To the surprise of nobody, the Prime Minister announced yesterday that the Indigenous Voice referendum would be held on October 14. The Australian Electoral Commission has a referendum timetable which, owing to the writ not having yet been issued, is incomplete, but it lays out that early voting will begin on October 2 in jurisdictions that will not mark my birthday with a public holiday and on October 3 in those that will. The Guardian has a poll tracker of such quality as to preclude any need for me to follow suit – but not so good that it yet includes any of the following, each of which have emerged over the past few days:
• SECNewgate’s latest Mood of the Nation survey finds no leading 54% to 46% nationally. However, when asked to rate their likelihood of voting on a ten-point scale, yes voters came in at an average of 8.3 compared with only 5.4 for no voters. Small-sample state breakdowns had yes ahead 51-49 in Victoria, and trailing 52-48 in New South Wales, 63-37 in both Queensland and Western Australia and 54-46 in South Australia.
• Mediaweek reports a poll of 1000 respondents conducted earlier this month by research consultancy Pollinate finds 31% intending to vote yes and 39% for no, leaving 30% unsure. Sixty-eight per cent expected the proposal to be defeated.
• The Australia Institute has a poll of 605 South Australian respondents, which it conducted between August 1 and 7 through Dynata’s survey panel with results weighted by age and gender, which credited yes with a lead of 52-48. However, the breakdown of only 49-36 in favour of no among Coalition voters looks rather optimistic from a yes campaign perspective.
Can we please keep this thread relevant to the Indigenous Voice. The current thread for general discussion is here.
I’m glad there’s now an official date and this thing will be decided one way or the other soon.
The Voice debate is getting worse by the day. I can’t imagine if this were to continue say, until the next election which was my preference for holding the referendum.
“Why my government didn’t back the Voice, but I’m now voting yes”, says Malcolm Turnbull.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/why-my-government-didn-t-back-the-voice-but-i-m-now-voting-yes-20230829-p5e0a0.html
Shorter MT: The reason his government didn’t back a referendum has nothing to do with their assessment of its chance of success, but everything to do with the fact his partyroom would never have supported the Voice. Witness what is happening now in the Liberal and National parties. That hasn’t changed in 6 years.
Why people should vote yes;
Australia is a melting pot of different cultures, Indigenous culture is the only original ingredient.
Supporting Indigenous culture (by supporting Indigenous people) strengthens our national identity by highlighting our unique origin.
Why people will vote no;
What the majority have in common is an ingrained culture that values people based on perceived power, possessions, and influence. Areas where Indigenous people are typically below average. (the Voice might help close the gap in the long term).
All people have subconscious biases that guide our actions based on those ingrained cultural values, so we are culturally biased to discriminate against Indigenous people, even without knowing we are doing it.
When people are saying they ‘dont understand it’, its more likely a cognitive dissonance, it’s more that their subconscious ‘cant accept it’, and the conscious mind is imagining excuses to justify conformance to their subconscious bias.
Its a hard thing to overcome those biases, especially with unavoidable suggestive media giving excuses to succumb to them
Is anyone surprised that William Bowe shares a birthday with Mahatma Ghandi?
Yes will win the polls and media are calling this wrong again.
MadHouse;
Its interesting that the initial reaction was overwhelming support for the Voice, but when the Coalition, News corp, and a minority of Indigenous activists started campaigning against it, the tide turned.
Its hard to know if the initial reaction was a more honest reflection of opinions, which have since been corrupted. Or initial support was based on uniformed views and is now a more honest reflection. In either case its been a big change.
There were about 20 YES placard holders outside Allegra Spenders’ Edgecliff office on New South Head Rd this morning, busy with the morning traffic from the eastern suburbs into town.
https://www.allegraspender.com.au
On the ground campaigning in suburban Melbourne I have come across folks committed to voting NO. As a seasoned campaigner in the area I can see they are the same older white men and women who refuse to take ALP HTV’s. I am hesitant to call them racist. They are fearful of change, fearful of First Nations folk, asylum seekers, gays, LGBTQI+, young people, Africans, Trade Unions, the ALP and therefore susceptible to fear campaigns.
Nonetheless, the fearful are outnumbered by those committed to YES and those genuinely seeking information. Often when the proposed change is explained people will say “that’s fair” or “What is all the fuss about?”.
