Exploring the 1967 Referendum and the

Implications For Future Constitutional

Recognition – A glimpse at the past and the future.
By Naomi Muggeridge
98325998 - HIS3MHI

Warning - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised that the following illustrated essay
contains the images and names of deceased Indigenous Australians.

(Image 1- Case for ‘Yes’ in the 1967 Referendum, Prime Ministers Department, (1967), National Archives of Australia,
http://vrroom.naa.gov.au/records/?tab=about&ID=99218)

Note: The author has to the best of her ability used only images which are copyright free or found in the public domain. If there are
any issues with the images used in this article, please contact the author so to rectify any misrepresentations.

1
A brief history
Australia’s colonial history, as well as the
federation of Australia in 1901 and its
constitution, purposely excluded its Indigenous
peoples. The 1967 referendum was won with
over 90% support to amend section 51 to allow
the commonwealth government to make laws
for Aboriginals and to completely remove
section 121 to allow for Aboriginals to be
counted in the national census1. The
referendum is considered a momentous event
in Australian political history as only 8
referendum proposals out of 44 have been
successful in altering the constitution of
Australia2. The 1967 referendum received the
highest votes for amendment in Australian
referendum history3. The 1967 referendum is
also notable due to the nature of Indigenous
relations at the time. Australia had segregated
areas in which Indigenous Australians were not
allowed into. The referendum demonstrated a
change in social and political attitudes towards
indigenous Australians and an empathy
towards indigenous issues and
indigenous rights by the dominant European
culture of Australia4.
Indigenous Resistance
Even though Indigenous Australians were
adversely impacted by British settlement and
dominated over time by European culture, there
has always been pockets of Indigenous
resistance advocating for indigenous rights.
• In 1933, the founder of the Australian
Aborigines’ League, William Cooper, a
1http://vrroom.naa.gov.au/records/?tab=about&ID=99218
Case for yes in the 1967 referendum
2 Info sheet 13 – the Constitution
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Re
presentatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-
_Infosheets/Infosheet_13_-_The_Constitution
3 Referendum dates and results
https://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/referendums/Referend
um_Dates_and_Results.htm
4 Dani Larkin, ‘Still fighting for our rights’ Eureka Street,
27/10 (2017),
Yorta Yorta leader, organised a petition
to King George V asking for Aboriginal
Australians to have parliamentary
representation5.
• In 1946 many Indigenous pastoral
workers walked off the stations they
were working on in protest of low
wages and, bad living and working
conditions. This strike lasted 3 years
and is arguably one of Australia’s
longest employment strikes in history6.
• In 1951 Indigenous Australians
marched in Darwin in protest of uneven
wages and racially discriminatory laws.
The publicity of this protest led to the
establishment of the Council for
Aboriginal Rights7.
Image 2 - Land rights march in Melbourne,
(1968), Melbourne Sun National Museum of
Australia.https://www.indigenousrights.net.au/land_
rights/campaigning_for_land_rights,_1963-68
• In 1963 the Yolngu people sent the
Yirrkala bark petition to Canberra to
address issues of land rights8.
5 Collaborating for indigenous rights National Museum of
Australia
https://www.indigenousrights.net.au/timeline/1930-39
6 Michael Hess, ‘Black and Red: The Pilbara Pastoral
Workers’ Strike 1946’ Aboriginal History, 18 (1994),
pp65-83
7 Collaborating for Indigenous Rights, National Museum
of Australia
https://www.indigenousrights.net.au/timeline/1950-59
8Translations of the Yirrkala Bark Petition Presented on 28
August 1963 to the House of Representatives, in F. Gale(ed.),
2
This is just a small example of Indigenous a difference for Aboriginal people across
resistance concerning various issues of Australia. While a student a Sydney University,
indigenous rights which it was hoped the 1967 Perkins led a group of approximately 30
referendum outcome would address. university students on a tour around reginal
New South Wales towns to bring awareness to
Referendum Campaign the appalling discrimination, segregation and
less than ideal living conditions Indigenous
The fight for Indigenous rights and the 1967 Australians were facing.
referendum to amend the constitution of
Australia was a ten-year long campaign which “Our posters read, ‘CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ABORIGINES,’ ‘WALGETT
came at a time of great political and social RSL SHOULD NOT BAN ABORIGINES,’ ‘CLOSE THIS CLUB DOWN,’
revolution across the world9. Two prominent ‘ABORIGINES STAND UP FOR YOURSELVES’, and things like
that”11
indigenous activists at the time, Charles
Perkins and Faith Bandler give voice to an
Perkins
Indigenous perspective in the fight for
said his
Indigenous civil rights. In separate interviews
main goal
given to Robin Hughes as part of the ABC’s
was to
Australian Biography series, Perkins and
make
Bandler talk about their expectations in the lead
Indigenous
up to the 1967 referendum, and what their
Australians
participation in Australian Indigenous civil rights
realise that
meant to them.
they were
not
Charles Perkins Indigenous Activist and
second-
public servant (1936–2000)
class
citizens
Speaking of his life, Perkins reveals that he
and did not
was born on an Aboriginal Reserve in Alice
have to be
Springs in 1936, before being moved to a boy’s
treated as such. (Image 3- Perkins)12
home in Adelaide at ten years old. Perkins
experienced racism and discrimination at an
He said they did not have to live on the fringe of
early age and remembers being chased down
towns or be excluded from things such as
the street being called a ‘nigger’, not being
restaurants and movie theatres. He
invited to friends houses or parties due to being
encouraged Indigenous Australians to stick up
Aboriginal, and of not having a girlfriend during
for themselves. This tour became known as the
daylight hours because they did not want to be
freedom rides and was a crucial point in
seen with him. He remembers his teacher
bringing Indigenous issues into the
telling him he was too dumb to get a ‘good’ job
consciousness of non -Indigenous Australians.
and advising him that a simple trade would be
Perkins went on to hold prominent positions in
the only thing he would be capable of doing
many governmental Indigenous affairs
once leaving school. Perkins endured what a
organisations13.
lot of Aboriginals at the time did, extreme
poverty, racism and discrimination10. Against all
odds he enrolled in a bachelor’s degree at
Sydney University and was determined to make

