* Denis Strangman gave a short presentation based on this paper as part of the Senate Occasional Lecture Series at Parliament House, Canberra, on 26 May 2017. The author would like to thank the former Clerk of the Senate, Dr Rosemary Laing, for suggesting he write this article. Thanks are also due to Tim Bryant, former Director of the Research Section in the Australian Senate, and staff at the National Library of Australia, National Archives of Australia, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS), and the National Museum of Australia.
1 Dr Peter Westerway, who died in 2015, was Secretary of the NSW ALP from 1969 to 1973. A former chair of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and member of the Industries Assistance Commission, he also worked for many years as a senior Commonwealth public servant.
2 Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Constitutional Change: Select sources on constitutional change in Australia 1901–1997, House of Representatives, Canberra, 24 March 1997, p. 15, www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_representatives_ Committees?url=laca/inquiryinconch.htm.
3 Ibid., p. 59. This is one of the more concise summaries of the contents of the proposed amendment. The Parliamentary Handbook says, ‘[it] also sought to give the Commonwealth Parliament power to make laws with respect to Aboriginal people wherever they lived in Australia’ (44th Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Parliamentary Services, Canberra, 2014, p. 394). Henry Reynolds has suggested, ‘the referendum must be seen as an event of central importance. A symbolic event enshrined in history’, (Henry Reynolds, ‘Aborigines and the 1967 referendum: thirty years on’, Papers on Parliament, no. 31, June 1998, Department of Senate, p. 55, www.aph.gov.au/pops).
4 44th Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Parliamentary Services, Canberra, 2014, p. 394.
5 Joint Committee on Constitutional Review, Second Report, House of Representatives, Canberra, 1959, p. 6 and pp. 54–6, www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_ Representatives_committees?url=report_register/bycomlist.asp?id=140.
6 Collaborating for Indigenous Rights 1957–1973, www.indigenousrights.net.au. The website is hosted by the National Museum of Australia. It was created about 10 years ago through an Australian Research Council grant by Dr Sue Taffe, who is currently a researcher at Monash University.
7 Scott Bennett and Sean Brennan, ‘Constitutional referenda in Australia’, Research Paper no. 2 1999–2000, Parliamentary Library, p. 21.
8 There is some retrospective evidence in post-referendum correspondence from some government backbenchers to the Prime Minister, Harold Holt, that a small group of MPs might have been motivated by a significant concentration of Aboriginal voters in several electorates. The MPs included Bill Wentworth and Bob Katter (Snr). See NAA: A1209, 1967/7512, folios 13, 27, 39, 39 (a) and 132.
9 C. Howard and C.A. Saunders, ‘Constitutional amendment and constitutional reform in Australia’, in R.L. Mathews (ed.), Public Policies in Two Federal Countries: Canada and Australia’, Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations, Australian National University, Canberra, 1982,
10 The author wrote about the nexus referendum in ‘Two defeated referendum proposals, 1967 and 1977’ in Richard Lucy (ed.), The Pieces of Politics, Macmillan, South Melbourne, 1979,
pp. 338–348. The then Deputy Clerk of the Senate wrote about the nexus referendum soon after its defeat. See R.E. Bullock, ‘The Australian Senate and the 1967 referendum ("breaking of the nexus") proposal’ in The Table. vol. XXXVI, 1967.
The Aboriginal result has been widely written about and commemorated, including on the 10th, 15th, 20th, 25th, 30th and 40th anniversaries. We have now reached the 50th anniversary for both questions. See, for example, the publication released in the 30th anniversary year, Bain Attwood, The 1967 Referendum, or When Aborigines Didn’t Get the Vote, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra, 1997. See also John Gardiner-Garden, ‘The origin of Commonwealth involvement in Indigenous Affairs and the 1967 referendum’, Background Paper 11, 1996–97, Parliamentary Library. Gardiner-Garden wrote that, ‘Many popular notions associated with the 1967 Referendum belong in the category of myths. The referendum was not whole-heartedly supported by both sides of politics, did not end legal discrimination, did not confer the vote, equal wages and citizenship on indigenous Australians and did not permit for the first time Commonwealth government involvement in Aboriginal Affairs’.