”Shorter MT: The reason his government didn’t back a referendum has nothing to do with their assessment of its chance of success, but everything to do with the fact his partyroom would never have supported the Voice.”
…for I am their leader. I must follow them.
Malcolm Turnbull repeated the Right-wing lie that the Voice would be a third chamber of the Parliament.
Yeah, Turnbull propagated the “third chamber” lie and his excuses don’t wash. He’s not forgiven.
I continue to think that the absolute killer for the Yes campaign is the constant sense in the media reporting that there’s some kind of even split amongst Indigenous people themselves (strongly aided by the No campaign smartly using Price and Mundine as the main talkers, and Lidia Thorpe effectively volunteering herself as another one). Because the entire rationale for the Voice relies on this being about what listening to Indigenous people want. Heck, I think the Age and the Guardian have published more anti Voice stuff from Indigenous writers than pro Voice.
It has been months since there was polling on Indigenous support for the Voice. I think one of the strongest things the Yes campaign can do with their money now is get a poll out there on Indigenous support for the Voice, to change the media narrative on that angle.
Of course, if it comes back that Indigenous support for the Voice has actually slumped as well, then the Voice is dead but at least we know and it will be for a better reason than because Dutton wants it dead.
Agree that Price and Mundine, through the Murdoch media, have killed the Voice.
Mundine is so bitter.
Suggestion to the Yes campaign: use Jason Clare at every public media event!
I watched him on Sky News earlier today in Qld, he’s a far more effective communicator than Albanese.
Guy Rundle argues that the “Yes” campaign needs to forget the “history stuff”, go instrumental and focus on practical issues and outcomes for First Nations people that the Voice could help bring about.
” The full pivot to the ’burbs means abandoning all that history stuff altogether, and going almost wholly with the instrumental case for the Voice: that the assembly will help find better solutions to the problems experienced by First Nations peoples in health, housing, education etc. Galling as it might be to many, an exclusive focus on the minimal, advisory, supplicant and mildly ameliorative role of the Voice may convince enough undecideds and waverers that it is both practical and no threat, and to give it a go.”
https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/08/31/voice-to-parliament-yes-campaign-change-course/?su=UEJ5dU1IVWZVbWdidyt2NDV2RGQwUT09
MadHouse says:
Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 10:04 am
Yes will win the polls and media are calling this wrong again.
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
I’m also thinking that YES will win but I’m not sure that its all
the media’s fault in getting it wrong.
They can only go by the polls.
The only media calling out that the YES vote won’t succeed and
should be abandoned is the Newscorp media.
Going on their last several predictions, or backing of, state and
federal elections, it appears the YES vote is in with a good chance.
ItzaDream says:
Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 10:37 am
There were about 20 YES placard holders outside Allegra Spenders’ Edgecliff office on New South Head Rd this morning, busy with the morning traffic from the eastern suburbs into town.
Wentworth For the Voice is a network of local individuals, businesses, community groups and councils convened and supported by Wentworth’s Federal MP Allegra Spender, who is co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of The Uluru Statement from the Heart.
https://www.allegraspender.com.au
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Any member of parliament who puts their views out there for all to see will benefit from the public perception where they see them as doing and standing for something.
If I didn’t vote Labor I could vote for her.
Win or lose on the YES vote Allegra will win her seat again.
Beaumont psephing the Yes/No:
https://citynews.com.au/2023/yes-trending-south-in-referendum-polls/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=canberra-daily-today-s-news-today_7801
“However, when asked to rate their likelihood of voting on a ten-point scale, yes voters came in at an average of 8.3 compared with only 5.4 for no voters.”
That’s a HUGE enthusiasm deficit for the ‘No’ side and suggests that, in reality, ‘Yes’ are in pole position at the moment.
Is voting in the referendum compulsory? Might make a difference in favour of ‘No’ if so.
“Is voting in the referendum compulsory?”
Yes – https://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/referendums/index.htm
Given that, this seems a very odd question for the pollster to ask.
BTSays says:
Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 8:04 pm
Is voting in the referendum compulsory? Might make a difference in favour of ‘No’ if so.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
I think those who may vote NO will be more inclined to not vote at all on polling day compared to the YES voters.
