Australian Referendum Aftermath Part I of III

Successes & Opportunities | Observations from Multicultural Australia | Tamils For Yes

They say time heals wounds.

Time provides space to see through the fog of emotions.

Time allows us to observe what transpired.

So we don’t make accidental missteps again.

It’s been three months since the referendum was held, and it’s still quite sad to take on board that most Australians have voted ‘No’.

I championed ‘Yes’ and wrote a detailed article on why.

For me, it was always about ‘closing the gap’ so non-Indigenous and Indigenous Australians can become one.

Why is there a gap?

Imagine if your people are being massacred, abused, and told your culture is worthless and that you are dirty. Your children were stolen, and your people were not counted.

Imagine the intergenerational trauma.

Then we wonder why the Indigenous incarceration, youth suicide, life expectancy and many more health and societal measures are so horrible compared to the rest of Australia.

Who I feel for most are the First Nation brothers and sisters of all ages who continue to mourn these results and the racism they have experienced and continue to experience.

I spoke to one First Nation community leader who did not expect to win.

But when he spoke about the results with his aunty, who is 70, she was devastated.

In tears, she replied that she is unlikely to see a shift in her lifetime.

The room fell silent.

I resolved to continue supporting the recognition, truth and treaties until we get there.

We have many precedents on our side, with all the other British colonies, like the USA, Canada and New Zealand, having a treaty with their First Nation people.

It’s inevitable. It’s only a matter of time.

I waited for the dust to settle before summarising what worked well and why the campaign failed.

This essay is based on my volunteer experience, research, observation, and analysis. I volunteered over 150 hours co-convening Tamils for Yes, a grassroots Tamil-speaking community from all political persuasions supporting The Voice.

We connected with other Tamil community leaders from four states. We agreed to ensure no Tamil voted ‘No’ because they didn’t know. There are close to 100,000 Tamils in Australia. We collaborated with Multicultural For Voice, Desis For Yes (Indians For Yes) and South Asians For Voice.

I started this essay by analysing the referendum results. As I dived deeper into the reasons for the loss, I realised there are many lessons here. Whether you care about indigenous reconciliation, civil democratic society, disruptive impact industries, using capital for impact or good governance, there are poignant lessons for all.

As the CEO of Purpose With Profit, we work with disruptive impact industries to enable business growth by measuring Purpose, People and Planet as well as Profit strategies. We are part of the paradigm shift in business. Furthermore, we work with and champion many of the sustainability-related industries. Our planetary and crises demand it.

We acknowledge that our human behaviour and consumption must change to live more peacefully and sustainably within the planetary boundaries.

Before the referendum, attracting capital for impact sectors seemed the panacea to growing impact industries.

The referendum’s ‘No’ campaign and results have proved otherwise.

There are stark lessons to overcome to improve our nation and world for the better.

A distortion of democracy has been lifted, and we’ll dive into this.

Rest assured, there is a path forward with people, capital and government that care.

The essay is in three parts.

Part I covers:

01 Results of the Referendum

02 Referendums In General and Australian Context

03 Successes of the Yes Campaign

04 Observations from Multicultural Communities & Tamils For Yes

05 Opportunities for Future Campaigns

Part II covers:

06 No Campaign Strategies & Pyrrhic Victory

07 Non-political Correct Reasons for No–Cui Bono

08 Disenfranchised Public

09 Distortion of Democracy (State Capture)

Part III covers:

10 Lessons for the Indigenous & Disruptive Impact Space

11 Lessons for Individuals, Communities and Government

12 Signs of Hope & Conclusion

Some of these may be obvious, and others less so.

Here we go.

1. Referendums Results

Let’s get straight into the results of the referendum.

Here is the split by state and territories by the Australian Electorate Commission. ,

The overwhelming results were a ‘No’ 60:40.

The table below includes the six states and the two territories. Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and Northern Territory are treated separately. You’ll see ACT is the only region to vote ‘Yes’.

Source: AEC

Below is a visual of how the six states voted from the AEC.

Source: AEC

The election analyst Anthony Green’s Blog site provided a split by voting type. With the high pre-polling & postal votes (~45%) strongly voting ‘No’ ~66%.

However, in the remote (indigenous) areas, the votes were large “Yes” at 63% — which tells you the majority of that indigenous population was supportive.

