Reflections on the defeat of the Voice to Parliament referendum

The referendum’s failure should serve as a call to action to address the pressing issues of Indigenous recognition and Reconciliation in the country.

The recent defeat of the Voice to Parliament referendum in Australia, with 39 per cent in favour and 61 per cent against, signifies a missed opportunity for advancing Indigenous rights and Reconciliation and this outcome is particularly disheartening for Indigenous communities and their supporters, who had hoped for a different result.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s response to the referendum’s failure demonstrates the government’s commitment to Reconciliation, despite the setback, where he acknowledged the challenges faced in the journey towards Reconciliation, emphasising that the issues the referendum aimed to address persist. The federal government remains dedicated to these objectives, and the failure of this particular referendum does not mark the end of efforts to bring about change. Albanese’s speech reflected a message of hope, unity, and a continuing commitment to improving the position of First Australians.

Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney’s response also highlighted the disappointment felt by many; however, she emphasised resilience, the ongoing pursuit of Reconciliation, and the need for better outcomes for Indigenous communities and the importance of engaging with Indigenous Australians to identify practical solutions for future generations.

Despite the disappointment, the defeat of the referendum serves as a catalyst for analysing its causes and implications. The referendum’s rejection perpetuates Australia’s status as the only colonised country without constitutional recognition of its First Nations people, a fact that will likely remain a topic of debate and discussion for years to come.

Various factors contributed to the referendum’s defeat: Inherent racism, though often passive, certainly played a role in influencing the “No” vote. Conservative political affiliations, with the Liberal and National parties choosing not to support the referendum, also had a significant impact. Additionally, disinformation campaigns and the spread of false information likely swayed public opinion. The media’s role in disseminating information and shaping public opinion was instrumental in the outcome, which raises concerns about the ethics and integrity of media outlets in informing the public on critical issues.

The failure of the Voice to Parliament referendum underscores the ongoing challenges Australia faces in its quest for Reconciliation. While the outcome is disappointing, it serves as a call to action for those who want to see positive social change in the nation. The analysis of the referendum’s defeat should prompt continued efforts to address systemic racism, foster political unity, and promote responsible and unbiased journalism. Despite this setback, Australia must remain committed to closing the gap and striving for a more equitable and just society, especially for its First Nations people. The referendum’s defeat does not mark the end of the road to Reconciliation but, rather, a reminder of the long journey ahead.

The implications of the referendum’s failure in Australia

The difficulties surrounding the Voice to Parliament referendum go beyond the immediate factors that led to its defeat. It highlights the broader challenges of achieving constitutional change in Australia and the referendum’s failure underscores the immense hurdles that any proposed constitutional amendment must overcome, making constitutional change an almost impossible endeavour.

Constitutional change is indeed a complex and laborious process in Australia, and this is not necessarily a negative feature of the system – the Australian Constitution is designed to be stable and to protect fundamental principles and rights. However, the challenge lies in striking the right balance between preserving these foundational principles and adapting the Constitution to address contemporary issues, such as recognition of First Nations people – New Zealand is mentioned in the Constitution as a possible future state of Australia. Why is New Zealand recognised in the Constitution – a fully independent nation with no likelihood or intention of becoming a part of the federation of Australia – while the First Nations people are not? This is an anachronism that needs to be resolved.

The rejection of the Voice to Parliament referendum by the Liberal–National Coalition exemplifies the difficulty of achieving constitutional change without bipartisan support and this lack of consensus on an issue as significant as Indigenous recognition raises questions about the willingness of certain political factions to prioritise national unity and Reconciliation over partisan interests.

The referendum’s defeat also highlights the role of negative political tactics and disinformation campaigns in influencing public opinion, and these negative forces in the country easily magnify and manipulate political and social issues, making them seem much more contentious than they actually are. In this context, it’s crucial to consider the impact of media, misinformation, and the tactics employed during political campaigns on the outcomes of referendums.

The fact that the “Yes” campaign appeared to resonate more with university-educated urban populations suggests a need for a more inclusive and effective outreach strategy. If this observation is accurate – provided by Kos Samaras from the political consultancy firm RedBridge – it underscores the importance of reaching a broader cross-section of the population in future attempts to effect constitutional change.

Looking ahead, it is reasonable to consider the potential consequences of the referendum’s failure, as it may be a long time before another referendum is proposed on any issue, especially those related to Indigenous recognition. Will this defeat also place a handbrake on other issues of constitutional reform, such as the Australian republic?

The Voice to Parliament referendum’s failure serves as a stark reminder of the complexities of constitutional change in Australia. It emphasises the need for broader consensus, effective outreach, and a vigilant approach to combat misinformation in future campaigns, whether it be a referendum, or a general election. The referendum’s defeat is more than just a setback for Indigenous recognition; it raises questions about the state of the country’s political landscape and its ability to embrace change.

