Australians voted in the 1967 referendum on May 27, 1967. Harold Holt was the prime minister at the time, a Liberal MP who led a Coalition with the Country Party.
The referendum had three issues asked in two questions, regarding two bills to alter the Australian Constitution.
The first question sought to increase the number of members in the House of Representatives. The second question (Constitution Alteration [Aboriginals] Bill 1967) related to Indigenous Australians and was in two parts: voters were asked whether to give the federal government the power to make special laws for Indigenous Australians in states, and whether Indigenous Australians should be included in official population counts for constitutional purposes.
1967 campaigners
The amendments to the Constitution were overwhelmingly endorsed, winning 90.77 per cent of votes cast and having majority support in all six states. The Bill became an Act of Parliament on August 10, 1967.
Three women, in their early to mid-thirties, voted in that referendum. Each was the mother of small children and had experience in varying degrees with Aboriginal people.
Janet Kneale said that she was born into the sixth generation of a Queensland grazier dynasty.
‘Three generations of my family had Aboriginals working the land. The first two were just given food. The third generation, which was my mother’s generation, they paid them. But, when they came to work on our property, they weren’t sitting at the lunch table with us, they were put in a shed out the back.’
Cemented in Janet’s memory is a moment in time when she came upon one of the workers. ‘I saw Mick Cook. He was eating his lunch alone – on tumble-down chairs. Even though I was ten, I knew it was all wrong’.
‘I voted in 1967. When they announced it I thought “it’s about time”. I had such pleasure to write “Yes”.’
Liz Swain says the ’67 event wasn’t even a blip on her radar. ‘I don’t remember the 1967 referendum at all. I have spoken to a lot of my friends who are the same age – none of them remember the referendum. There was just no opposition to it so it was non-controversial.’
Bipartisan approach
Val Timms says in 1967 she was surprised that they didn’t already have those things in place.
‘I knew about it, I was amongst the ones that were helping to organise it,’ she said.
One thing the three women agree on is that the vote and the lead-up, in their view, was not politicised. It was a bipartisan event that wasn’t about agendas. There was no opposition and almost 91 per cent of the nation agreed.
‘What’s happened?’ asks Liz.
‘It’s become so political. It is totally divisive. That’s confusing people. That’s the problem. Not just the fact that they’ve got this opposition but they’re making up all these things.’
Liz says if you don’t know about the issue then you need to go and find out.
‘Really! I was shocked when I heard the National Party came out and say they were going to vote “No”. This is shameful. It is totally shameful.’
Val Timms says she hopes today’s youth will get on board. ‘Young people are becoming more aware and they will fight – and I think they’ll fight for what’s right.’
Janet Kneale says her memory has played that scene with Mick Cook over and over.
‘I’ve carried that all my life. I’ve followed Aboriginals and what’s been going on with their meetings and trying to get a Voice.
‘Some might think me eccentric, I suppose, but I’ve been saying for a long time “there’s one more thing I’ve got to do before I go”, and I think this is it.’
I’m afraid Albo has handled this rather badly. Perhaps legislation was the way to go, people are mostly stupid.
Lenore with commentary like that ..you are no exception…!
The 1967 referendum:
Was proposed by a Liberal Government led by a reforming leader, Harold Holt
Was supported by the Opposition. Whitlam was never going to oppose it nor turn it into a political football
Because no parliamentarian had voted against the proposals relating to Aborigines, the Government prepared only a ‘Yes’ case for the referendum.
The main social medium was the telephone.
Do you mind if we give your states more money because you have Aboriginals, then everyone voted YES. If they had proposed the Voice back then, you would have started from a 99% No vote.
Christian I might have a slight advantage over you. Though too young to vote in that referendum, I remember it well, including a strong desire to see it pass.
My impressions of the adult conversations around me, the media coverage and advertising, would suggest these considerations didn’t enter the collective psyche.
But keep interpreting history, minus historical evidence, to fit your own narratives while deeming any detailed citation not worth the effort.
A little bit more difficult to know what the country was actually thinking back before the internet. You had to rely on moneyed interests to tell you what was going on over the hill from you. Where was this siloed existence you had growing up? Nimbin?
No, there was nothing documented before the 🛜. Come on!
Oh, I get it now – you think I was unaware of the mood and what people were thinking because there was no internet.
I’m just saying that I might have a slightly better idea than someone who wasn’t there at all.
Of course what would be better would be to devote a few years to studying all the available historical material, TV footage, radio broadcasts and then extensive interviews with any living major players, then a broad cross section of voters still around. Like the people in this report.
To save time you could read the theories of anyone who’s done this work.
Much easier, to propose some unsubstantiated totally oversimplified, one dimensional explanation.