Race Relations in Australia. The Aborigines, (Sydney: McGraw 11 A bastard like me Perkins
– Hill) Sydney, (1975), p. 83. 12 Newspaper Image Charles
9 Perkins,https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interf
10 Australian Biography, Perkins ep5 (1998), https://edutv- ace/DetailsReports/ItemDetail.aspx?Barcode=3907620&isAv=
informit-com-au.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/watch- N
screen.php?videoID=1511499 13 Australian Biography ibid.

3
Faith Bandler – Indigenous Civil Rights
Activist (1920-2015)
(Image 4 – Activists with Federal Politicians)14
Faith Bandler was one of 8 children in her
family. Her father was a South Sea Islander
who was kidnapped in the late 1800’s and
bought to Australia to work in the sugar cane
fields. He died when Faith was only four years
old. Faith reflects on her life growing up and the
discrimination she faced as a member of the
Australian woman’s land army. She says that
non- indigenous Australians were paid much
more than indigenous Australians in those
days. It was a mix of her own experiences of
discrimination and racism as well as thoughts
about what her father had endured which led
Faith to become an advocate and activist for
Indigenous rights in the 1950’s. Faith and
others, such as Jesse Street and Pearl Gibbs,
began a ten-year campaign for indigenous
rights and constitutional change. Some of her
goals were to “turn the tide of ignorance”
towards aboriginal people, to improve wage
conditions and give Aboriginals the right to
travel freely. Faith was seeking the same civil
rights for Indigenous Australians that non-
Indigenous Australians had. 1963 saw faith
14 From left to right are Gordon Bryant MP, Faith Bandler,
Harold Holt, Douglas Nicholls, Burnum Burnum (Harry Penrith),
Winnie Branson and William Wentworth MP, 1967 National
Archives of Australia.
http://vrroom.naa.gov.au/records/index.aspx?ID=19492&confir
m=Go+ahead
become the secretary of the New South Wales
(NSW) Federal Council for Aboriginal
Advancement where she began to organise
petitions to government officials to hold a
referendum, and lobby politicians to get on
board. In 1967 the Federal government agreed
to hold a referendum and Faith became the
referendum campaign director for NSW. Faith
believed that a Yes vote would improve the
lives of indigenous Australians and give them
new opportunities for better housing,
employment and education. The Yes campaign
was motivated by the belief that the
constitutional changes in question would give
Aboriginal Australians equal citizenship rights
and that they would be accepted as equals with
non-Indigenous Australians15.
Referendum Impact – practical or symbolic?
The 1967 referendum is often considered a
moral highpoint in the fight for Indigenous
equality, but how much did the amended
constitution really change?
The Yes campaign is shroud in myth. Even the
remembering of the 1967 referendum in
contemporary times has been mythologised.
Interviews conducted on the 40th anniversary of
the referendum at the Garma festival highlight
some of these myths.
One interviewee commented that they thought
the referendum was about giving Aboriginal
people the right to vote. This is perhaps the
largest referendum misbelief, even today.
Garma festival interviews also revealed that
many people believed that the referendum
would bring real change into the everyday lives
of indigenous Australians. Some said they
believed that no one really knew what they
15Australian Biography, Faith Bandler, 2009, edutv-informit-
com-au.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/watch-
screen.php?videoID=12689
4
were voting for but that the sentiment of
equality was a driving factor in yes votes16.
“After the referendum, the physical things didn’t
change, but the emotional things changed; the
mental attitudes changed. The physical things
were still there to remind you every day;
managers, police, notices—like trespass notices.
We thought we wouldn’t have to be subjected to
abuse and refused access to the shops anymore.
We thought the children wouldn’t be stopped
anymore from being able to get further education;
that they could go into the mainstream.”17
Some of the misconception surrounding what
the referendum was about may be found in the
fact that advertisements were confusing. Words
such as ‘Right Wrongs, Write Yes for
Aborigines on May 27’, and ‘Vote Yes for
Aborigines’, give no clear indication as to what
it really meant to vote yes for aborigines.
The yes vote became symbolic of the approval
of Aboriginal advancement and equality,
16. Ngalmi S, MacDonald L, Lechleitner A, Johnson L,
Wauchope H, Bat M, & Mahaffey L, ‘40th anniversary of the
1967 referendum: Garma interviews. Ngoonjook, 31(2007), 9-
35
however in reality all the referendum did was to
allow Aboriginal people to be counted on the
national census and give the federal
government the right to make laws governing
Aboriginal Australians. The federal government
gave no guarantee that it would make laws in
favour of Aboriginal people or Aboriginal
advancement.18 It could be argued that this
constitutional change was an extension of
settler colonialism and a need by the federal
government to continue their control and
domination over the Indigenous populations.
(Image 6)
(Image 5 – Right Wrongs Write Yes, Unknown creator, State
Library of South Australia,
https://www.catalog.slsa.sa.gov.au:443/record=b2195582~S1)
