Since Australian independence in 1901, only eight of the 44 proposals for constitutional change have been approved.
Support has slid to 43% in the latest survey, down from 46% in August with voters in New South Wales and Victoria, Australia’s most populous states, shifting against the proposal.
The ‘No’ vote is strongest in Queensland and Western Australia with 61% set to reject the Voice.
The referendum debate has divided opinions with supporters arguing the Voice will bring progress for the Aboriginal community, recognise the 65,000 year-old culture and “unite the nation”. Opponents say it would be divisive and hand excessive powers to the body, while others have described it as tokenism and toothless.
Making up about 3.2% of Australia’s near 26 million population, the Aboriginal people were marginalised by British colonial rulers and are not mentioned in the 122-year-old constitution.
Blows my mind how long the “Yes” campaign waited to start campaigning.
The “No” campaign started as soon as the LNP sided against the voice last year. The “Yes” campaign only started a few weeks ago.
Letting the “No” campaign go unchallenged for months has had a predictable result and this will go down in history as a masterclass in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Most referendums usually end in defeat unless they start with overwhelming public support. The support has been lackluster from the very beginning so this isn’t surprising
I wish this was the case with Brexit…
It’s been bungled pretty badly by the yes side, when you can’t actually say exactly what you want to change in our constitution it’s not a great sign of a decent change. If they could say exactly what they wanted to change (assuming it was reasonable) and Labor explained exactly what policy they wanted to back it up with I think they’d convince a lot of conservative Australians to vote yes as well. As it stands it isn’t likely to get through, I haven’t talked to an indigenous person who is going to vote yes for it yet either.
I also find it a bit ironic that Tasmania, the state that practically wiped out it’s indigenous population that they’re most in support of it.
I agree that it may have been bungled, but I think that some of what you said isn’t quite right.
The precise text of the constitutional amendment is already set forth. You can read it online. They put it in a physical booklet which was sent to every household in the country. You’re right that the messaging was far from perfect, especially near the start, but saying that the “yes” side can’t state what they want to change is a bit disingenuous.
Why I think it may have been bungled is that it’s the sort of change that needed to be made from a position of political strength, and I’m not sure that Labor were quite there. The “no” side was always going to have an advantage in that it’s usually easier to maintain the status quo than it is to change something.
This means that the “yes” proponents have to do a lot more work to argue their case, and when combined with the big problems that Australia is facing (cost of living, housing affordability, etc) I think a lot of folks who would be “in the middle” on the issue are understandably a bit irritated that the government can appear to be putting more work into this than those other issues.
I agree that it may have been bungled, but I think that some of what you said isn’t quite right.
Fair point, I’d missed that in the pamphlet, it’s still a super vague change though. Where are the definitions of what this body will look like, what powers it grants to said body and how do they define ‘matters relating to indigenous australians’? Changes to our constitution can’t be vague, they have to be clear and concise in what and how they grant powers otherwise they’re ripe for abuse. I can think of about half a dozen ways it can be abused with the current wording.
The precise text of the constitutional amendment is already set forth. You can read it online. They put it in a physical booklet which was sent to every household in the country. You’re right that the messaging was far from perfect, especially near the start, but saying that the “yes” side can’t state what they want to change is a bit disingenuous.
I think my point above still stands, there is zero assurances or guarantees that ‘listening to indigenous voices’ and ‘giving recognition’ will lead to better outcomes for indigenous Australians, which is kind of the whole point of all of it.
Why I think it may have been bungled is that it’s the sort of change that needed to be made from a position of political strength, and I’m not sure that Labor were quite there. The “no” side was always going to have an advantage in that it’s usually easier to maintain the status quo than it is to change something.
They’re probably burnt for the next election cycle if the LNP get their act together honestly, assuming it doesn’t pass anyway.
This means that the “yes” proponents have to do a lot more work to argue their case, and when combined with the big problems that Australia is facing (cost of living, housing affordability, etc) I think a lot of folks who would be “in the middle” on the issue are understandably a bit irritated that the government can appear to be putting more work into this than those other issues.
Yeah that’s basically the nail in the coffin for them, it’s all well and good to do this but maybe don’t time it when a not insignificant chunk of our population is having to choose between a roof over their heads and being well fed.
I think my point above still stands, there is zero assurances or guarantees that ‘listening to indigenous voices’ and ‘giving recognition’ will lead to better outcomes for indigenous Australians, which is kind of the whole point of all of it.
The page I linked isn’t authored by the “yes” proponents, it’s just an objective description of the change that we’re voting on. So it doesn’t (and shouldn’t) attempt to describe what each side asserts that the outcome of the amendment would be.
For that you can check out the section that each side has in the booklet. There looks to be PDF of it on the AEC site. Outcomes that the “yes” proponents expect for indigeous folks which are listed there include increased life expectancy, improved education, reduced infant mortality.
Those aren’t ironclad assurances or guarantees but I don’t think we really get those with any legislative changes. Providing some kind of assurance on an outcome would require a much more radical amendment which would likely be fraught with problems
They’re probably burnt for the next election cycle if the LNP get their act together honestly, assuming it doesn’t pass anyway.
Yeah, I think you’re probably right. If the LNP had someone a bit more charismatic than Dutton then I’d be almost certain that you’re right. Maybe Labor will get lucky and there’ll still be enough lingering resentment against the libs, but they need to be a lot less feckless than the have been so far if they don’t want to rely on that.
At the same time it doesn’t look like the LNP have learned much from last time either. Really just a shitshow all round at a time when we need some good leadership.
I’m most likely voting no because to me, and the indigenous people I’ve asked, it just looks like virtue signalling that will bring no change and will arguably mean no change is going going to happen any time soon if it passes because then we can act like we did something.
All it guarantees is that someone can give advice on indigenous issues to parliament. Not who that someone is or how they get chosen. Not how many people it can be made up of and how long they can serve for. The kicker is that it doesn’t even guarantee that parliament will listen. It holds literally no power.
If it guaranteed some power that I thought would actually make life better for indigenous people - some senate seats, a veto ability on policy that would affect indigenous people or something, etc - I’d vote yes in a heartbeat.
Unfortunately many people are trying to paint everyone that is going to vote no as a racist old white person. They also say that “over 80% of indigenous people support it” while quoting a survey of only 700 people.
