_edited.jpg)
Australians have voted against a constitutional amendment to give Aboriginal people a Voice. Many saw the reform as an opportunity to narrow the inequality gap with the country's most disadvantaged demographic. While many No supporters hailed the victory over the "decisive voice", many academics and Yes supporters warned of a "campaign of misinformation" by the other side and some in the media.
First Nation People in Australia
The First Peoples of Australia are considered the oldest living culture on earth and have inhabited Australia for 65,000 years. 235 years after the start of colonisation, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people represent 3.8% of the Australian population (approximately 984,000 people). Aboriginal Australians were only recognised as part of the Australian population after the referendum of 1967 and still live in great inequality compared to the rest of the nation. They are by far the most disadvantaged in the country in most socio-economic aspects such as access to healthcare and education, life expectancy, wage levels and imprisonment rates.
It was against this backdrop that Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders drafted and endorsed the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2017. This petition, presented as "a roadmap for reconciliation" with the peoples, called for substantial constitutional change and structural reform resulting in the creation of two new institutions: a constitutionally protected First Nations Voice and a Makarrata Commission. They conclude the document by declaring: "In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard".
Uluru Statement from the Heart, May 2017, Aboriginal Convention, Central Australia
BrownHoneyAnt, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
The Voice campaign
The project was voted through last on the 14th of October, aimed to amend the constitution by recognising the First Nations as the original inhabitants of the islands and creating an advisory council to the government and parliament, responsible for advising on legislation and public policy concerning indigenous peoples. To be adopted, the reform needed a majority of votes in at least 4 of the 6 states and at the national level.
Although at the start of the campaign most political polls forecasted a Yes victory, the debate quickly turned into a stage play, with politicians and the media vying for the public's vote as to who was the best comic exaggerator. The play was mainly between two camps, the progressives and the conservatives.
On the progressive side, the leading figures were Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, his Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Linda Burney, from the Wiradjuri tribe, and Dean Parkin, the campaign director of "Yes23". They argued that enshrining indigenous peoples’ rights in the constitution could serve to unify Australia and be a step towards reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton's main concern is that the Voice will divide Australians into different classes based on race and slow down the government's decision-making process; "It will have an Orwellian effect where 'All Australians are equal, but some Australians are more equal than others'." Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, a conservative Aboriginal senator, also argued that it would only be a decisive and elitist bureaucratic tool. A final argument used by the Conservatives to oppose the reform is its vagueness and the potential danger of voting for something you don't yet know what it will become.
Another "no" movement, referred to as "progressive-no", was led by Aboriginal Senator Lidia Thorpe and the indigenous-led "Blak Sovereign" movement. For her, the Voice was to create a "powerless advisory body", an "easy way to fake progress", calling the proposal "window dressing". She called on voters to vote No, saying: "There's outright racism like the racist No, and there's this underlying racism with the Yes.... You know how many whitefellas have told me, 'This is going to be so great for me'. It's so patronising". They called for priority to be given to a legally binding treaty between the government and First Nations people.
The bitter campaign came to an end on the evening of 14 October. During a television appearance, the Prime Minister admitted his defeat: "When you aim high, sometimes you fall short. We understand and respect that we have.". None of the 6 states voted yes and around 60% of Australians voted against the constitutional change.
Results of the Australian indigenous voice referendum, 2023, by electorate and state.
Agc49141, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
“Don’t know? Vote No” and misinformation
For many, one of the biggest controversies of the referendum was the misinformation campaign from which the No side actively benefited. Firstly, political claims such as Mr Dutton's at the start of the campaign, “Instead of being 'one', we will be divided - in spirit, and in law", a claim that was widely disputed by many of the country's leading constitutionalists arguing that the reform would not give anyone "special rights". However, the slogan of the No vote remained “Divisive voice", and appeared on all the banners and posters. Confusion and ignorance about the hypothetical effect of the advisory body then spread. Many No supporters, for example, were (falsely) afraid of losing ownership of their homes.
