Breaking News: Australia's Groundbreaking Referendum Date Revealed—Shaping the Future of First Nations People

Australia has scheduled its first referendum in 24 years, as polls indicate that the government's support is waning and in need of a turnaround. On October 14, over 17 million registered voters nationwide will have the opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment that aims to acknowledge the country's indigenous people by establishing a First Nations advisory group that directly communicates with the government.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese remarked on Wednesday that on that day, every Australian will be given a unique opportunity to unite our nation and make positive transformations.

Following the announcement of the date, the no campaign promptly reached out via a text message, urging for tax deductible donations with the message: "The time has come! Albo has made the call, and until OCT 14th, we have the chance to surpass the Voice!"

Only a single question will be posed, demanding a simple "yes" or "no" response: "Should we adopt a Proposed Law that would modify the Constitution to officially acknowledge the First Peoples of Australia through the establishment of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice? Do you endorse this suggested amendment?"

This query has sparked numerous eye-catching news headlines and provoked extensive deliberation both online and on various media platforms. Both factions are fervently campaigning to influence the majority across all states and territories.

In order for the vote to pass, it requires a double majority vote. This means that it needs to receive over 50% of the votes from voters across the entire country, as well as at least 50% of the votes in a majority of states. Specifically, it must have support from at least four out of the six states. Votes from the territories, such as the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, will only be counted towards the national total.

This vote is significant as it is considered a pivotal moment. Not only is constitutional change a rare and irreversible occurrence, but it has also brought to light long-standing issues that have persisted for centuries.

If approved, The Voice would establish an Indigenous-led body within the constitution to provide guidance to the government regarding laws affecting Indigenous communities. Advocates argue that this vote represents a crucial chance to acknowledge historical injustices, address the longstanding mistreatment, racism, and negligence towards First Nations people, and genuinely hear their voices.

Some argue that this gesture is merely symbolic and ineffective, and it runs the risk of creating division within the nation by granting certain Australians a privileged position in the constitution.

The situation becomes more complex with the presence of those who support the "yes" campaign. They see marking a ballot as a minor act against racism, particularly in response to some "no" voters, who include First Nations individuals. These individuals believe that voting for the constitutional change will release Australians from taking any real action against racism, and instead, a treaty is what is truly necessary.

Members of the audience react during the WA Liberals for No Campaign Launch in Perth, Sunday, August 20, 2023.

Richard Wainwright/AAP Image/Reuters

Is a tick a yes?

With the announcement of a set date, campaigners are anticipated to intensify their endeavors in gaining the support of undecided voters. These individuals may not necessarily adhere to the conventional political party affiliations when casting their ballots.

Although the Labor government is in favor of a positive outcome, Australia's two other prominent parties, namely the Liberal Party and National Party, who had formed a coalition for nine years until their dismissal last May, are advocating for a negative result.

The ongoing political turmoil has sparked instances of false information, prompting the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to swiftly address and extinguish them.

Recently, Peter Dutton, the leader of the Liberal party, raised concerns about the AEC's procedures. Dutton claimed that the AEC commissioner had expressed a preference for accepting "yes" ticks but rejecting "no" crosses.

Dutton criticized the perceived bias in favor of the yes vote, stating that Australians desire a fair election rather than a questionable one. In response, the AEC issued a statement vehemently denying any compromise to the impartiality and fairness of the referendum, asserting that they adhere to transparently following the established legislative requirements.

The AEC stated that it is required by law to tally votes that have clear voting intent but may have been improperly marked, emphasizing that "existing legal guidance suggests that a cross can be subject to different interpretations, indicating either approval or disapproval."

A question of perception

The debate goes beyond procedural arguments and delves into the core of how the country views its Indigenous population, highlighting the impact of British settlers arriving 235 years ago, which irreversibly changed the lives of those whose ancestors had occupied the Australian subcontinent for thousands of years. Updated government statistics annually reveal the lasting effects of colonization, encompassing a diverse Indigenous population comprising less than 4% of the total population, consisting of approximately 800,000 individuals in a nation of 26 million.

Australian history has long been dominated by the perspective of colonizers, who disregarded or minimized the violent origins of the country, according to Anna Clark, a historian at the Australian Centre for Public History at the University of Technology Sydney.

During the late 19th century, Clark explained that Indigenous people were excluded from Australia's nation-building narrative. As the American civil rights and anti-apartheid movements gained momentum in later years, this silence became even more conspicuous.

The demands of the Indigenous community became more pronounced and underwent extensive discussions, refinements, and ultimately resulted in the creation of the "Uluru Statement from the Heart." This document received endorsement from nearly 250 leaders and elders of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The Voice proposal, based on this statement, is widely supported by historians, according to Clark.

This moment is of great significance as Australian historians have traditionally been the ones to curate and define the narrative of Australian history and determine who qualifies as a historian and has the authority to tell that story. However, now we are being encouraged to take a step back and listen to other national narratives, providing a platform for Indigenous storytellers and knowledge holders to have their voices heard.

Cedric Marika leads the Gumatj dancers during Garma Festival in East Arnhem, Australia, on August 4.

Tamati Smith/Getty Images

No vote strengthening in the polls

Recent polling indicates that if a vote were held presently, it would probably not succeed. The momentum of the no campaign has increased due to concerns about the lack of information, implying that voters are insufficiently informed to make a decision on how the Voice will operate. The government affirms that these specifics will be deliberated in parliament following constitutional revisions.

In 1967, Australians voted in a referendum to include Indigenous Australians in population counts and grant the government the authority to establish laws for them. However, there are concerns that certain individuals, especially those in remote areas, are not receiving the necessary information about the current referendum. June Oscar, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner at the AHRC, worries that some are deliberately avoiding the conversation, causing distress among First Nations people.

Oscar expressed concern about the prevalence of racist and harmful discourse surrounding the referendum. She mentioned that the AHRC has developed a resource kit to help people mitigate harm, which suggests incorporating Indigenous knowledge, voices, and perspectives while refraining from racially derogatory language. Additionally, Oscar expressed sadness and disappointment regarding the dissemination of false information.

There is apprehension among certain individuals that a failed vote would convey a message, whether justified or not, that the racists have emerged victorious. Consequently, the progressive strides made by the country's indigenous people in their long struggle for recognition could unravel for future generations. "I firmly believe that there is a prevailing and collective conviction that we have the ability to achieve success in this endeavor within our lifetimes, and it is our responsibility to avoid burdening our descendants with this ongoing battle," Oscar expressed.

And if it fails?

"We go back to the drafting board again and learn from this for whenever the next opportunity comes around."

But Albanese has made it clear there are no second chances.

"Voting no leads nowhere. It means nothing changes. Voting no closes the door on this opportunity to move forward," he said on Wednesday.

"Do not dismiss an idea that originated from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples themselves, and do not disregard the potential of the upcoming generation of Indigenous Australians," he urged, directly speaking to Australians.