() – Australia has set a date for its first referendum in 24 years, as surveys suggest the government is headed for failure unless it can reverse the decline in support for the referendum.
On Oct. 14, more than 17 million registered voters across the country will vote on whether to change the constitution to recognize the land’s original inhabitants through a First Nations advisory group with a direct line to government.
“On that day, every Australian will have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to unite our country and change it for the better,” Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Wednesday.
As soon as the date was announced, the No campaign sent out a text message asking for tax-deductible donations that read: “It’s on! Albo has called it and we have until October 14 to beat the Voice!”
Only one question will be asked, which requires a “yes” or “no” answer: “Proposed Bill: To amend the Constitution to recognise Australia’s first peoples by establishing a voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Do you approve of this proposed amendment? Yes – No.”
The question has generated hundreds of headlines and hours of debate online and on air, as both sides mount vigorous campaigns to sway majorities in every state and territory.
A double majority is needed for the vote to pass, meaning more than 50% of voters nationwide and at least 50% in a majority of states – at least four out of six. Votes in the territories (the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory) will only be included in the national total.
The vote is seen as a pivotal moment, not only because constitutional change is rare and irreversible, but because it has illuminated issues that have festered for centuries.
The Voice, if approved, would enshrine a body in the constitution made up of indigenous peoples to advise the government on laws that concern them.
Supporters say the vote is an opportunity to address the open wounds of injustice, to finally listen to First Nations people after generations of persecution, racism and neglect.
Others say it is a symbolic gesture that will achieve nothing at best and risks dividing the nation by giving some Australians a special place above others in the constitution.
The picture is further complicated by those in the “yes” camp who believe a mark on a ballot is a small stand against racism meant to be paraded by some “no” voters, whose ranks include some First Nations people who argue that a Yes vote will absolve Australians from any substantive action against racism and what is really needed is a treaty.
Now that a date has been set, activists are expected to step up their efforts to capture undecided voters, who may not automatically cast their ballots along traditional political party lines.
While the Labor government wants a yes vote, Australia’s other major parties (the Liberal Party and the National Party, whose coalition was abandoned last May after nine years in power) support a no vote.
The heated political climate has created pockets of misinformation that the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has sought to quell before they become entrenched.
For example, last week, Liberal leader Peter Dutton suggested the AEC process was flawed because the AEC commissioner said they would likely accept a tick for yes, but not a cross for no.
“At every turn, it seems to me that they are taking the opportunity to skew this in favour of a Yes vote, when Australians just want a fair election, not a dodgy one,” Dutton told Sky News.
The AEC issued a statement saying it “totally and absolutely rejects suggestions by some that by transparently following established, public and known legislative requirements we are undermining the impartiality and fairness of the referendum.”
The AEC said it was required by law to count votes with a clear voting intention that were cast incorrectly and that “long-standing legal advice establishes that a cross may be open to interpretation as to whether it denotes approval or disapproval.”
Beyond arguments over procedure, the debate has touched on the heart of how the nation views its indigenous people 235 years after the arrival of British settlers irreparably transformed the fate of those whose ancestors had inhabited the Australian subcontinent for tens of thousands of years.
Government statistics updated annually show the enduring toll of colonisation, which casts a wide shadow over an indigenous population whose hundreds of distinct groups make up less than 4% of the population – some 800,000 people in a country of 26 million.
For a long time, Australia’s history was told through the lens of colonisers, who ignored or downplayed the country’s violent roots, says Anna Clark, a historian at the Australian Centre for Public History at the University of Technology Sydney.
In the late 19th century, she said, Indigenous people did not fit into Australia’s nation-building narrative, and decades later, as the American civil rights and anti-apartheid movements took hold, “the silence became overwhelming.”
The demands of the indigenous community became stronger and were discussed, refined and finally drafted in the “Uluru Statement from the Heart” a document endorsed by nearly 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and elders. The statement forms the basis of the Voice’s proposal, which Clark says is “overwhelmingly” supported by historians.
“It’s a really important moment because Australian historians have curated and defined what Australian history is and who is a historian and who can tell that story. And right now we’re being invited to step back and listen to other national narratives and give that voice to Aboriginal storytellers and knowledge holders.”
But recent polls suggest that if a vote were taken now, it would likely fail.
The No campaign has gained momentum with questions about the details, suggesting voters do not know enough about how the Voice will work to make a decision. The government says those details will be debated in parliament after the constitutional change.
The last time Australians were asked to vote in a referendum on the country’s indigenous peoples was in 1967, when 90% voted to include Indigenous Australians in population counts and for the government to enact laws affecting them.
This time, June Oscar, the Australian Human Rights Commission’s (AHRC) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, is concerned that information is not reaching some people, such as those living in remote areas and others who are left out of the conversation, which has sometimes been distressing for some First Nations people.
“We are seeing or hearing a lot of racist and harmful discourse in relation to the referendum,” Oscar said, noting that the AHRC produced a referendum resource kit that advises people on how to minimise harm. Tips include centred indigenous knowledge, voices and perspectives and avoiding racially denigrating language.
Oscar said she is also “saddened and disappointed by some of the falsehoods” being spread.
The fear among some is that if the vote fails, it will send a message, rightly or wrongly, that racists have won, and centuries of struggle for respect as the country’s First Nations people will fall into the hands of future generations.
“I think there is a strong and shared belief that we should and are capable of doing this well in our lifetime, and that we should not leave this legacy of struggle to our children and grandchildren,” Oscar said.
What if it fails?
“We go back to the editorial board again and learn from this for when the next opportunity presents itself.”
But Albanese has made it clear that there are no second chances.
“Voting no leads nowhere. It means that nothing changes. Voting does not close the door to this opportunity to move forward,” he said on Wednesday.
Addressing Australians directly, he said: “Don’t close the door on an idea that came from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people themselves, and don’t close the door on the next generation of Indigenous Australians.”
Add Comment