaccas Labor and Liberal will work together for the world elites by pushing through a "type" of Voice into Parliament. Elbow and Dutton both know that the Voice will not be enshrined in the constitution but both Elbow and Dutton know that they can legally enshrine it through Socialist tactics. The media conglomerates and the governing institutions (education, health, councils, etc), and corporate businesses (that use government credit points) can continually impose the "ideology" of the Voice throughout society as they have both been doing so with Wokism and climate change. All communist governments use socialist tactics to enforce control over the people. If the people do not comply, their fake socialist narratives that has been repeated a thousand of times by the media, provides a means for the government to add to their story with their self-righteous reasons for killing people who protest. That is how communism works.

[@josa9902]

Okay, so what is the VOICE about ? VOTE NO to this rubbish

[@karenaustin6858]

Make sure you vote NO in all boxes in your own pen don't use the pencils provided as I have heard there are trick questions to get a Yes vote.

[@mclanaford2957]

Yes I have heard about the trick question too. On that piece of paper DO NOT PUT ONE YES a on there as that one yes cancels out YOU NO VOTE. Please remember the left Yes is desperate so the left Yes will resort to any measure.

[@simplesimon4717]

Vote Yes if you want to see Australia go down.

[@peterjames174]

63% of indigenous funding is not going to the indigenous people, an inquiry needs to happen, if all funding went to the indigenous people we wouldn't need a referendum, the indigenous industry scabs to be weeded out and cut off, police should be involved.

[@tomraw4893]

Great points Mr Wood. Our elected politicians have no idea that the commonwealth has already set up elected bodies, such as ATSIC, and Land Councils, and an Aboriginal Loan Commission, to give a Voice to Aboriginal people, plus the government made Aboriginal councils on communities, and elected Community organizations, incorporated bodies.

[@stevewiles7132]

The whole exercise of the voice is simply to hand over power and control.

[@ianenglish123]

Yep lets all go back to 1967. Murdoch would love that. It would be nice to think Australians have evolved, matured and progressed a little in nearly 60 years.

[@paulhundy2986]

What the hell does 92 year old Rupert Murdoch have to do with it ? He's officially an American citizen, he lives there, and would be lucky at his age to go to the toilet on his own. Find yourself a new bad guy, the Murdoch thing is getting very old.

[@ianenglish123]

@@paulhundy2986 You dont think his corporation sets and has an agenda, he owns 37% of Sky for one , Fox News. You think his corporate interests are not with News broadcasters and Media control, lol His whole empire revolves around it, with significant interests across corporate Australia including large scale agriculture and mining. Recently one of his ex CEO"s in America directly answering to him described him as a threat to democracy. Why do you think James parted company with him. Murdoch's company has an agenda, supporting the very rich, big corporations and right wing sympathizers . When Tony Abbott first set foot in America, Rupert Murdoch was one of the first persons he met. Not embassy officials or diplomats, it was Murdoch, That was less than 10 years ago. You think the people he hires don't fit into the company profile pff. 92 0r not Lachlan and Him still set the agenda, screw the poor through misinformation. That's why Fox got sued for $780, 000,000 and he almost had to take the stand even at 92 if they didn't settle. I can't wait to see what happens when Smartmatic are in court. $2.2 Billion is there claim and its well substantiated. You probably should keep up with events on a wider spectrum.

[@michaelconnolly4382]

No.

[@jennyobrien398]

Exactly. Why mess around with th constitution

[@AndrewLester-r3l]

In 1967 I was told to keep away from those people down there.

[@user-johnolchowy]

nobody give us a ****

[@aggressivecalm]

Acknowledgement of Country and Welcome to Country are dictatorial overbearing ceremonies. The notion that Australians must be welcomed or invited to their own country by Indigenous leaders - as occurs at the opening of state and federal parliaments, conferences, and school assemblies - is a divisive and destructive one. And compelling compulsory Acknowledgement of Country and Welcome to Country into meetings, gatherings, is entirely self-centred, narrow-minded, bigoted, insulting, and represents a clear provocation that Australian’s not of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage are not Australian’s, or require permission, it's a narrow minded put-down, and an inequality, a bias extended to 97.5% of the Australian population. And Acknowledgement of Country and Welcome to Country are highly similar, comparable to forced religious compliance. This practice, while it may appear reasonable or harmless, is a manifestation of the ongoing assault on Australia’s Western heritage and implies that non-Indigenous Australians, whose families have called Australia home for many generations, do not really belong here. I recently attended an event where the audience (mostly comprised of Australians with European heritage) were ‘welcomed’ by an Indigenous speaker. It was a pitiful display of bitterness, hostility, resentment, and even hatred towards white Australians. Indeed, it was little more than a self-centred scolding for the colour of our skin. The speaker bluntly stated that Australia still belongs to ‘First Nations’ people (a nonsensical and ahistorical term lifted from Canada’s debates about colonialism) and does not belong to so-called ‘white people’ (or presumably any other migrant families). He then asserted that the audience needed to learn Australia’s ‘true history’. This, even though ignorance of Australia’s British heritage clearly has no such requirement on him. For the reason that I can only gather: of the innate, and non hereditary corruption our culture represents? It was an overtly adversarial presentation - devoid of hope, optimism or a positive vision for Australians. Not a trace of recognition for the fact that Indigenous people enjoy the same fundamental rights that all Australians enjoy, or the tremendous efforts that governments, charities, and individuals have put into improving life for Indigenous Australians over many decades. Instead, the speaker aggressively asserted that Indigenous people are still colonised and that white people must continue to be reminded of this until colonialism ends. The belief that all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, have a right to call the country in which we were born home is now openly condemned, and attacked. The sought-after outcome for such activists is unclear. How, exactly, will we know when enough has been done to overcome racism? What measurable goals must be achieved? When will we be able to congratulate ourselves for elevating Indigenous voices and dismantling colonialism enough? Will it be when all references to our British history are entirely subverted within the national curriculum, as has been ongoing, and ever increasing over the last decades? Or when we abolish the Australian flag? Or when we abolish Australia Day? Or when we appoint an activist ‘First Nations’ as our sovereign overlord? At what point will we have made enough ‘progress’? Only when the entirety of Australian history has been rewritten and devalued? Ironically, Qantas pilots are required to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the state when transiting Australia. It is a strange form of colonialism in which major corporations, from airlines to the AFL, feel the need to constantly remind everyone that the land belongs to Indigenous people. And subsequently not to all Australians. It has no equality, and no sense of community. One would think that if racism were the ubiquitous problem that we are told it is then major corporations would not bother with such sentiments. White people, as nebulous as that concept is, are not guests in Australia. My ancestors were also born and raised here many generations ago. No this level of clear discrimination is racist, bigoted, narrow-minded, and prejudiced. And it must end. The Voice is not a path to reconciliation, and harmony it is a path to entrench structural racism within our nation's constitution. Something that should be abhorrent to all Australians but particularly so to Indigenous Aboriginal, and Torres Strait Islander’s. ❤🇦🇺🦘 ❌❌❌End 'Welcome' to Country.❌❌❌ ✅✅✅Start Acknowledging that you’re Australians, just like the rest of us.✅✅✅