I hope so anyway.
I have spoken to a few friends who until recently have not understood what the voice is or what the referendum is about. I think that once people understand that the referendum is asking us whether we agree with the principle of indigenous people having a say on matters that affect them, and that the voice itself is just non-binding expert opinion, we’ll see the polls tighten again. One of the challenges for the yes campaign however is this requires people to make an investment of their own time to fully understand it. It’s not as simple a concept as same sex-marriage for example.
Voting in the Referendum is compulsory, as it is for elections.
It was optional in the Marriage Equality postal survey back in 2017, but that wasn’t a referendum.
2dogs/98.6/Steve777
Belated thanks for your replies to my question.
@2dogs – it’s a commonly asked question in UK polls, it’s quite a helpful indicator of enthusiasm and ultimately of potential vote shares on the day. For instance, in Scotland you often find SNP voters (Scots nationalists) most likely to vote, and also less likely to change who they vote for – both interesting measures.
I get it’s less useful in countries with compulsory voting, but given that even this doesn’t result in anything close to 100% voting then I suggest it’s still useful.
If QLd is such a lost cause for the Yes vote, what were Linda Burney and Jason Clare doing there yesterday campaigning on the Gold Coast?
I would love to see Labor’s own internal polling on the referendum.
Keep in mind that Yes needs to win both majorities, so even if Queensland is a lost cause as far as counting towards a majority of states, if there are votes that can be won in Queensland that can help get an overall majority of voters then it’s still worth putting effort in there.
I note that the “No” campaign features exclusively LNP politicians, led by Howard and Abbott and Dutton and Joyce
But, significantly, not all Liberal Party identities led by the likes of Turnbull and Bishop (not Bronwyn) and the Tasmanian Premier
The “Yes” campaign not only includes ALP politicians but individuals, organisations and businesses with no Party affiliations
Which isolates the LNP politicians vocal on this matter – and offers that their opposition is actually because Albanese is in favour and looking to damage Albanese (so not to do with the issue at hand at all)
Given the breath of support for pro forces versus the isolation of the anti forces, why are the anti forces getting the media it is?
Well, we all know where media, Chaired by Murdoch, Stokes and Costello and the cowering ABC stand in political “debate”
It is also noted where the majority of LNP MP’s hail from – regional and rural Queensland
Evan: “If QLd is such a lost cause for the Yes vote, what were Linda Burney and Jason Clare doing there yesterday campaigning on the Gold Coast?
I would love to see Labor’s own internal polling on the referendum.”
The Yes campaign needs an overall majority as well as a majority of states, so they have to make sure that the bottom doesn’t completely drop out of the vote in Qld and WA.
There was also an IPA poll of Tasmania by a pollster called Insightfully but as a resident of this isle I can inform the House that the seat by seat breakdowns with Clark only a few points more Yes than anywhere else are bollocks and for that reason as well as insufficient details I’m ignoring the whole thing. I do like it when the IPA poll though because it gives me new things to complain about instead of having to constantly complain about the same things from their mirror image The Australia Institute.
https://www.pollbludger.net/2023/08/31/indigenous-voice-referendum-october-14/#comment-4154864
There still would be some use to the are you going to vote question to filter out people who are not eligible to vote. Under 18s and people who are neither citizens nor grandfathered “British Subjects” who got on the roll before it closed to them in 1984 are both significant proportions of Australia`s population not eligible to vote.
https://www.pollbludger.net/2023/08/31/indigenous-voice-referendum-october-14/comment-page-1/#comment-4154993
That is particularly true given that according to Kevin Bonham`s polling average, 4 states are polling ahead of the national average and therefore this referendum has the highest risk since at least 1951 (if not before compulsory voting) of failing solely on the national majority requirement (unless the combined territories vote has a slightly bigger Yes effect on the national vote than the polls show, a battle of the territories` relatively pro-yes demographic versus their small proportion of the national population).
@Kevin Bonham
” I can inform the House that the seat by seat breakdowns with Clark only a few points more Yes than anywhere else are bollocks. . .”
Based on. . .?
Thought you of all people would have substantiated your comment with evidence! 🙂
BTSays at 6.43 pm
Dr Bonham probably thinks the evidence is obvious, namely a longstanding trend for voting in Clark to be historically more progressive than in the other Tassie seats, especially the northern seats and Lyons.