(Image 6 - Photographer: Marita Dyson Museums Victoria
https://collections.museumvictoria.com.au/items/1958811)
(Image 7- Unknown creator, Museums Victoria, Source:
Museums Victoria
https://collections.museumvictoria.com.au/items/1587561)
Changes over time
Although the 1967 referendum didn’t
immediately change the day to day lives of
Indigenous Australians it is perhaps one point
17Ibid. p22
18Jennifer Clark, ‘Vote Yes for Aborigines’, National Library of
Australia News, (2006) p. 11-14.
5
in the history of Australia where indigenous
voices were not silenced. Indigenous issues
and voices were bought to the forefront of non-
Indigenous consciousness and Australia as a
country voted to better the lives of its
Indigenous peoples.
At federation Indigenous Australians had no
rights at all. Discrimination and segregation
were very real in the past and continues today
in less explicit ways19. Laws have changed and
new ones been made which have, in certain
ways, benefited contemporary indigenous
people and helped them to reach greater levels
of equality within society than their ancestors
did.
Before 1975 it was legal for Australian states
and governments to racially discriminate
against people. The 1970’s also saw the
beginning of the encouragement of Indigenous
Australians to get a better education. Activists
opened the doors for Indigenous health and
legal services. Today Indigenous Australians
are found in the same jobs as non-Indigenous
Australians. They are graduating universities
and owning homes and businesses. Although
there are still gaps in the socioeconomic
outlook of Indigenous Australians in
comparison to non-Indigenous Australians, and
although the 1967 referendum has been
labelled as symbolic, a lot has been achieved in
the last 50 years which displays the strength,
resistance and resilience of Indigenous
culture20.
There is still a long way to go for Indigenous
Australians to achieve complete equality and
autonomy within Australian society, but
constitutional recognition is a step in the right
direction.
19 Irene Watson, ‘Aboriginal Recognition: Treaties and Colonial
Constitutions, We Have Been Here Forever…’, Bond Law
Review (2018) 30/1, pp. 7-18
20 Write Wrongs – 50th Anniversary of the 1967 Referendum,
Rhonda Evans & Lucy Fyson, (2017) edutv-informit-com-
au.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/watch-
screen.php?videoID=1853443
21Appleby, G & McKinnon, G, ‘Indigenous Recognition:
Lessons of 1967 referendum Still Apply to Debate on
What might Future Constitutional change
look like?
Although discriminatory, the changes to the
constitution in 1967 removed the only reference
to Aboriginal people and left nothing in its
place21. Since the Howard Governments failed
attempt at symbolic constitutional recognition
by way of a referendum in the 1990’s, there has
been much debate about what shape future
constitutional recognition will take22.
The present constitution and political structure of
Australia does not empower Indigenous people and
so any proposed changes must be more than
symbolic recognition. Constitutional recognition
must empower indigenous people to take a
respected and rightful place within Australian
society and alongside non-Indigenous Australians
as equal peoples politically as well as socially23.
Future Constitutional change may include the
following:
• Recognising and acknowledging
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples as the First Australians
• Recognising and acknowledging
Indigenous Australians continuing
connection to country.
• Abolishing or changing section 51.
Section 51 currently allows the Federal
government to make special laws for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples.
• Abolishing section 25 which allows
state governments to racially exclude
people from voting.
• Adding a section to ban racial
discrimination
Constitution’, ABC News (website), (2017),
mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-22/constitutional-recognition-
lessons-of-1967-referendum-apply/8546906
22 Dylan Lino, ‘What is Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’, Indigenous Law
Bulletin,8/24 pp. 3-9.
23 Harry Hobbs, ‘Constitutional Recognition and Reform
Developing an Inclusive Australian Citizenship Through Treaty’,
Australian Journal of Political Science, (2018) 53/2, pp. 176-
194
6
 • Establishing a recognised political
voice for Indigenous Australians by
Indigenous Australians24.
Some lessons which could be taken on board
from the 1967 referendum include the need for
any new constitutional amendments regarding
Indigenous Australians to be very clear and
precise. This is needed to avoid the confusion
of the 1967 referendum about what people
were really voting for. The 1967 referendum
was seen as symbolic. Future constitutional
recognition must be more than a symbolic
gesture. Establishing a recognised Indigenous
body of representatives and including this in the
constitution means that unlike previous
indigenous representative bodies, Indigenous
voices and issues will always be present and
cannot be pushed to the side. This allows for
Indigenous people to address Indigenous
issues instead of a non-Indigenous
representative making decisions for Indigenous
people. These changes will give Indigenous (Image 8- Charmaine Mumbulla, 2019 National NAIDOC
Australians more autonomy over their own Poster, https://www.naidoc.org.au/resources/get-your-poster)
affairs and lives25.