What’s where I grew up got to do with it? If you’re thinking I was siloed in a some bleeding heart lefty stronghold, I don’t think it would have been Nimbin in the ‘60s. Aquarius was 1973.
The two Referendums are simply ‘chalk and cheese’.
Dis-similar in all respects.
No they’re not. They’re each a step out of atrocious past.
Could you please search ‘William D. Rubinstein quadrant’ read some of the articles, check the primary sources, then explain the atrocious past to us?
A quick dabble seemed to just go on (and on) about the non idyllic lives of the precolonial indigenous population. I don’t need to be convinced about this and it’s totally beside the point.
I didn’t come across one primary document.
But anyone can play this silly game. Google David Irving then explain to me what the European Jewish population had to complain about.
Christian, Why do you think it would have been 99% No vote if asked back then?
At that time there was goodwill towards the betterment of Aborigines.
I think it “No” would have been highly unlikely in 1967 since there was no flood of social media misinformation spreading and giving audience to the opinionated, the liars, the stupid and the racist. Radio and newspapers were the main information medium. There was still media ownership laws preventing the ability for noxious media empires to be formed. The Murdochs only owned papers in Adelaide. There was no Sky news giving the right wing extremists a platform.
So you are saying that your agenda can only pass if the voters are siloed? If they can access information, your plans don’t work out?
If “they” can access information I’m sure that’s all good. It’s mis and disinformation that’s the problem. You know that too.
Yes, I think he does Christian.
Loved Clarke’s ‘Parthian Shot over ‘There was no Sky news giving the right wing extremists a platform’.
Obviously a dis/mis information worrier!
No not saying that. Facts and truth are important and always have been. Misinformation, deception and stupidity now spreads faster and further than ever before.
Misinformation is not information. It is an attempt to deceive and confuse.
Lies, stupid claims and racist diatribes are not information. They attempt to deceive, confuse, denigrate and divide.
So much of what passes for “news” in Murdoch’s opinionated media empire is not information. His opinions attempt to deceive and confuse to benefit his own agenda.
Actually, Murdoch had quite a stable by 1967 including The Australian.
However, you are correct in that there was no real opposition to what was a moderate proposal.
Certainly, the doubters were not called ” opinionated, the liars, the stupid, and the racist.”, terminology which, I suspect, has made some doubters oppose this referendum.
Maybe that is also a difference because it doesn’t seem to be a smart way to convince voters.
Same as with Prof Langton, we have both described the No arguments as lies, stupid or racist, not the people voting No. I find it a strange argument that more people are voting No because critics are describing their reasons as being based on lies, stupidity or racism. It make no sense. Does it not just exactly prove the point?
Should I have added “apathetic” for not looking into it? Or “heartless” or “cruel” for condemning the most disadvantaged group in Australia to more of the same treatment?… probably while repeating their same criticisms of them.
Or do we just tiptoe around and say shhh it’s all ok?… when clearly it isn’t.
M. Clarke, You accuse the Murdoch media empire as being opinionated and extreme left, what is wrong with that?. How do you describe the Echo?. Well balanced and fair minded?, Don’t think so, is there something wrong there?, don’t fall into the trap of believing everything you read. You must have the ability to think for yourself, unlike the socialist lefty’s that are so used to being told what the collective believes they no longer have the ability to think for themselves. So sad they think disrupting normal peoples lives will cool the planet, the end result will bankrupt the country. Have they ever considered that?. Not likely, the touchy feely fuzzy feeling of the unthinking is way too nice to consider the real consequences of being professional protesters.
Thanks Greg ROTFLMFAO Murdoch a lefty? Baahahaha!!
Thanks for your insights. FYI, I do think independently.
Since you’ve invited comment, I would describe the Echo far less opinionated, & far more balanced & fair-minded than any of Murdoch’s rags, anywhere in the world.
The Echo reports local issues with humanity, accuracy & truth. It accurately reports science. It’s moronic to claim protesters think protesting will cool the planet. Their sole motivation is to awaken the torpid masses from their stupor, to highlight the real crises in the world, which are the diametrically opposite of what Murdoch’s editors would have you believe.
Murdoch would never be accused of truth, humanity, empathy, or accuracy in reporting (or understanding) science. They’ve never conducted investigative journalism that has produced a Royal Commission or Commission of Inquiry, they’ve been awarded the least Walkleys of any major Australian media organisation, & they even regularly fail their own publicly stated standards!! They’ve been fined hundreds of millions in both the UK & the US in recent years for their illegal practices & inaccurate reporting (eg phone hacking & Dominion voting machines). How much has our Echo ever been fined? Ever? Go check out the Australian Press Council complaints…. of the most recent 50 adverse findings, 46 are against Murdoch’s News Corp, 3 against the Peter Costello-managed SMH/Age, & 1 against our very own Echo (for publishing an anti-vaxxers letter). Murdoch is a power-hungry narcissist verging on evil, a self-proclaimed “king-maker” through his stated aim of global media domination here, the UK & the US. He yearns for globally imposed groupthink of his ungodly world views, for his own ends.
