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.’
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
