The focus in New Zealand is understandably on the latest election. However, Australia had its own vote on Saturday, the ‘Voice’ referendum – a referendum that confirms a trend in Australian politics that may also be emerging in New Zealand.
The issue at stake in Australia was whether the Constitution should be amended ‘to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice’, a representative body entitled to give non-binding advice to the Australian Parliament on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.
The objective was twofold. First, to formally recognise the original inhabitants of the Australian continent in the nation’s founding document. Secondly, to enable those people to have a say on matters affecting them.
To succeed, the Voice proposal required a ‘double majority’ – a majority of all Australian voters and a majority of voters in at least four of the six states.
As public polling had been predicting for months, the proposal was unsuccessful and achieved neither of the required majorities.
While counting has not yet been completed, the result is clear. The No vote currently sits at 60.5% and the Yes vote at 39.5%. Furthermore, the No vote exceeded the Yes vote in every state.
Many kiwis will be surprised that Australia rejected a seemingly modest proposal in such strong terms. There are numerous explanations but here are some of the key ones (in no particular order).
- There was a lack of detail on the nature and operation of the proposed Voice. The plan was always to determine the specifics later through a process of consultation but that created uncertainty for many voters.
- The referendum campaign took place during a housing and cost of living crisis, and many viewed the referendum as a distraction for the government.
- There was high profile opposition to the Voice among Indigenous Australians - some thought the proposal went too far, some not far enough. And the No campaign was led by Indigenous Australians.
- The Voice referendum was a standalone exercise but also part of a broader reconciliation project known as ‘Voice, Treaty, Truth’. The Treaty component unsettled some voters.
- The referendum did not have bipartisan support. The Coalition, the opposition in Parliament, campaigned against the Voice.
- The Voice was seen as anti-democratic and divisive in some quarters on the basis that it would have given special rights to one small minority.
- Some No supporters spread disinformation about the implications of the Voice. This created fear and uncertainty for some voters.
- Some Yes supporters were too quick to label as racists and bigots those who questioned the Yes case. This was a repeat of Hillary Clinton’s famous blunder when she called half of her opponents a ‘basket of deplorable’. Insults don’t win votes.
After what was a toxic referendum process, the relative importance of each of these factors in the referendum outcome is highly contested. The No side points to division and lack of detail; the Yes side blames disinformation and the lack of bipartisanship.
Putting aside that controversy, the most striking feature of the referendum result is the stark divide between Australia’s inner cities and the rest of the country.
At this stage, it appears there was majority support for Yes in only about 30 of Australia’s 151 electorates. Apart from one seat in Tasmania, those electorates are all close to the heart of Australia’s capital cities.
Here’s the picture for Sydney.
Source: The ABC
It’s the same story in Melbourne.
Source: The ABC
It was similar in Brisbane, Perth, Hobart, and Canberra – a concentration of Yes voters in the urban centers.
This reflects a divide on cultural issues between inner-city Australians and the rest. The former are wealthier and better educated and they are far more supportive of progressive causes like indigenous rights and climate change.
That was demonstrated in last year’s general election by the success of the culturally progressive ‘teal independents’ and the Greens Party in picking up many inner-city electorates. New Zealand is likely seeing something similar in the strong support for the Green Party on Saturday in Central Wellington, Rongotai, and Central Auckland.
It’s a trend that looks set to continue in Australia. And it will bring with it greater political polarisation.
The divide between the inner cities and the rest is closely related to another fascinating aspect of the Voice referendum. The Yes campaign received the overwhelming support of what might be termed Australia’s ‘elites’ (an elusive and contentious term). Many of the country’s institutions, from universities, religious groups, and sporting bodies to arts organisations, unions, and big business, endorsed the Yes campaign.
The big four banks alone donated over $7 million to the campaign, and BHP and Rio Tinto each gave $2 million.
The referendum result indicates that in many cases these institutions’ support for the Voice was at odds with the views of a majority of their members, shareholders, staff, congregants, customers or other stakeholders. This reinforces the picture of two different, even conflicting, Australias.
At a press conference on Saturday Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the man who instigated the referendum, played down the divisions. In an echo of Barack Obama, he said that ‘We are not Yes voters or No voters. We are all Australians’.