[@beepbeep6861]

How is it your country, did you or the British and now the Australian government, make a fair deal or if any, to exchange land off our first nations, indigenous people.

[@aggressivecalm]

How is it your country, did you or the China and now the China government, make a China deal or if any, to exchange China off our China China , indigenous China people.@@beepbeep6861

[@innocentbystander2673]

1:49 'Sorry, no i cut you off'. Another quality journalist who cannot help but jump in mid sentence after asking a question.

[@benjaminthistle6637]

Indigenous just want non indigenous to yield to them, the referendum is just to see if non indigenous have to yield to indigenous or if indigenous have to yield to non indigenous

[@innocentbystander2673]

How is it possible that his microphone is CLOSER to his mouth with perfect audio and hers is FURTHER away but filled with over driven plosives? Why...

[@6times7equals]

The reason Aboriginals were not included in any special laws is because it worked in tandem with section 127. This section was nothing to do with being in the census it is there to advise that those people in the country (land mass) who were of Aboriginal race and wanted to keep their Native traditions, they were protected from the laws of the Constitution impacting them. When Andrew I Clarke first drafted the Constitution in the original section 51 he had two subsections for statistics and census this was then summarized down to including them in the same subsection, at this point of summary it could have very easily been added except for Aboriginal people. In section 127 they use the term Aboriginal Natives, Aboriginal is the noun and Native is the postpositive adjective. Post positive adjectives are used to modify the Noun to give it special meaning which was that if they are keeping to their state of being before colonization then they have the choice to drop the adjective and are immediately included under the Constitution. This section comes straight from the Bible being that the men who wrote the Constitution were generally exceptionally good Bible scholars. Jesus said to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. The only way to ensure the Aboriginal people got the fairest deal possible since the British Crown came and dropped a bunch of criminals on their doorstep and who were generally too poor and unable to afford the expensive passage back to Britain at the end of their sentence so stuck around to forge a Nation (legal framework) was to exclude them from the laws of that Nation so long as they chose. Read the Constitution any laws pertaining to Aboriginal people prior to 1967 were illegal yet they were there so 1967 allowed many criminals to get away with what they had done. Sir Henry Parkes was very passionate about the Aboriginal People and did a huge amount of work for them, yet because of a lack of understanding of Bible jargon and interpretation is branded a racist in his Crimson Thread Speech the Thread being Jesus not white blood. I can only conclude that in 1967 when the mining sectors went from making thousands to Millions, they realized that no law made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth could force those Aboriginal people living traditionally on the land they wanted to mine so set about to ensure they were under the laws same as everyone else. The very reason section 127 is at the end is to make sure it's the last thing you read hence the first thing you remember. If you were to translate section 127 into more modern speak you could translate it as "In considering the total number of the people of the Commonwealth or state or other part of the commonwealth, Aboriginal (Race as according to A Clarke) Natives (Postpositive adjective) shall not be bound under this Law (Constitution as defined by Clarke) If the Aboriginal people want reparations they should really be looking to King Charles as it was his family who first sent those criminals and it is his Crown who technically owns the Land our nation simply leases for its lifetime for mere royalties out of the ground (which ends when the people choose and renegotiate this lease) this is the reason for royal assent as he is an ex officio member of the 3 tiers due to ownership of the Land and our link to the Church which is our greatest protection if used wisely as God instructed. This is not preaching this is just fact this is how our forefather's perspective would have been being the Puritans of their time.

[@garryharrington8255]

oooh goody more meeting as the ship sinks fools

[@timandjacquinicklin9596]

Ok let's get this straight, Albanese wants to give power to people that can't read and write . We exist because of the tax payer that works . Not because of the scrounger that doesn't . No job no vote , note language no vote , vote education no vote . The only people that should vote are the working population regardless whether or not you're a flower Semper viratus Tim