Referendum Failure: First Nations Australians Left Disappointed as Promised Change Falls Through

Australian media outlets are reporting that Australians have rejected the initial proposal for constitutional change after 24 years, which experts believe will have long-lasting negative effects on First Nations people and hamper efforts to update the country's foundational document. Preliminary results from the Australian Electoral Commission indicate that a majority of the nation's 17.6 million registered voters voted against the proposal, leading CNN affiliates 9 News, Sky News, and SBS to conclude that the Yes campaign has no viable path forward.

The proposal required a majority vote at a national level as well as in four out of six states in order to pass. Advocates of the Yes vote saw this as a chance to acknowledge Indigenous peoples in the constitution and establish an Indigenous advisory body to guide government policies that impact them. They believed that by doing so, it would enable collaboration with First Nations people to address critical issues plaguing their remote communities, such as elevated suicide rates, domestic violence incidents, children placed in out-of-home care, and high incarceration rates.

Nevertheless, conservative political parties vehemently opposed the proposal, asserting that it was vague and redundant, given the existence of advisory bodies already in place. Various campaigns attempting to exploit voter apathy and instill fear, such as the slogan "If you don't know, vote No," failed to gain traction. Experts argued that these campaigns' claims of dividing Australia along racial lines and posing legal risks were unfounded, despite opposing expert advice.

"Vote No" volunteers at a polling center in Canberra on October 13, 2023.

Martin Ollman/Getty Images

Rejection of high-profile campaign

Numerous prominent figures backed the Yes campaign, including constitutional experts, Australians of the Year, distinguished retired judges, both big and small companies, universities, renowned sports icons, netball and football players, reality TV stars, and Hollywood actors. Surprisingly, even US rapper MC Hammer offered his support.

Australian music legend John Farnham generously contributed a song, widely regarded as the unofficial anthem of Australia, to a Yes campaign advertisement that aimed to promote national unity. However, despite this uplifting message, public opinion polls continued to decline, reflecting a growing opposition towards the campaign.

The leaders of the political opposition quickly raised objections, scrutinizing the proposal for any potential weaknesses. Their primary concern revolved around the lack of specific details, questioning the absence of critical information that would ultimately be determined and approved by the parliament.

Some members of the Indigenous community expressed their reluctance to participate in a settler document, as they desired more than a mere advisory body to the government. Meanwhile, other Australians showed complete disinterest. Marilyn Trad, a campaigner supporting the "Yes" vote, informed CNN that volunteers had to inform certain individuals this week that a referendum was indeed taking place.

According to Kevin Argus, a marketing expert from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), the Yes campaign served as a demonstration of how not to convey change regarding socially significant issues. From a public relations standpoint, he explained that the proposal is rather straightforward - an advisory group to the government, similar to what business councils, mining groups, banking groups, and other organizations seek and receive when laws are being developed that impact the individuals they represent.

Argus emphasized that only the No campaign had effectively employed straightforward messaging, fully tapped into the potential of personal profiles, and promptly countered any challenges to their arguments by employing distinct and memorable slogans.

Campaign signs are seen outside the voting centre at Old Parliament House in Canberra, Australia, October 14, 2023.

Mick Tsikas/AAP Image/Reuters

What does the result mean?

The result means no constitutional change, but the referendum will have lasting consequences for the entire nation, according to experts.

The non-Indigenous majority's rejection of reconciliation will be perceived by the First Nations people as an endorsement of the current unsuccessful state of affairs that has been detrimental to them for centuries. Senator Pat Dodson, the government's reconciliation envoy, acknowledged the need for a significant healing process regardless of the outcome of the vote.

"We must consider the repercussions of a negative vote on future generations, specifically the young individuals," he expressed during his speech at the National Press Club recently. "It is already evident that the Indigenous youth in our nation are facing alarming suicide rates. But why? They are not inherently bad individuals; rather, they are good-hearted people. So why do they struggle to envision a promising future?"

Maree Teesson, the director of the Matilda Center for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use at the University of Sydney, shared with CNN that the Voice to Parliament proposal has provided Indigenous communities with the opportunity for self-determination and the ability to influence the decisions that impact their lives.

"She emphasized that self-determination plays a pivotal role in their overall social and emotional welfare," stated Teesson. According to her, a negative vote not only preserves the existing state of affairs but also erodes the self-determination of indigenous peoples from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities."

"I sincerely hope that we can retain the potential for hope that this presented to our nation and make concerted efforts to explore alternative avenues to accomplish that," she stated.

According to certain experts, the broader repercussion of the Negative outcome could dissuade future leaders from organizing referendums, as it may imply that the constitutional amendment threshold, established in 1901, is excessively stringent.

Australia last rejected a referendum in 1999, which involved severing ties with the British monarchy and establishing a republic. Since then, there have been few advancements on this matter. According to Paula Gerber, a Law professor at Monash University, the constitution's creators declared that amendments would only occur if the Australian people expressed their desire for change, rather than leaving it solely in the hands of politicians.

The power to change, modernize, and update the constitution has been granted to the Australian people. However, if they constantly respond with "vote No" without fully understanding the proposals, politicians will be discouraged from investing their time and resources in a potentially unsuccessful referendum.