Where to from here for reconciliation between Australia and its First Nations people? According to Marcia Langton, an Aboriginal academic and prominent proponent of the Voice, ‘reconciliation is dead’.
The PM is more optimistic, at least in public. He’s recommitted to advancing reconciliation and to listening to First Australians. However, it may take some time to heal the wounds of his rejected referendum.
*Ross Stitt is a freelance writer with a PhD in political science. He is a New Zealander based in Sydney. His articles are part of our 'Understanding Australia' series.
34 Comments
Agree. I wondered why they didn't go for an Officer of Parliament type role and office - much like our Ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the Office of the Auditor-General here.
Much more straight-forward and a well understood institutional arrangement.
It was obvious the Yes side were lying about the relevance of the referendum. If it was a mere modest council with no real power, why have the referendum? The Uluru statement was longer than one page, there was significant lying about it and enormous money spent by the Yes side. Yes was backed by all sorts of big business money and by high profile web weavers like Mark Leibler.
Good on Australians for pushing back.
I agree, it had no power then why do it at all. Seriously if they want talk to aboriginals then why not just talk to them, that's a way forward. What they wanted to do is set a precedent, so later on they can say look we where anti democratic here it here so why can't we be anti democratic here. Its about small steps that is setting up the groundwork for later changes.
There is already a Ministry for Aboriginal Affairs. What is that, if not a voice to Government? If decades of dedicated resources being put into Aboriginal policies have made no difference, what difference would a Parliamentary change have made? Other than to create a new taxpayer funded trough for handpicked elites to snuffle and bathe in.
As a dual citizen of both NZ and Australia, I had a foot in both camps on Sat night. I was happy with the NZ result and disappointed with Australia’s but not surprised.
This really should have been an easy change. This was no co- governance model, it was simply recognising the original inhabitants of Australia and giving them a say in matters that affect indigenous people.
Unfortunately Australians are notoriously suspicious of constitutional change there has always been a general distrust of politicians and their intended actions. This is reflected in the fact only 8 out of 45 referendums have succeeded- the last was 45 years ago in 1977.
The shame about this referendum is that it’s likely nothing will change for Australia’s indigenous people a group which is really behind the eight ball with a number living in third world conditions and with just tragic health, education and economic outcomes.
The other tragedy is this outcome will reinforce the perception Australians are racist (are they? No more so than many other countries) and that will be a missed opportunity
There is zero chance that a Yes vote would have changed anything at all for aborigines living their lives in remote communities. Quite possibly there is no solution to the problem. As someone (cant remember who) commented "If you want First World outcomes, you need to actually live in a First World society".
Don't they have a say? Don't they get a vote? Can't they form a group lobby the government? If there is any law that says they can't do any of that it should be changed immediately. What did the voice enable them to do that they can't do already?
Although the slippery slope argument not logically sound, examples of people slowly introducing policy to meet their final agenda is a tactic that seems to be used.
I don't think any constitution should reference any specific races. As soon as you start dividing people up by races in a constitution, no matter how good the intentions, you create a potential for racial discrimination.
By definition you enshrine an additional division into a population, slicing the population up into "original inhabitants" and "other". Imagine they suggested this in the UK, all White people classed as "Original Inhabitants", and would that mean for 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation immigrants or slavey descendants. How can a population move forward when you create these divisions?
A constitution should represent all members of a population equally, that indigenous people need support sits outside of the purpose of a constitution and can be tackled by other means.
Those that live in the inner cities are those that are least likely to ever come into contact with Aboriginals. For them, aboriginality is merely an idea. Those on the ground actually dealing with the fallout from ending The Intervention last year understand that a bunch of townies siphoning off millions of dollars to pontificate about the plight of aborigines in remote communities will do absolutely nothing to help those people.
We are just back from 2 weeks in S. Australia, much of it in the Flinders Ranges. We did several cultural tours and while the majority of the indigenous people we met were hoping for a yes vote, some were going to vote no. They cited a lack of detail on how it would work and a distrust of government.
I saw some similarity with co-governance here, in that neither government saw fit to try and properly explain what this would mean.
I would have voted "No" for your number 6.
6. The Voice was seen as anti-democratic and divisive in some quarters on the basis that it would have given special rights to one small minority.