Unless I’m wildly mistaken the Echo readership & influence is far smaller & localised, but is factual, empathetic & provides a valid point of difference. Isn’t that why we all read the Echo? Thanks for asking
Wow Greg, check under your bed! There’s likely to be communists living there.
No-one in history has ever labelled Murdoch as extreme left, nor have I. What a bizarre post, too much to unpick here but your spray is very revealing source of mirth. Good job that whatever the headline, whatever the topic, you manage to include your favourite target and let fly.
I love that you demand justification for calling Murdoch opinionated yet believe the Echo to be worse? Are you for real? Maybe you can enlighten me, but I can’t recall any misinformation, lies, stupidity or racism published in the Echo in response to the Voice referendum.
The Echo is racist all the time. I point it out. You just like their racism and consider it ‘truth’
Open your eyes M. Clarke and take a good long look at what is happening in this country today. I make no apologies for calling it out. We have seen nothing but overwhelming support for the yes vote from the Echo. Not surprisingly NO mention of the NO vote to be seen, what an embarrassing oversight to say the least. The Murdock news corp. at least gives both sides a voice to explain their views. The Echo can never be accused of that, every editorial, column excludes the NO side. Would anyone in a sane state of mind give the Albo government the power to determine what is disinformation and misinformation and enjoy total indemnity for the decisions and consequences, a confirmation of what is happening in Australia today.
You’re deluded if you think the “Murdock news corp” [sic] has given equal coverage of both sides.
Analysis has shown 70% News Corps coverage supports the No campaign, and provided less than 10%y Yes coverage during the first four weeks after the announcement so as to already bias attitudes before introducing the Yes information.
Personally I can see no valid reason for No. I assume neither can the owners and editors of the Echo, it’s their prerogative and their support for Yes is clear and supported by intelligent, empathetic, egalitarian voters. Every No argument can be classified either precisely as Prof Langton described, with the extra category of hypocrisy added.
Hypocrisy since the very things being complained about are what the Voice proposal is trying to address.
Getting desperate aren’t we. Getting that losing feeling?. If you write a few more novels about it, it will surely help. If Albo had the ability to connect with Australia he would soon realise it is he, who asked the people to back his proposal. Unlike bills presented to parliament they are dealt with in the lower and upper houses, they don’t have to provide details to the population. If he asks me for a yes vote he had better come up with all the answers and then some before I will approve a blank cheque. He could have legislated his voice bill and proved to the population over time it worked or failed. If it worked and the aboriginal population it was meant to help actually did help, I would with no hesitation give it the thumbs up. Albo has displayed his arrogance and contempt towards all Aussies.
It is the Uluṟu statement and the First Nations National Constitutional Convention that is “asking you for a yes vote”.
In supporting the YES case, Albo is just one of many politicians – including lots of Liberals, even some Nationals – encouraging you to vote YES. Stop making this about party politics!
But Greg, you don’t like the detail. If the YES side gave it to you, you’d complain that they were asking you to read a novel. You might even complain that it contained no jokes.
N. See. Anyone, even a greenie would understand I have made a “typo”. Do you really think I would call Murdock a lefty?. You never let a chance go by do you, a typical lefty response. Harangue, embarrass, cancel. The lefty model. You despise anyone that is successful, is wealthy and try to bring them down. Try your hardest, you have failed.
Anyone WHO is successful – just saying!
What are you really saying Lizardbreath?. Do tell.
Just taking your advice and injecting a little humour here Greg. But the humour is lost if it has to be explained.
I am sorry Lizardbreath, your attempt at humour was a total failure, you need to get a sense of humour before trying to make humour. If you can’t understand like Albo can’t understand the population will not vote for something they know absolutely nothing about. The warm and fuzzy words used to express their BS does not cut it. People like Ray Martin only exacerbate the situation, calling childish names to No voters is the best way to loose votes. Keep it up Ray, and the more you deny you did the more yes votes are lost. The same go’s for every yes advocate that through their frustration of having no facts to tell fall into the trap of abusing the No voters. I am very disappointed Albo and ministers are so arrogant, they thought Aussies didn’t have the ability to process pertinent information desperately asked for to help make the correct decision. Albo will regret treating the population like imbeciles. All Albo has achieved is to divide this nation over his bloody mindedness to leave his legacy. You messed it up from the start Albo, too bad so sad.
Feel better after getting that off your chest?
The problem may just be that there’s some humour that goes over some people’s heads because of a lack of contextual knowledge. Look I’m not going to explain it to you. Ask someone else to.