11 At the time I was researching this article, the National Archives of Australia put new requests for access on hold until July 2017 while they transferred 15 million files between repositories in Canberra.
12 Collaborating for Indigenous Rights 1957–1973, op. cit.
13 44th Parliamentary Handbook, op cit., p. 799. An article in the magazine Nation on 25 February 1967 titled ‘Referendum revived’ claimed NSW Liberal headquarters believed the Liberal party ‘stands to lose, and the A.L.P. stands to gain six seats in the Sydney metropolitan area if redistribution goes ahead without a previous enlargement of the total numbers in the House of Representatives’. The subsequent redistribution conducted in 1968 was the first since 1955. Malcolm Mackerras wrote that, ‘The Government had allowed the situation to drift for so long that the result has been a particularly massive redistribution, very much bigger than the previous one in 1955’ (Malcolm Mackerras, The 1968 Federal Redistribution, ANU Press, Canberra, 1969, p. 1). In April 1965, when the nexus proposal was under active consideration, there were still tensions between the Liberal Party and Country Party about a redistribution. The Liberals wanted to govern in their own right and the Country Party wanted to ensure they continued as an influential ‘tail’ (Alan Reid, ‘Reversing the roles’, The Bulletin, 10 April 1965, pp. 14–15). Reid repeated this theory about the Liberals in an article later that year. (‘The coming clash’, The Bulletin, 25 December 1965, pp. 14–15). Writing in 2010, George Williams and David Hume drew attention to the ‘vast demographic changes’ that had occurred by 1967 where some electorates had almost 125,000 voters, while others had less than 40,000. They wrote that, ‘It was expected that the Liberal Party and, particularly, the Country Party would lose a swath of seats in any redistribution’ under the then boundaries (George Williams and David Hume, People Power: The History and Future of the Referendum in Australia, UNSW Press, Sydney,. 2010, p. 146).
14 Henry Mayer, Introduction in Malcolm Mackerras, The Australian Senate, 1965–1967: Who Held Control?, Australasian Political Studies Association, Sydney, 1968, p. 1.
15 In her book about the freedom ride, Professor Ann Curthoys mentions that Peter Manning and the author distributed an open letter to SAFA supporters in 1965 warning of communist involvement in Aboriginal politics. This is correct. Curthoys suggests that this seemed to have little effect ‘as communist students continued to work in SAFA, though in a small minority’, but there is ample evidence in her book and other sources that the SAFA leader Charles Perkins was careful to avoid an impression that SAFA was communist-inspired (Ann Curthoys, Freedom Ride: A Freedom Rider Remembers, Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW, 2002, p. 222). Perkins’ biographer, Peter Read, said, ‘Perkins and Spigelman took care there did not appear to be too many members of the Communist Eureka Youth League [on the tour]’. Read also noted that Perkins rejected the offer of a public address system from a Waterside Workers Federation of Australia (WWF) representative (Peter Read, Charles Perkins—A Biography, Viking, Ringwood, Vic, 1990, p. 101 and p. 109). Spigelman wrote later that the WWF representative had been accompanied by a reporter from the communist newspaper The Tribune (‘Bus tour reactions’, Jim Spigelman, Dissent, Winter 1965, no. 14, p. 47). Perkins’ approach may have reduced scepticism in the community about the ride. The ride generated enormous publicity in the daily media during 1965, which was the year when the referendum was first mooted publicly by the Menzies government.
16 According to the website, Collaborating for Indigenous Rights 1957–1973 (op. cit.), the national petition form, ‘Towards equal citizenship for Aborigines’, circulated throughout the country during 1962–63. The target was 250,000 signatures but just over 100,000 were collected (still a very respectable number) and ‘over a seven-week period in 1963, every sitting day in the House of Representatives began with the tabling of these petitions’.
