FIFTY years ago Saturday, Australians were asked to answer a question that was to mark a turning point for the country’s first people.

The 1967 referendum proposed a change to the constitution to remove references to Aboriginal people, which had prevented them being counted as part of Australia’s population and the Commonwealth from legislating for them.

The ‘yes’ vote ended up being the largest in a referendum in Australia’s history, supported by more than 90 per cent of voters.

For Rodney Carter, chief executive officer of the Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation, the referendum did not in itself did not lead to immediate tangible change.

“It’s what sort of flows from that and what happened that makes that point in time significant,” Mr Carter said.

Mr Carter said the referendum solidified the idea of citizenship for Indigenous people and gave them the opportunity of advantages of services and applied policy.

“It can be challenged whether it’s positive or not, but in all policy from then, people have tried to be positive,” he said.

Bendigo and District Aboriginal Co-operative chief executive officer Raylene Harradine also said the referendum provided a foundation that was still being built upon today.

She said Australia would not be talking about closing the gap between life outcomes of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, and the Aboriginal community would not be taking leadership for its future.

“If the referendum didn’t go through, we wouldn’t be where we are now,” Ms Harradine said.

The 1967 referendum removed discriminatory references to Aboriginal people, but it did not give them formal recognition as the first people to call Australia home, an issue highlighted this week.

On Friday, following days of discussion, delegates at an all-Indigenous convention in Uluru rejected the prospect of constitutional recognition, instead endorsing the establishment of a treaty.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart also called for a referendum to secure a “First Nations Voice” within the constitution.

Mr Carter believes constitutional recognition would be important for Indigenous people as the “highest statement of fact” in the country.

A treaty would also be a positive step, he said.

A treaty would be a formal agreement between the government and Indigenous people that would give rise to legally binding obligations and outcomes.

Recognition of Indigenous sovereignty and land rights are two of the main tenets that have been proposed for a treaty, as well as shared power and a guaranteed consideration of Indigenous interests in decision-making.

“Treaty can be anything to anyone, but I think of treaty as sort of redressing… that idea of being conquered, or a people ceding their sovereignty,” Mr Carter said.

In central Victoria, Mr Carter said the Dja Dja Wurrung corporation would want to apply a treaty to the dispersal of wealth and resources within the community.

A treaty would also give Aboriginal people more of a voice, he said, in what they wanted for their community.

For Ms Harradine, the significance of inclusion in the constitution and a treaty would lie in the recognition that her ancestors were the first Australians.

This would put everyone on a “level playing field”, she said, and give the Australian community as a whole the opportunity to move forward without division.

Mr Carter said the referendum was yet to lead to true equality for Australia’s first people.

Issues such as over-representation in the justice and child protection systems were among those that still needed to be addressed, Ms Harradine said.

Employment, education and health are other areas in which the Aboriginal community is still yet to enjoy the same outcomes as the wider Australian community.

Ms Harradine believes education is a vital area in which the prospects of the Aboriginal community can be improved, by opening doors to employment and other opportunities.

She said culture was also key to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

Ms Harradine said being strong in their culture provided resilience for Aboriginal people and that was why organisations such as BDAC were important, imparting a cultural lens to all their services.

Victoria was a leader when it came to greater self-determination, she said, with the Aboriginal-controlled BDAC providing services to the local Aboriginal community.

Ms Harradine said the Dja Dja Wurrung traditional owner group was another example of strength in central Victoria, having negotiated a recognition and settlement agreement with the state government.

This agreement, signed nearly four years ago, recognises the Dja Dja Wurrung people as traditional owners and codifies a “meaningful partnership founded on mutual respect” between them and the state government.

Over the next 50 years, Mr Carter hopes the Aboriginal community will see redress of its disadvantage with greater prosperity through education, as well as community and individual wealth.

He also hopes the Aboriginal community will be a “real asset” to the wider central Victorian community in the areas of culture and leadership.