24 Bridgette Brennen, ‘Constitutional Recognition, Will it Mean 25‘What is Constitutional Recognition’ BTN (Website), (2019),
Anything to Aboriginal Families’, ABC NEWS (Website), (2017), abc.net.au/btn/newsbreak/constitutional-recognition-
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-21/constitutional- explained/11370462
recognition-mean-anything-to-aboriginal-families/8544270

7
Images https://collections.museumvictoria.com.
au/items/1587561)
1- Case for ‘Yes’ in the 1967
Referendum, Prime Ministers
Department, (1967), National Archives
of Australia, 8- - Charmaine Mumbulla, 2019 National
http://vrroom.naa.gov.au/records/?tab= NAIDOC Poster,
about&ID=99218 https://www.naidoc.org.au/resources/g
et-your-poster
2- - Land rights march in Melbourne,
(1968), Melbourne Sun National
Museum of
Australia.https://www.indigenousrights
.net.au/land_rights/campaigning_for_la
nd_rights,_1963-68

3- Newspaper Image Charles

Perkins,https://recordsearch.naa.gov.a
u/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/DetailsRe
ports/ItemDetail.aspx?Barcode=39076
20&isAv=N

4- From left to right are Gordon Bryant

MP, Faith Bandler, Harold Holt,
Douglas Nicholls, Burnum Burnum
(Harry Penrith), Winnie Branson and
William Wentworth MP, 1967 National
Archives of Australia.
http://vrroom.naa.gov.au/records/index.
aspx?ID=19492&confirm=Go+ahead

5- – Right Wrongs Write Yes, Unknown

creator, State Library of South
Australia,
https://www.catalog.slsa.sa.gov.au:443
/record=b2195582~S1)