17 In May 1964, Arthur Calwell introduced a private member’s bill, the Constitution Alteration (Aborigines) Bill 1964, which proposed the repeal of section 127 of the Constitution and that the words ‘other than the aboriginal race in any State’ be removed from section 51(xxvi). Bryant was involved in the national petition campaign. In March 1966, Wentworth introduced a private member’s bill proposing the whole of section 51(xxvi) be deleted and a new anti-discrimination section 117a be incorporated (see the website Collaborating for Indigenous Rights 1957–1973, op. cit.).
18 Senate debates, 9 March 1960, p. 23.
19 House of Representatives debates, 13 April 1961, pp. 806–23. Interestingly, Calwell appeared to have forgotten that Senator Wright had dissented from the nexus proposal so long as the joint sitting mechanism was part of the procedure to resolve deadlocks. (See Joint Committee on Constitutional Review, Second Report, op. cit., p. 178). Calwell reminded the House that the committee had also recommended the Senate remain at 60 senators. The full report of the joint committee was tabled in the Senate on 26 November 1959 following the committee’s reconstitution to develop reasons for the recommendations it had made in 1958. See Senate debates, 26 November 1959, pp. 1899–1900. The Governor-General made a passing reference to the report in his 1960 speech to open the second session of the 23rd Parliament, stating that the government was considering the ‘lengthy and carefully prepared’ report (Senate debates, 8 March 1960, pp. 7–10).
20 House of Representatives debates, 12 April 1962, p. 1633. Calwell stated: ‘The Government, I find, has drafted some proposals since the matter came before the Parliament last year. The committee's recommendations that have already been drafted include all those relating to the relative sizes of the two Houses of the Parliament’. The Attorney-General, Sir Garfield Barwick, stated that he could ‘see no urgency’ [in putting the proposals to referendum] (House of Representatives debates, 12 April 1962, p. 1637).
21 House of Representatives debates, 4 December 1962, p. 2866.
22 This is mentioned in a draft paper for cabinet dated February 1967 and prepared for Anthony by the chief electoral officer (NAA: A406, E1967/30).
23 House of Representatives debates, 3 September 1964, pp. 937–8. Menzies had had extensive involvement with past referendums, which is outlined by Professor Anne Twomey in ‘Menzies, the Constitution and the High Court’ in J.R. Nethercote (ed.), Menzies: The Shaping of Modern Australia, Connor Court Publishing, Redland Bay, Qld, 2016.
24 House of Representatives debates, 30 October 1964, p. 2587.
25 Ibid., 1 April 1965, p. 529.
26 Ibid., 1 April 1965, p. 534.
27 Ibid., 1 April 1965, p. 538–9.
28 Williams and Hume wrote, ‘Sir Garfield Barwick, Attorney-General in the Menzies government, did not support the (nexus) recommendation, and it did not progress while he remained a Minister. However, after Barwick was appointed as Chief Justice of the High Court in 1964, the proposal was dusted off and adopted by the Menzies Cabinet in 1965’ (Williams and Hume, op. cit., p. 146).
29 Cabinet submission no. 660, 22 February 1965, reproduced on Collaborating for Indigenous Rights website, op. cit.
30 Cabinet decision no. 841, 7 April 1965, reproduced in Collaborating for Indigenous Rights website, op. cit. The Prime Minister repeated the information in a reply to a question from Calwell (House of Representatives debates, 28 April 1965, p. 923). At a meeting on 20 October, the cabinet decided that section 7 of the Constitution also be amended to ‘preserve to each of the Original States at least the present number of ten Senators’ (NAA: A4940, decision no. 1308).
31 The author of the political chronicle section of the Australian Journal of Politics and History, vol. 13, issue 2, August 1967, suggested that with six extra senators added overall, the DLP would win two (p. 253). Williams and Hume state that, ‘This, then, was the political calculus that underpinned the broad support for the Parliament proposal: the Liberal and Country Parties would retain seats; Labor would gain seats; and all major parties would guard against an insurgent DLP’. (William and Hume, op. cit., p. 147).
