If you’re sick and tired of hearing about elections, then I don’t blame you – the constant messages, campaigns, and hoardings adorning street sides and fences are enough to make anybody lose their marbles a little bit.
While most of us kept our eyes firmly fixed on New Zealand’s political landscape this weekend, thankful that the finish line was in sight, others were also keeping a close eye on our neighbours across the ditch.
Australia, the country where I grew up, held what could be considered one of the most historic referendums in its history, and the results have left the country divided.
The Voice to Parliament referendum – which was set in motion after the Uluru Statement in 2017, when First Nations elders gathered at Uluru to seek constitutional reform to “empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country” – sought to recognise the Indigenous people of Australia in the constitution by establishing a body called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
Australians overwhelmingly voted ‘No’, which has led to media outlets across the globe lambasting the Australian public.
Reuters reported it as a “setback for reconciliation,” while The New York Times headlined its coverage with “Crushing Indigenous hopes,” and Japan-based Nikkei Asia called Australia the “only developed nation with a colonial history that doesn’t recognise the existence of its Indigenous people in the constitution”.
It quickly became clear that the referendum result has had people around the world scratching their heads trying to figure out what happened, but there are many reasons why the referendum has caused such division, and the vote went the way it did.
The first is that many Australians felt they never had clear information about what the Voice really meant.
With a lack of comprehensive information about the referendum and what could change, many Australians were forced to source their own information, which opened the floodgates for misinformation.
Campaigns for ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ votes quickly consumed airtime in Australian media as they used whatever tactics they could to fuel their own narratives.
Vote No campaigner Warren Mundine, for example, admitted to media that he and his campaign team had purposefully targeted migrants – manipulating what he called the “natural distrust” some have of governments, given the persecution they’d experienced in their homelands.
Australian legislation doesn’t seem to have as strict rules about how people run campaigns, and it certainly seems lax when it comes to the locations of campaigning material.
In New Zealand, for example, campaigning materials such as hoardings or signs must be kept at least 10 metres from voting locations.
In contrast, my friends and whānau across the ditch have said they were offered ‘Vote No’ stickers as they entered voting halls.
In another twist, some First Nations politicians campaigned for ‘No’ votes because they didn’t believe the Voice was giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders enough say.
For instance, politician Lidia Thorpe – who has been a strong supporter and advocate for the Blak Sovereign Movement in Australia – criticised the Voice as a “powerless advisory body” and an “insult” to First Nations people’s intelligence, before condemning the referendum as a racist exercise in virtue signalling.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had previously said there would be “no alternative” if the Voice was defeated, something that Thorpe called “weak”.