E.g. in 2021 the Libs won 3 seats in Bass, Braddon and Lyons, but only two in Franklin and Clark, with one of their victors in Clark being a (former) Labor rat named Madeleine Ogilvie.
Look at the Lib party vote by seats: Bass 60%, Braddon 57.2%, Lyons 51.2%, Franklin 42.3% and Clark only 31.8%.
Clearly the very poor “poll-shaped object” from the IPA is meant to prop up the Dutton-Abetz faction of the Tassie Libs, which is the minority faction in the Apple Isle.
Did any Tassie bludgers attend this event last Thursday night?
https://www.utas.edu.au/events/2023/july/voice-to-truth-beyond-the-referendum
Is IPA the Institute of Public Affairs?
The same organisation in a bitter fight with the Pentecostals for the control of the Victorian Division of the Liberal Party?
Witness a Pentecostal entering the Party Room and the swift promotion of an IPA identity to a Parliamentary leadership position the latter event leading to Pentecostal threats re pre selections and using their numbers
Noting media refer to the Pentecostals as “Conservatives” when they are actually God makes babies religious conservatives, anti SSM, anti abortion, anti the Voice etc etc
If this is the IPA referred to, reporting of their polling by media is influencing using “polling” in my opinion and needs to be called out for what it is
A new poll on The Voice tonight in one of the major newspapers, not sure which one – according to David Speers on Insiders
Dutton “leads” a political party which has 58 Seats in the Lower House of the Federal Parliament
21 of those are in Queensland (the LNP which provides the “leaders” of both the Liberal Party and the National Party in the Federal Parliament)
The other 27 represent electorates across Australia (yes, just 27)
There are 151 Seats in the Federal Parliament
78 are held by the ALP
The remainder, aside from the ALP, the Liberal Party, the LNP and the National Party, are held by Independents and minor parties
And yet media headline Dutton, giving him a profile in excess of his relevance (based on those numbers)
Including “his” referendum question “he” will put to the Australian electorate if “he” finds another 20 seats at the next election
There is no complexity to the referendum question
It is a simple proposition being put to the Australian electorate AND supported by the raft of individuals, organisations and Companies in support
I would suggest the position put by Dutton now is a result of yet another high profile Australian taking the high ground and polling
Here we go again at 12.50 pm
“There is no complexity to the referendum question.”
Correct, but Ms Crabb has tried to prove you wrong, by repeating a bit of Player One misinformation:
‘When people say they’re “confused”, it’s not because they’re stupid. It’s because there are literally two cases sloshing about for Yes. The first is that the constitutional change is modest and won’t do much. The second is that it will be a powerful force for improving the lives of Indigenous Australians.’
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-03/voice-referendum-vote-on-92-words-stay-out-of-weeds/102800166
That claim by Crabb is puerile rubbish. It doesn’t reflect well on her powers of comprehension.
The real argument by Noel Pearson, Professor Megan Davis, Pat Anderson and other Indigenous Elders who helped to create the Uluru Statement is that the proposed Voice is a modest constitutional change that will, over time, achieve much for Indigenous Australians, because it will reset relations between the Australian State and Indigenous Peoples towards something closer to partnership (the key legal principle in Aotearoa New Zealand) than to paternalism, which is what the No-hopers want.
Dr
Crabb is out of her depth, a would be media “personality” and a failure
That she is in the employ of the ABC speaks to the decline of the ABC, a decline which continues (except for Media Watch)
In regards my earlier post, absent the 21 Seats the LNP hold in Queensland, they hold just 37 Seats across the rest of the Nation – equaling 58 Seats of 151 Seats in the House of Government
Not the 27 I included (and figures and analysis of figures were my strength, once!!!!)
So 37 Seats across NSW, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, West Australia plus the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, NSW and Victoria the most populous States
Crabb’s right IMO. The Yes case is filled with contradictions.
It’s only an advisory body wirh no real power but it requires constitutional change.
It’s a “generous” offer by the Indigenous peoples to settle our differences, but it’s also the first step towards a treaty that which might lead to expensive reparations.
And also the contradiction Crabb pointed out.
It should have been a defining statement about reconciliation, but instead Albo is trying to push it through with a small target strategy.