Lack of empathy in the aftermath

The aftermath of the Voice to Parliament referendum defeat has revealed a disheartening lack of empathy from some quarters of the “No” campaign, even in the face of victory. Reports of celebrations in Queensland, with prominent figures like Gina Reinhardt in attendance, contrast sharply with the sombre response from Indigenous leaders.

Why are they celebrating? What is there to celebrate?

Indigenous leaders sought to hold a week of silence and lower the Indigenous flag to half-mast at public buildings to reflect upon this loss. However, conservative forces and sections of the media criticised this gesture, labeling it as an “affront to democracy”. This response highlights the polarised nature of Indigenous and the lack of understanding of those deeply affected by the referendum’s outcome.

The Indigenous community, along with the many “Yes” voters and campaign supporters, is left with a sense of disappointment and frustration. The criticism they face for expressing their grief and disappointment is, in many ways, a heartless from the conservatives in Australia and reveals a prevailing sentiment that it is not sufficient to defeat one’s opponents in political battles; they must be annihilated as well. It is a harsh and unsympathetic response to the emotional and historical significance of this referendum for Indigenous communities.

The sentiments expressed by Indigenous author Melissa Lukashenko, who suggested that “white Australia doesn’t want to give blackfellas anything, even when it’s nothing” highlight a pervasive issue. The referendum’s defeat reinforces a broader pattern of systemic neglect and denial of Indigenous rights and aspirations.

And it is this denial that was prevalent with many from the “No” campaign. Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton said that he would hold a second referendum to offer Indigenous recognition only, rather than a Voice to Parliament: he has since backtracked on this, suggesting that Australian’s are “over” referendums and won’t want to see another one “for some time” to come.

Warren Mundine, who suggested Treaty would be best achieved through a “No” result, has also backtracked on this. Dutton and Mundine lied – no surprises – but this questions the sincerity of their positions and their commitment to achieving meaningful change for Indigenous people.

In the aftermath of the referendum, it’s evident that the “No” campaign’s strategies and deceptive claims throughout the campaign have left a lingering bitterness and animosity. Their use of misleading slogans, allegations of rigged votes, and a lack of transparency in their messaging have eroded trust. If they were so convinced of the merits of their case, why did they resort to outright lies and misinformation? Where is the courage in their convictions? The simple answer is that there was none. Dutton engaged in divisive politics to appeal to the conservative base, the privileged and wealthy, the propertied class, and the captains of industry who benefit from a divided nation and wish to maintain the status quo.

What about Mundine and Jacinta Price? It’s likely that they will soon receive their proverbial “30 pieces of silver” for their services to these captains of industry. With their previous work seemingly completed, Price appears to be moving on to her next divisive point: launching a wholesale attack on transgender people.

The connection between this and her role as a Senator for the Northern Territory remains unclear but surely there’ll be a cap in hand for these services rendered – after all, when the Howard government created the Northern Territory National Emergency Response in 2007, the saying went around: ‘whenever there’s an intervention in the NT, there’s always a Price to pay”. And this has gained some more traction recently, with the revelations published at the Kangaroo Court of Australia, of a $12 million funding scam, where the mother of Jacinta Price, Bess Price, works.

Lessons from defeat

Following the defeat of the Voice to Parliament referendum, several critical lessons and considerations have emerged for both the government and the broader Australian society. The failure of the referendum underscores the importance of securing bipartisan support for any substantial issue presented in a referendum.

Another significant issue that emerged during the campaign was the gradual nature of the proposed change. While the media and the “No” campaign exaggerated the significance of the Voice to Parliament, some voters questioned its relevance, especially since the government of the day could choose to disregard the recommendations put forth by the Voice.

While a Labor government might be receptive to these recommendations, it is likely that a future Coalition government could persistently overlook and dismiss anything proposed by the Voice to Parliament. In such a scenario, one might wonder about the purpose of this consultative group, as any government – whether Labor or Coalition – could simply disregard their recommendations. They might be heard but ultimately ignored. Should the referendum question have aimed for more than just establishing a consultative body?

This is a question that will remain unanswered, but it is worth noting that no one from the “No” campaign was suggesting that more should be offered to Indigenous communities. In fact, doing so might have exacerbated divisions. However, should everything desired by the Indigenous community have been included on the table? This might have encompassed a treaty, a truth-telling process, a full Reconciliation process, reserved seats in Parliament, and reparations.

While such proposals might also have encountered challenges in garnering public support, given the vocal opposition the modest Voice to Parliament faced, they could have contributed to a more comprehensive discussion of Indigenous rights and recognition in Australia.

The Voice to Parliament referendum’s defeat serves as a powerful reminder of the complexities and challenges in addressing Indigenous rights and reconciliation in Australia. It emphasises the need for political unity, clarity, and comprehensive engagement with the public on these critical issues.

The campaign’s aftermath also calls for an examination of Australia’s image on the world stage and the imperative to address the consequences of this defeat, both domestically and internationally. Ultimately, the referendum’s failure should serve as a catalyst for change and a call to action to address the pressing issues of Indigenous recognition and reconciliation in the country.