6- Photographer: Marita Dyson Museums

Victoria
https://collections.museumvictoria.com.
au/items/1958811)

7- Unknown creator, Museums Victoria,

Source: Museums Victoria

8
Resources and References
National Archives of Australia, ‘Case For Yes In
The 1967 Referendum’ National Archives of
Australia [Website],
http://vrroom.naa.gov.au/records/?tab=about&I
D=99218, accessed 20 October 2019.
Parlaiment of Australia, ‘Info sheet 13 – the
Constitution’ Parliament of Australia [Website],
(2019)
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Hou
se_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_
procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_13_-
_The_Constitution, accessed 20 October 2019.
Australian Electrol Commission, ‘Referendum
dates and results’ Australian Electorol
Commission [Website],
(2019)https://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/referen
dums/Referendum_Dates_and_Results.htmacc
accessed19 October 2019.
Dani Larkin, ‘Still fighting for our rights’ Eureka
Street, 27/10 (2017), 74-76.
National Museum of Australia, ‘Collaborating
for indigenous rights 1930-1939’ National
Museum of Australia [Website], (2019),
https://www.indigenousrights.net.au/timeline/19
30-39 accessed 17 October 2019.
Michael Hess, ‘Black and Red: The Pilbara
Pastoral Workers’ Strike 1946’ Aboriginal
History, 18 (1994), pp65-83
National Museum of Australia,’Collaborating for
Indigenous Rights 1950-1959’, National
Museum of Australia [Website], (2019)
https://www.indigenousrights.net.au/timeline/19
50-59 accessed 17 October 2019.
Translations of the Yirrkala Bark Petition
Presented on 28 August 1963 to the House of
Representatives, in F. Gale(ed.), Race
Relations in Australia, The Aborigines,
(Sydney: McGraw – Hill, 1975), Sydney, p. 83.
Perkins, Ep5, ‘Australian Biography’,(1998),
https://edutv-informit-com-
au.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/watch-
screen.php?videoID=1511499
Charles Perkins, A Bastard Like Me, (Sydney:
Ure Smith, 1975), 74-91.
National Archives of Australia, Gordon Bryant
MP, Faith Bandler, Harold Holt, Douglas
Nicholls, Burnum Burnum (Harry Penrith),
Winnie Branson and William Wentworth MP
[Photograph] (1967) National Archives of
Australia.
http://vrroom.naa.gov.au/records/index.aspx?ID
=19492&confirm=Go+ahead
Faith Bandler,’Australian Biography’,(2009),
edutv-informit-com-
au.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/watch-
screen.php?videoID=12689
S Ngalmi, L MacDonald ,A Lechleitner , L
Johnson, H Wauchope ,M Bat, & L Mahaffey,
‘40th anniversary of the 1967 referendum:
Garma interviews’. Ngoonjook, 31(2007), 9-35
Jennifer Clark, ‘Vote Yes for Aborigines’,
National Library of Australia News, (2006) p.
11-14.
Irene Watson, ‘Aboriginal Recognition: Treaties
and Colonial Constitutions, We Have Been
Here Forever…’, Bond Law Review (2018)
30/1, pp. 7-18
Rhonda Evans & Lucy Fyson, ‘Write Wrongs –
50th Anniversary of the 1967 Referendum’,
(2017) edutv-informit-com-
au.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/watch-
screen.php?videoID=1853443
G Appleby, & G McKinnon, ‘Indigenous
Recognition: Lessons of 1967 referendum Still
Apply to Debate on Constitution’, ABC News
[website], (2017),
mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-
22/constitutional-recognition-lessons-of-1967-
referendum-apply/8546906
Dylan Lino, ‘What is Constitutional Recognition
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Peoples’, Indigenous Law Bulletin,8/24 pp. 3-9.
9
Harry Hobbs, ‘Constitutional Recognition and Behind the News, ‘What is Constitutional
Reform Developing an Inclusive Australian Recognition’ BTN [Website], (2019),
Citizenship Through Treaty’, Australian Journal abc.net.au/btn/newsbreak/constitutional-
of Political Science, (2018) 53/2, pp. 176-194 recognition-explained/11370462

Bridgette Brennen, ‘Constitutional Recognition,

Will it Mean Anything to Aboriginal Families’,
ABC NEWS [Website], (2017),
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-
21/constitutional-recognition-mean-anything-to-
aboriginal-families/8544270

10