32 House of Representatives debates, 11 November 1965, pp. 2635–8.
33 Ibid., 23 November 1965, pp. 3059–67.
34 Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives, 23 November 1965, p. 465.
35 Sydney Morning Herald, 26 October 1965. See also News Weekly, 10 November 1965, p. 3.
36 Strangman papers, unpublished report on the referendum campaign, p. 4. A copy of the report has been included in the Strangman referendum papers deposited with the National Library.
37 Senate debates, 30 November 1965, pp. 1882–5.
38 Ibid., 1 December 1965, pp. 1936–1974, and 2 December 1965, pp. 1986–2025. None of these senators are still alive.
39 This is sometimes referred to as the ‘triple majority’. Vince Gair, media release, 2 December 1965, Strangman papers, op. cit.
40 Gerard Henderson, ‘Indigenous school attendance could be the most important gap’, The Australian. 18 May 2017, www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/Gerard-henderson/ indigenous-school-attendance-could-be-the-most-important-gap/news-story/ d19ef4baa29ca72ed2cd14fe6046259b.
41 Vince Gair and Reginald Wright, joint press statement, Canberra, 9 December 1965, Strangman papers op. cit.
42 Senate debates, 10 December 1965, pp. 2289–90. This action had followed from submission no. 1143, dated 19 November 1965, from Anthony (see pp. 246–8 of NAA: A4940, C4257, Constitutional Amendments 1965 Referendum), which referenced the ballot paper for the Wool Reserve Prices Plan referendum.
43 Strangman, unpublished report on the referendum campaign, op. cit., pp. 6–7.
44 Letter and attachment from J.R. Odgers to Vince Gair, 24 December 1965, Strangman papers, op. cit.
45 Undated (c. 1965) note from Jack Kane to Senator Gair, Strangman papers, op. cit.
46 See minute to the Prime Minister from Peter Bailey, dated 20 December 1965 (NAA: A463, 1966/312, folio 81). The NAA file contains a minute (folio 32) dated 21 December from Ley to his minister stating that Bailey ‘is handling the “YES” case’.
47 See minute to the Prime Minister from Lawler, dated 23 December 1965, (NAA: A463, 1966/312, folio 48). The ‘no’ case was written in a narrative style for the first, aborted, attempt in 1965–66 but was changed to a question and answer style for the 1967 attempt. Although the official pamphlets were supposed to be pulped after the 1966 deferment, Senator Gair obtained a copy.
48 See, for example, NAA: A463, 1966/312, folio 48 in which Lawler seeks an answer from the Prime Minister about the suggestions made by Senator McKenna about the draft.
49 See copies of the official pamphlets for the 1966 and 1967 attempts in Strangman papers, op. cit.
50 Official pamphlet for 1966 attempt, Strangman papers, op. cit.
53 Journalist Alan Reid wrote, ‘Yet while it has emerged with only minor bruises from the parliamentary session just ended it was not a good session for the Government’ (Alan Reid, ‘The phoney crisis’, The Bulletin, December 18 1965, pp. 10–11). See ‘The real opposition moves to the Senate’, News Weekly, 1 September 1965, p. 2, for a summary of the IPEC issue. Sam Everingham, (the biographer of IPEC owner, Gordon Barton) wrote that following the defeat of the government in the Senate on 25 August over the IPEC issue, Sir Robert Menzies would never forgive Barton (Sam Everingham, Gordon Barton: Australia’s Maverick Entrepreneur, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest NSW, 2009, p. 94).
54 The results of the May 1965 Gallup poll were reported in the Melbourne Herald on 8 July 1965, p. 11. The results of the December 1965 Gallup poll appeared in The Courier-Mail on 15 January 1966, p. 3. One would have to admit that the form of the Gallup question in December 1965 was slightly ‘leading’. People were reminded ‘That in May we will be having a referendum on increasing the House of Representatives by 19 members – from 124 to 143 – without increasing the Senate’. That was the range of increase alleged by the opponents of the proposal but the government had not officially enumerated a specific future increase, although an increase of 21 was mentioned in an early draft of the official ‘yes’ case. (See p. 4 of the draft prepared by the acting parliamentary draftsman contained in NAA: A463, 1966/312, Constitution Referendum 1966 –Submission of arguments for amendment).