This climate of fear and confusion allowed the Conservatives to run their "Don't know ? Vote No" campaign, a widely criticized campaign based on misinformation about the effect of the reform.
In addition to politics, certain media are also accused of disseminating false informations during the campaign. Backed by numerous academics, Malcolm Turnbull, former Australian minister, and Sharan Burrow, general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, wrote in the Guardian that “Sky News is regularly promoting anti-voice misinformation that is demonstrably false”. Thomas Keneally, author of the novel Schindler's Ark, also accused the Murdoch Press of making “fantastical propositions about what the powers of the body would be.”
In a survey conducted by the Australia Institute, 92% of yes voters and 83% of no voters agreed on the need for legislation to regulate truth in political advertising, particularly ahead of the 2025 federal election. Some 72% of those surveyed expressed concern about misinformation and lies on social media during the referendum campaign. (see article) Richard Denniss, Executive Director of the Australia Institute, writes: “One of the main arguments for those voting against the referendum was that it would divide Australia. One thing that clearly unites Australia is the desire for truth in political advertising.”
So what’s now?
In his televised speech after admitting the referendum results, the Prime Minister said he respected the vote and "the democratic process that has delivered it". He added: “This moment of disagreement does not define us, and it will not divide us, we are not Yes voters or No voters, we are all Australians. And it is as Australians together, that we must take our country beyond this debate, without forgetting why we had it in the first place.”
The referendum result is likely to raise two main concerns. The first is what will be the next step in the "reconciliation process" between Australians and First Nations. The second, as the Australia Institute enquiry has shown, concerns the place of misinformation in today's political debates. Is the Voice campaign an isolated event, or is it part of a wider trend that raises questions about the impact of traditional and social media in instilling fear through misinformation and significantly influencing voters?
References
AIATSIS. (2021, November 4). The 1967 Referendum. AIATSIS. https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/1967-referendum
Barlow, K. (2023, May 22). “Hellbent on stoking division”: Burney lashes Dutton Voice disinformation. The Canberra Times. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8204656/hellbent-on-stoking-division-burney-lashes-dutton-voice-disinformation/
Dayman, L. (2023, October 17). Ignorance sank Australia’s Indigenous Voice referendum. The Japan Times. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2023/10/17/world/voice-australia-misinformation-campaign/
Dellerba, I. (2023, September 1). En Australie, un référendum sur la reconnaissance des peuples premiers dans la Constitution. Le Monde.fr. https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/09/01/en-australie-un-referendum-sur-la-reconnaissance-des-peuples-premiers-dans-la-constitution_6187437_3210.html?random=988937670
Ikonomou, T. (2023, October 19). Voice “no” voters want truth in political advertising. National Indigenous Times. https://nit.com.au/19-10-2023/8222/voice-no-voters-want-truth-in-political-advertising
Keneally, T. (2023, October 18). I mourn the loss of Australia’s Indigenous voice vote – and won’t forgive the media’s mendacity. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/18/loss-australia-indigenous-voice-vote-media-mendacity-thomas-keneally
Le Monde avec AFP. (2023a, June 19). Australie : vers l’organisation d’un référendum visant à donner une “voix” aux Aborigènes au Parlement. Le Monde.fr. https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/06/19/australie-vers-l-organisation-d-un-referendum-visant-a-donner-une-voix-aux-aborigenes-au-parlement_6178237_3210.html
Le Monde avec AFP. (2023b, October 14). En Australie, les droits des Aborigènes essuient un “non” lors d’un référendum. Le Monde.fr. https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/10/14/en-australie-les-droits-des-aborigenes-essuient-un-non-lors-d-un-referendum_6194414_3210.html
Redman, C. (2023, October 18). Overwhelming support for truth in political advertising laws following referendum. The Australia Institute. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/overwhelming-support-for-truth-in-political-advertising-laws-following-referendum/
Ritchie, H. (2023, October 14). The Voice: Australians vote No in historic referendum. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-67110193
Commentaires