If you want to achieve reform, you’ve got to take the people with you.
Kevin Bonham
Nespolly
Voice: 53 kNo) 48(Us)
Is Voice referendum lost?
meher baba at 6.29 pm
Did you hear anything about the event at U Tas featuring Marcia Langton and Rodney Dillon? See:
https://www.utas.edu.au/events/2023/july/voice-to-truth-beyond-the-referendum
Michael Mansell had to pull out for some reason. It would have been interesting if he had attended.
As for your comment: ‘It’s a “generous” offer by the Indigenous peoples to settle our differences, but it’s also the first step towards a treaty that which might lead to expensive reparations’, you have seen an apparent contradiction when, upon closer inspection, especially comparatively, none really exists.
The clear lesson from comparable jurisdictions overseas (NZ, Canada) is that settling our differences, or what Pat Dodson has for over 15 years called resolving Australia’s unfinished business regarding the State’s relationships with Indigenous Peoples who were here from time immemorial, is never a one off act, but rather a process. So there is no contradiction between the two points in your sentence.
By contrast, the idea espoused by Dutton today (in his first tactical mistake re the referendum), that a tokenistic Preamble a la J.W. Howard could possibly settle those differences, is fake, a Trumpist fraud.
It is a mistake by Dutton, perhaps a big one. Only time will tell. The reason is that most Australian voters are so little concerned with the Constitution these days. So to ask them to vote about it once in a few decades may seem onerous (e.g. given everyday cost of living pressures etc that prevent people from being able to think for themselves about a rather clear, although novel, proposition). But then to suggest you might ask them to vote again on a purely tokenistic choice in another few years is tedious.
Of course, the well attuned know Dutton is not actually suggesting another referendum if No wins, for the simple reason that his comment presumed he might become PM. Pigs might fly easier. However, because most electors do not understand the impact of the Teal wave on the Liberal vote in the two big states, they will simply not appreciate that Dutton was just tying himself up with a hypothetical knot.
As I said on the main thread, Dutton lacks the experience and hence the eventual political cunning of J.W. Howard (who got lucky, not just by Lord Downer’s self-defeatism but more importantly in 1998).
Howard was usually careful never to comment on a hypothetical. When he broke that rule he suffered, as with the “never ever” call-name (about the GST) by which he was marked in the chamber by Daryl Melham, who wasn’t timid with his voice.
By the way, if you want to understand the comparative point you could study the process in NZ over the past 40 years or so, since the jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal was extended historically by Geoffrey Palmer in 1985.
During that period there was one attempt at a once-and-for-all policy, by the National government under Jim Bolger shortly before MMP came into effect. It was called “the fiscal envelope”. Perhaps the name was a reflection of the pernicious impact of neo-liberal ideology in NZ under Lange’s Treasurer Roger Douglas. Anyway, the attempt at a once-and-for-all settlement did not work, and it could not.
Why might a Treaty lead to substantial reparations, albeit a small amount compared to the full impact of colonialism on Indigenous peoples? Because the land granted by the colonial states, and overseen after 1901 by the Federation of Australia, was stolen from the original owners. They were robbed blind, as Keating once put it. Read the book by Henry Reynolds, Truth-Telling (2021).
If you don’t accept that history, then, in terms of an attitude toward conquest, how is a denial of that historical reality any different to the completely unethical motives of either Putin or the Israeli state? Of course, Putin and (to a lesser extent) the Israeli regime are murderous thugs, but, in terms of the underlying unethical approach to the role of conquest in history, how are the Dutton crowd different?
Annabell Crab needs to be fired so she can go off to do Sky News like she clearly wants.
https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2023/09/australian-polling-denial-and.html
“Following a Newspoll showing the Indigenous Voice to Parliament[ & Executive No! side leading by a … if not all that surprising 53 – 38] this week … polling is somewhat prone to overestimate support for changes to the status quo, no matter what side of politics proposes it.”
https://www.afr.com/politics/the-voice-is-losing-160-000-supporters-a-week-20230904-p5e1vo
[TC, and of course the yes campaign is now associated with Qantas Group, https://apple.news/A2yAZ30S_S56uiq-wCQWY9g%5D
(Also https://aec.gov.au/pva)