55 Memorandum from Ley to the secretary of the Department of the Interior, NAA: A406, E1966/36 Part 2, folio 7–8.
56 NAA: A406, E1966/36 Part 2, folio 5.
57 NAA: A406, E1966/36 Part 2, folio 8.
58 NAA: A406, E1966/36 Part 2, folio 15.
59 Harold Holt (Prime Minister), Referendum, media release, 15 February 1966. The ‘deferment’ was referred to in cabinet minute, decision no. 24, (NAA: A406, E1966/36 Part 2, folios 35–36).
60 NAA: A406, E1966/36 Part 2, folios 25–28. A copy of the statement obtained by the government carries a stamp that it had been sighted by the chief electoral officer on 17 February 1966.
61 See Strangman papers, op. cit.
62 Minute 7 March 1966 from the chief electoral officer to the minister, NAA: A406, E1966/36 Part 2, folio 45.
63 NAA: A406, E1966/36 Part 2, folios 37, 38, 44, 45. For the cost of the pamphlets see letter from the minister for the interior dated 1 September 1966 in reply to question asked in parliament by Senator Gair on 25 August 1966 (Strangman papers, op. cit.; Senate debates, 25 August 1966, p. 105).
64 Senator Gair expressed the DLP’s opposition to the nexus and support for the Aboriginal question in the party’s policy speech (Vince Gair, Federal Election 1966: DLP policy speech delivered on 7 November 1966, Strangman papers, op. cit.).
65 Liberal Party of Australia, Federal Election, 1966: policy speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Holt) over TV and radio stations throughout Australia on Tuesday, November 8 1966, Liberal Party of Australia, Canberra, 1966.
66 Cabinet decision no. 46, 1 February 1967, NAA: A4940, C4257.
67 Submission no. 75, 10 February 1967, NAA: A4940, C4257.
68 The Sydney Morning Herald, 13 February 1967.
69 Ibid., 15 February 1967.
70 Senate debates, 21 February 1967, p. 12.
71 House of Representatives debates, 21 February 1967, pp. 28–9.
72 Notes on cabinet submission no. 75 (Initials P.H. Bailey as author), 20 February 1967, NAA: A4940, C4257.
73 Cabinet decision no. 80, 22 February 1967, cabinet submissions no. 73 and no.103, NAA: A4940, C4257.
74 Cabinet decision no. 89, 23 February 1967, NAA: A4940, C4257. A curious item in The Australian (25 February 1967) stated, ‘The Opposition supports the referendum but Labor sources said yesterday that their leader, Mr Whitlam, would not want the party to be labelled as co-sponsor with the Government. So he is expected to ask the Government to consult him on the case after it has been prepared’.
75 House of Representatives debates, 23 February 1967, p. 114.
76 Ibid., 1 March 1967, p. 267.
77 Ibid., 1 March 1967, pp. 264–6.
78 Ibid., 1 March 1967, pp. 272–3
79 Ibid., 1 March 1967, pp. 260–2 and 264–278.
80 Senate debates, 8 March 1967, pp. 361–2. According to the Annotated Standing Orders of the Australian Senate, the procedure is now called a ‘roll call’ and is covered by standing order 110 (www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/aso).
81 Senate debates, 7 March 1967, pp. 274–9. Senate debates, 7 March 1967, pp. 274–9. For a discussion on the emergence of the Senate committee system see Rosemary Laing, ‘The Senate committee system: historical perspectives’, Papers on Parliament, no. 54, December 2010, www.aph.gov.au/pops.