Anthony Green Blog

The Guardian newspaper shared a dissection of a sample of voters and found the following results. Those who were part of community groups and unions were more likely to vote YES versus those who were not part of any group.

Source: The Guardian

In the book Reconnected, economist Andrew Leigh and strategist Nick Terrell introduce us to research over the last 60 years showing that Anglo-Western societies have become more individualistic since the 1960s.

In Australia, this is supported by the startling decrease in community associations, including Rotary, Lions, Guides, RSL, and Scouts.

Attending weekly religious groups has been falling, too.

Source: Reconnected,

Furthermore, confidence in business, media, religious organisations, and government is declining.

We become less trusting of each other.

We have fewer neighbours and friends to rely on when we are in need.

This results in us becoming lonelier.

Sadly, if this trend continues, social cohesion will decrease.

The more individualistic we get, the less empathy we have for our neighbours or strangers. The Guardian survey results above validate these findings.

1.1 Most Important Reason for Voting No

The Guardian also surveyed those who voted ‘No’ for their reasons. The table below shows the results.

To reiterate, the most common reasons for voting ‘No’:

· It will divide Australia (41%)

· Not enough detail (27%)

· It won’t make a difference (19%)

· It will give Indigenous greater rights (13%)

We’ll come back to these results in the Opportunities section below.

2. Referendums in General and Australian Context

The day after the election, I was listening to radio 702, ‘After the Voice vote, what happens next?’.

Matt Qvortrup, who is considered the world’s leading expert on referendums, shared the difficulty of the challenge.

2.1 Clear Messaging — For referendums to pass, the messaging must be clear and easy to understand (The ‘Yes’ campaign was not).

2.2 Compulsory Voting — In many countries in the Western World, voting is not compulsory. This results in approximately 2/3 of eligible voters voting.

In Australia, compulsory voting makes it even harder for referendums to pass, with approximately 90% turnout rates.

Why is this relevant? — You’ll only have informed voters who will vote.

In theory, the uninformed will care less and not vote.

The notion of democracy is that people are informed. Are they? What about the less informed or those triggered by fear or disinformation?

We’ll unpack this in Part II, with the disenfranchised public and the distortion of democracy.

2.3 Bi-Partisanship — Australia has held 45 referendums in Australia, with only eight passing. Of these eight, only one was passed without bi-partisan support.

The Uluru Statement and The Voice campaign were several years in the making. Negotiation with both major parties and their indigenous ministers helped construct The Voice as it was put to the people.

Some Indigenous leaders argued that The Voice was a weak body. This was probably by design to ensure bi-partisan support.

In the end, the opposition leader at the time (and supporters) saw the opportunity to score political points and decided not to support the ‘Yes’ campaign.

This caused a split in the LNP opposition, with the shadow indigenous minister and former indigenous minister supporting the ‘Yes’ side. To their credit, some Liberal MPs championed ‘Liberals For Yes’.

It was pure opportunism from the opposition, looking to score political points.

The opposition leader argued that they are likely to have supported a simple recognition. However, constitutional recognition alone would not change anything tangible in the lives of the First Nation people — it would not have helped close the gap!

2.4 Double Majority — For a referendum to pass in Australia, 50% of the total vote (including the territories) and 4/6 states must be in favour. It’s worth remembering that Western Australia and Queensland were the last states to give Indigenous people the right to vote. They were only included in the Census in 1967, with compulsory voting for all Indigenous only occurring in 1984.

Both Queensland and Western Australia have large mining industries.

Interestingly, based on the results, South Australia also voted strongly for ‘No’ along with Queensland and Western Australia. Hypothetically, with Australia’s large multicultural population in Victoria and NSW, even if 50% of the general population voted ‘Yes’, it would have still been a ‘No’ result because of these three states.

3. Successes of the Yes Campaign

There are many positives from the Yes campaign to build on for the future. Here are some highlights:

3.1 Olive Branch — First Nation people have endured immeasurable trauma in creating Australia. They have every right to be angry and resentful of past injustices. The fact that they were open to building a bridge of progress through the Uluru Statement is something all First Nations and the many millions of supporters can be incredibly proud of achieving.

3.2 Large Indigenous Consensus — First Nations in Australia are diverse and live across a vast continent. Over 200 nations existed before colonisation. It’s hard for all the groups to reach a consensus on any topic and policy. With the Uluru Statement and the Voice, over 80% were supportive. This is a significant step forward; the momentum can be built from here.

