There was a prominent 'yes' campaign in the 1967 referendum, run by the organisation Federal Council for the Advancement Of Aboriginals And Torres Strait Islanders, which had posters, advertisements in papers, and even advertising jingles on radio (there are some examples of editorials and ads here). In contrast, there was no significant 'no' campaign in the 1967 referendum - which made it unique amongst Australian referenda.

In parliament, all of the major parties supported a 'yes' vote, and so there was no published 'case' for a 'no' vote in the parliamentary record. And this was the point, in a way: the referendum to amend the references to indigenous people in the constitution was a surefire thing that the huge majority of people had agreed on by 1967 (successful referendums being necessary to change the Australian constitution). The government of the time hoped to get up another, more controversial, amendment to the constitution relating to Federal vs state powers, and were hoping that that amendment would piggyback its way to success on the more popular one.

It should be said that there's some controversy over the meaning of the constitutional amendment to omit the mentions of indigenous peoples in the constitutions; it's more complicated than 'recognising Aboriginals as Australian citizens'. Attwood and Markus in 1998 argued that its implications for the legal rights and status of indigenous peoples in Australia were slight, as in most states Aborigines had already had the rights of citizens, such as the right to vote (apart from, sort of, in Western Australia and Queensland). Attwood and Markus argue that the change was largely symbolic for this reason. Elsewhere, Taffe in 2007 argued that the real change that resulted from the constitutional amendment was that Aboriginal affairs was no longer a state but rather a Federal responsibility. Where, previously, Federal governments had argued that indigenous people were the responsibility of the states, they no longer had this particular excuse; as a result, for example, the Whitlam government set up a department of Aboriginal Affairs in 1972.

There are a few reasons why the 'yes' vote was popular, especially amongst the majority of the Australian population that lived in cities. By 1967, the advent of television in the 1950s had opened many eyes to how difficult conditions were for indigenous peoples. Additionally, the Australian public was aware of international opprobrium about the Apartheid of South Africa, and did not want to become an international pariah, and the referendum seemed a clear way to demonstrate that. And in the 1960s there was a new-found prominence for indigenous rights activists, such as organisations like FCAATSI. And as the change was in many ways symbolic, there were few real grounds for opposition to it, as nobody particularly felt they would lose out (which perhaps might have been different if the consitutional amendments clearly implied the land rights which came about after the Mabo decision in the 1990s, for example).

In general, advocacy for the 'no' vote was largely seen in public in letters to the editor, and was often quite racist; one letter to the editor of the Adelaide Advertiser claimed the vote would propel indigenous people "into the turmoil of a civilization they probably do not understand and do not want". More genteel arguments against the amendment revolved around arguments for states' rights, which would be undermined by the change to the constitution. However, even this was quite muted; the Premier of Queensland, Frank Nicklin, appears to have had assurances by Harold Holt that they would continue working with the states on Aboriginal Affairs. There's also some suggestion that state Premiers were happy to handball responsibility for a difficult portfolio - that they probably did not understand and did not want - to the Federal government.

The highest 'no' vote was in Western Australia, where there was a 20% no vote. Western Australia of course had a successful referendum to secede from Australia in 1933 (which was ignored by the Federal parliament), which is emblematic of Western Australians having less trust in the distant, Eastern-based Federal Government than the rest of Australia. There were also higher 'no' votes in country areas - the highest being in Kalgoorlie in country Western Australia, which almost hit 30% (and which still has some significant and highly publicised tensions between the indigenous and white parts of its community).

Sources:

• Russell Macgregor, 2008, 'An Absent Negative: The 1967 Referendum', History Australia

• Attwood & Markus, 1998, '(The) 1967 (referendum) And All That: Narrative and myth, Aborigines and Australia', Australian History Studies

• Scott Bennett, 1987, 'The 1967 Referendum', Australian Aboriginal Studies

• Sue Taffe, 2007, 'The 1967 Referendum: Myths And Meanings', Agora

I'm curious as to the popularity of the vote among the Aboriginal peoples. Did they favor citizenship, independence or a separate status?