82 Ibid., 7 March 1967, pp 274–314, and 8 March 1967, pp. 285–292.
83 Ibid., 7 March 1967, pp. 299–306.
84 Ibid., 7 March 1967, p. 311
85 In February 1967, Senator Hannaford notified his colleagues in the South Australian Liberal and Country League that he would sit on the cross-bench as an independent. This decision was related to his stance against the Vietnam War. See entry for Douglas Hannaford, The Biographical Dictionary of the Australian Senate, biography.senate.gov.au/hannaford-douglas-clive.
86 The Daily Advertiser (Wagga, NSW), 10 March 1967.
87 Strangman op. cit., unpublished report on the referendum campaign, p. 21.
88 There appears to be nothing significant in the difference between the two divisions. The vote on the third reading was taken at about 11.15 pm. and some of the ‘yes’ supporters may have decided to leave early knowing that their vote was not crucial to the outcome.
89 The Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1906 required the following wording be used for the ballot question: ‘Do you approve of the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled [here set out the title of the proposed law]?’ See www.legislation.gov.au/Details /C1906A00011.
90 The three titles are contained in the speeches by senators Scott and Murphy (Senate debates, 8 March 1967, p. 352.) The title of the bill adopted in 1965 was ‘A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution in relation to the Number of Members of each House of the Parliament’. The title of the bill under debate was ‘A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so that the Number of Members of the House of Representatives may be increased without necessarily increasing the Number of Senators’. The new title proposed by Senator Scott was ‘A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so as to Remove the Need to increase the Number of Senators whenever the Number of Members of the House of Representatives is increased’.
91 Cabinet minute, 7 March 1967, decision no. 118, NAA: A4940, C4257.
92 Senator Prowse was considered to be a part of the ten but did not play an active role. His support for the ‘no’ side was placed on the record in an item in the Weekend News (WA) on 13 May 1967 titled ‘No-man Prowse starts late’.
93 Strangman op. cit., notes from ‘no’ senators meeting, 5 April 1967.
94 Strangman papers, op. cit., letter from J.R. Odgers to Senator Vince Gair, dated 30 March 1967. The wording from Odgers which found its way onto page 10 of the official pamphlet was ‘Remember that this proposal to remove the nexus is likely to be only the first step to remove other constitutional safeguards embedded in the Constitution for the protection of the States. The plot was hatched by the Constitutional Review Committee and the next step of the super-planners at Canberra is for joint sittings of the two Houses to resolve legislative disagreements’, to which the drafters of the ‘no’ case added ‘without any double dissolution’.
95 Strangman papers, op. cit.
96 Strangman papers, op. cit., letter to N. Hutchison, ABC controller of programs, from senators Gair and Wright, dated 20 April 1967.
97 Strangman papers, op. cit.
98 Strangman papers, op. cit., transcripts of radio talks by R.L. Reid on 9 May 1967 and 16 May 1967 (incomplete). See also R.L. Reid, ‘Electorates plot seen in referendum’, Sunday Times, 14 May 1967.
99 J.B. Hopley, ‘Stevenson, John Rowlstone (1908–1971)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, adb.anu.edu.au/biography /stevenson-john-rowlstone-11765/text21043.
100 Strangman papers op. cit.
101 ‘Why the nexus should go’, The Western Sun (Perth), no. 84, vol. 8, p. 2. This article was originally cited by Paul J. Duffy, ‘The Democratic Labor Party: profile and prospects’, in Henry Mayer (ed.), Australian Politics: A Second Reader, F.W. Cheshire, Melbourne, 1969, p. 404.
102 The letter from future Prime Minister John Howard appeared in The Sydney Morning Herald on 25 May 1967 and was basically an attack on a statement made by Senator Gair about the workload of parliamentarians. In the week prior to the referendum, advertisements on behalf of the Labor Council of NSW and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the NSW Liberal Party, the NSW nexus vote ‘no’ committee, and Senator Ian Wood appeared but neither side was spending large funds on print advertising.
103 The Canberra Times, 23 March 1967.
104 Alan Reid, ‘Looking at certain unhealthy factors in the Senate’, The Bulletin, May 20, 1967, p. 18. Although published with a date of 20 May, the issue was available earlier in the week.
