Australians rejected the first attempt at constitutional change in 24 years with a two-letter word, a decision that experts warn will do long-term harm to First Nations people and put a stop to any dreams of revising the country’s fundamental document.
The majority of Australia’s 17.6 million registered voters, according to preliminary data from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), appeared to have cast No votes, and CNN affiliates 9 News, Sky News, and SBS all predicted that the Yes campaign had no chance of winning.
The constitutional amendment that would have acknowledged Indigenous people and established an Indigenous council to advise the government on decisions affecting them required a majority vote both nationally and in four of the six states to pass.
In a speech to the nation on Saturday night, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who had championed the referendum, reaffirmed the commitment of his administration to bettering the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
“This argument right now doesn’t make us who we are. And it won’t split us apart. We don’t cast votes for yes or no. All of us are Australians, he declared.
“We must get past this debate as Australians as a whole while remembering why we had it in the first place. Because the disadvantage faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people has too frequently been marginalized in the political discourse and in the life of our country.
“My government has placed this referendum squarely at the center.”
Yes voters were hailed as having the chance to collaborate with First Nations people to address issues such as greater suicide, domestic violence, children in foster care, and incarceration in their most isolated communities.
But as conservative political groups came up to criticize the proposal as weak in specifics and an unnecessary duplication of current advisory committees, opposition grew.
Leading No supporter Warren Mundine stated on Saturday that the vote should never have been called.
Because it was based on the falsehood that Aboriginal people don’t have a voice, he said the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, “This is a referendum we shouldn’t have had.”
Experts claim that over the course of the months-long campaign, the No vote grew in popularity thanks to phrases like “If you don’t know, vote No” and a variety of other statements meant to arouse fear, such as claims that it would racially divide Australia and be legally risky despite expert advice to the contrary.
Rejecting a prominent campaign
There was no shortage of well-known figures who supported the Yes movement.
Constitutional experts, Australians of the Year, illustrious retired judges, big and small businesses, academic institutions, sports legends, footballers, netball players, reality TV stars, and Hollywood actors have all signaled their support. Even US rapper MC Hammer made an odd appearance to help.
Australian music icon John Farnham gave a Yes advertisement with a compelling message of racial unity a song that is regarded as the unofficial national anthem of Australia. But surveys of public opinion kept falling to No.
The heads of the opposition political groups quickly raised objections, picking at the proposal’s frayed edges. They questioned, “Where’s the detail?” knowing that the parliament would make a decision and pass legislation.
Some members of the Indigenous community stated that they didn’t want to sign a settler document and that they expected more from the government than a group that offers it non-binding opinions. Other Australians showed little interest at all.
According to Marilyn Trad of the Yes campaign, volunteers calling potential voters last week had to inform some people that there was, in fact, a referendum.
A marketing specialist from Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), Kevin Argus, told CNN that the Yes campaign was a “case study in how not to message change on matters of social importance.”
“From a public relations standpoint, the proposal is pretty straightforward: a government advisory council. Not dissimilar to what the business council, mining groups, banking groups, and others hope to achieve when legislation affecting the people they represent is being written, he added.
According to Argus, only the No campaign used straightforward message, made the most of personal profiles, and took immediate action to address objections to their points with memorable slogans.
What does the outcome imply?
Although there will be no constitutional change as a result of the vote, analysts predict that the referendum will have long-lasting effects on the whole country.
The implied endorsement of a status quo that is widely seen to have failed First Nations people for two centuries would be interpreted by them as a rejection of reconciliation by Australia’s non-Indigenous majority.
Senator Pat Dodson, the government’s special envoy for reconciliation, stated before the vote that regardless of the outcome, the nation still had a “huge healing process to go through.”
He said this week at the National Press Club, “We’ve got to think about the impact of a No vote on the future generations, the young people.” “We already know that the suicide rate among young Aboriginal people in this country is significant. Why? They are decent individuals. They are decent folks. Why do they not perceive a future?
The Voice to Parliament, according to Maree Teesson, director of the Matilda Center for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use at the University of Sydney, gave Indigenous communities the power of self-determination and the opportunity to influence events in their lives.
For their social and emotional well-being, she stated, “Self-determination is such a critical part.”
A No vote, according to Teesson, “undermines the self-determination of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people,” in addition to maintaining the status quo.
She stated, “I do hope that we don’t lose the prospect of the optimism that this provided our nation and that we somehow manage to find another method to achieve that.
More generally, according to some analysts, the No result would discourage future governments from calling referendums since it might suggest that the threshold for constitutional reform, which was included in the 1901 treaty, is too high.
Little has changed on that front since 1999, when Australians rejected a referendum asking them to sever ties with the British monarchy and become a republic.
Paula Gerber, a professor of law at Monash University, said, “The drafters of the constitution said this is the rulebook and we’re only going to change it if the Australian people say we want to change it. We’re not going to leave it up to politicians.”
Therefore, the Australian people now have the authority to alter, modernize, and update the constitution. What politician would waste the time and money on a referendum that could be rejected so simply if they were to consistently state, “If you don’t know, vote No?”