In New Zealand we have this political binary view of Maori and non Maori. When really there are many diverse factors of who people are.
As a health professional if those Maori guys David Seymour and David Bridges asked for service some would say they should be pushed up the queue. I don't. I am very happy to work out priorities but simple race does not inform you of much.
David Seymour's question for a referendum is very clear. Worth the read.
Would you support or oppose a Treaty Principles Act that defined the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as follows:
1 The New Zealand Government has the right to govern New Zealand.
2 The New Zealand Government will protect all New Zealanders’ authority over their land and other property.
3 All New Zealanders are equal under the law, with the same rights and duties
Except you're just changing the treaty to reflect the english version of the treaty. Is that fair?
The reason the courts came up with the partnership principle was because of the conflicting interpretation of both versions of the treaty; it was the only way to reconcile them.
You cant just change treaties by referendum. They are signed by the executive. Can we have a vote on the China free trade agreement? I dont like it and would like to change to reflect my world view.
Well centre, the Treaty was written in English, and translated. So the English version is entirely fair. And a Treaty is never a partnership. The Crown wouldn’t have dreamed of entering into a partnership. So to say it was a partnership is just an abrogation to get around something difficult.
All those things are already true, so what's the point of the referendum other than to distract and stoke division? And to provoke those who lost out back when we didn't uphold these principles?
James Shaw is right that this referendum could lead to significant unrest, because - similar to the voice referendum - the lack of a concrete change meets that anyone with any mistrust of the government will be afraid there's more to it than meets the eye. If ACT are foolish enough to try and do it, I hope it's met with a boycott rather than campaigning.
I had no idea what the referendum was - but if that's the wording - that's nuts and just plain wrong as well. And, a yes or no vote achieves nothing either way, does it?.
The Treaty (the one signed by the chiefs of the time) is the Treaty. It has no principles - it has articles in law. The signed te reo Māori version has been translated into English. No one disputes that translation. It certainly doesn't need a re-write by David Seymour :-).
We've already had the Waitangi Tribunal, the High Court and a Labour government all come up with different ideas about what these (non-existent) "principles" are.
I'd rather have a referendum, yes or no, to drop/extinguish/withdraw/expunge (or whatever the legal term(s) needed) all reference to the "principles of the Treaty of Waitangi". The Treaty text speaks for itself - and it should be literally interpreted and faithfully honoured.
Sorry Kate, the Treaty was written in English, and translated to Maori. If it has been translated the other way now, the original English version is the version that should be used for correctness, as that is what the Crown (the writer of the Treaty) was proposing. It's a difficult situation, since if the Treaty was signed under a misapprehension, from either side, then it could well be a nullity. Then where would we be?
Typical reporter classes the yes as more intelligent how does he/she know that. The WA people I just traveled thru Africa with were all very high net worth self made people and they all unanimous said NO maybe they would think this reporter is uneducated and I'll informed obviously 60 percent do
Equal citizens with the same rights, responsibilities and political say - how terrible.
If interpreted correctly, as it is written, the Treaty is an excellent document upon which to found a liberal, fair society. We desperately need ACT’s referendum to unite the country and begin implementing the Treaty as it was intended by the signatories.
You are dreaming if you think it will unite the country. How many people are going to believe that a referendum not proposing any explicit changes is just that? We've just seen in Australia how few people trust politicians to not have hidden motives. And don't underestimate the provocation of loudly enshrining these principles now, after they were previously widely ignored by settlers during the 19th century.
It will be acrimonious and bitter: luxon already said as much which is why he doesn't want it. If Seymour forces it through, shame on them both.
Rubbish. For future generations, a founding document that, as originally intended, ascribes equality under the law with everyone having the same rights and responsibilities will be hugely unifying. It will stop the creeping disunity that misinterpretation of the Treaty has caused. While it will obviously be hotly contested by race separatists now, in the long run it will be well worth it.
‘5 seats with the largest proportion of Indigenous residents voted no by an average of 71%. The 5 electorates with smallest Indigenous population – Goldstein (0.2%), Chisholm (0.3%), Bradfield (0.3%), Kooyong (0.3%) & Higgins (0.3%) – averaged 56% yes.’
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/no-result-was-an-act-of-ins…
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.