105 Bullock, op. cit. Bullock commenced his article with the words, ‘The year 1967 was one of the most remarkable years in sixty-seven years of the Australian Senate’s history’.
106 Senator Gair’s letter was dated 16 May 1967. In his reply dated 17 May, Holt conveyed an implied rejection of the request to appear at the Bar of the House, stating, ‘There are forms of the Senate available to you to state [your] views in that Chamber should you so decide when the proceedings of the Senate are being broadcast or otherwise’ (see Strangman papers, op. cit.).
107 House of Representatives debates, 18 May 1967, pp. 2369–84.
108 Senate debates, 19 May 1967, p. 1781. On 19 May 1967, The Canberra Times reported Whitlam’s reference to the ‘Odgers plan’ in an article entitled ‘Whitlam hits “interference”’.
109 NAA: A463, 1967/2446.
110 NAA: A463, 1967/2446, folio 12, 2 October 1967.
111 NAA: A463, 1967/2446, folio 15, 18 October 1967.
112 NAA: A463, 1967/2446, folio 10, 17 August 1967.
113 NAA: A463, 1967/2446, folio 17, 16 October 1967.
114 NAA: A463, 1967/2446, folio 26, 28 February 1968.
115 NAA: A463, 1967/2446, folio 32, 19 April 1974.
116 44th Parliamentary Handbook, op. cit., p. 394.
117 Australian Electoral Commission, ‘Costs of elections and referendums’, www.aec.gov.au/Elections/ Australian_Electoral_History/Cost_of_Election_1901_Present.htm.
118 NAA: A406, E1967/30, Part P, Department of Interior, Electoral Office.
119 Harold Holt, (Prime Minister), Result of Referendum, media statement, Canberra, 28 May 1967, P.M. No 55/1967.
120 Vince Gair, press statement, Brisbane, 27 May 1967, Strangman papers, op. cit.
121 The Mercury (Hobart), 29 May 1967.
122 The Canberra Times, 29 May 1967.
123 The Mercury (Hobart), 29 May 1967.
124 NAA: A406, E1967/30, A406, Part N, folios 67–69 (A.C.C. Menzies’ advice, pp. 30–2 in digitised version), folio 46 (Ley’s memorandum to the Attorney-General’s Department, p. 53 in digitised version), folio 44 (NSW chief electoral officer to Commonwealth chief electoral officer, p. 58 in digitised version), folio 42 (note to SA Chief Electoral Officer Mr Summers, p. 61 in digitised version). See also Strangman papers, op. cit.
125 NAA: A406, E1967/30.
126 Between 1973 and 1984, the AEC was known as the Australian Electoral Office. Prior to this it was a branch of the Department of Home Affairs. The AEC was established as an independent statutory authority in 1984.
127 House Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Time for Change: Yes/No, report of the inquiry into the machinery of referendums, House of Representatives, December 2009, p. 28.
128 Eleven days before the referendum, The Mercury (Hobart, 16 May 1967) reported that disciplinary moves against Senator Wright had been under consideration (see also The Brisbane Telegraph, 16 May 1967). Tom Frame later stated that Billy McMahon wrote to Holt on 13 June advising him not to take action on both senators Wright and Wood (Tom Frame, The Life and Death of Harold Holt, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW, 2005, p. 211 and p. 344, endnote 21).
129 Cathy Madden, ‘The Democratic Labor Party an overview’, Parliamentary Library, 18 July 2011, www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/DPLOverview.
130 44th Parliamentary Handbook, op. cit., p. 799, appendix 11.
131 University of Western Australia, Australian Politics and Elections Database, elections. uwa.edu.au/statedetail.lasso?statesection=Parliament.
132 See reports of the Constitutional Amendment sub-committee report and the Structure of Government sub-committee, Minutes of Proceedings and Official Record of Debates of the Australian Constitutional Convention, Government Printer, Sydney, 1985 and standing committee reports, Final Report of the Constitutional Commission, vol. 1, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1988.