3.3 Bi-Partisanship — Even though the eventual result failed due to a lack of bi-partisan support, a significant effort was made to include both major parties and legal experts.

3.4 Corporate & Institutional Outreach — Many institutions and corporations supported the ‘Yes’ side. Like the marriage equality vote, it was seen as bettering Australia.

3.5 Religious & Multicultural Outreach — A dedicated website and volunteers were coordinated through the Multicultural For Voice. The not-for-profit Welcoming and the Radical Centre Reform appeared to champion this movement of multicultural leaders around Australia. I joined in the community outreach calls and learned the best practices.

3.6 Local Electorate Volunteers — Through The Voice campaign, the build-up to the referendum, the volunteer base reached over 60,000. Each electorate had captains and dedicated volunteers, up to 500 strong. Electorates with Teal independents had a large, active volunteer base that helped garner a ‘Yes’ vote in some electorates.

There were many older Australians at the rallies and on polling day. They know the history of injustices that have led to the significant gap between First Nations and the rest of Australia.

The hundreds of thousands of hours contributed towards 40% of the Australians voting ‘Yes’.

We have planted seeds for many more millions to uncover the truth about First Nations’ history and the current gap between First Nations and the rest of Australia.

4. Observations from Multicultural Australia & Tamils For Yes

Australia is now one of the most multicultural nations, with over 50% being first or second-generation migrants. Many migrants bring histories of oppression for their lands and can empathise with the First Nation people if they don’t feel like they are going to lose out.

Having had several conversations with First Nations people, I consistently hear an assumption that the multicultural community are largely with the First Nation people.

While the majority would be supportive in principle, it’s not a sure thing.

To ensure The Voice and the message reached culturally and linguistically diverse communities, Multicultural For Voice was set up to complement the Yes23 major campaign.

I’ll write my experience here as a co-convenor for Tamils for Yes. I am sure other diaspora, represented by many groups and stretched across Australia, can benefit from some approaches we implemented.

4.1 Multicultural Australia

4.1.1 Assimilated into Australia — Many migrants assimilate into the Australian way of life and psyche. Let me give you an example. Due to the size of the land mass in Australia, there’s a genuine fear of the borders and border security. I’ve spoken to many migrants and refugees who want to maintain stronger ‘border protection’. They forget their journey.

Many migrants do not know Australian history and believe everything is okay now for First Nation people — because we are all treated ‘equally’.

The campaign has helped raise awareness in these communities.

4.1.2 Affirmative Action & Conflict — In many parts of the world, affirmative action has been used to wedge one community against another. The most notable one that comes to mind is Malaysia, with significant benefits to the local Muslim majority ethnic groups to the detriment of citizens of Indian and Chinese ethnicity. Further, this holds back the development of the Malay population.

Being from Sri Lanka, affirmative action implemented poorly planted seeds of inequality, then conflict that eventually led to a 30-year war. Sri Lanka favoured the majority Sinhalese, disenfranchising the minorities.

Many migrants have sought refuge in Australia because of conflict, inequality, or perverse justice served to them.

They don’t want Australia moving in this direction. The ‘No’ campaigners presented ‘The Voice’ as affirmative action and more that will divide Australia.

Any future Indigenous uplifting policies need to avoid mishaps like other nations.

4.1.3 Multicultural Australia Spectrum — Multicultural Australia is not progressive or leftist but reflects the population. So, all the same reasons for voting ‘No’ would apply to them.

4.2 Multicultural For Voice

A dedicated team called Multicultural For Voice was formed to engage the culturally and linguistically diverse communities, with a separate website, brochures, videos and ambassadors. There were hundreds of multicultural and religious organisations supportive of the Voice. Many community initiatives also started, like Desis for Yes (Indian), South Asians for Voice, Hazaras For Yes, and Tamils For Yes, to name a few.

Brad Chilcott from Welcoming and Shireen Morris appeared to lead the campaign through Multicultural For Voice.

Amar Singh from Turbans 4 Australia drove around Australia, raising the topic of The Voice.

Many community groups invited the Indigenous ambassadors to speak at their community events.

The names I’ve shared above are just a glimpse of the multicultural ambassadors.

A video below captured the reasons multicultural Australia should support the voice with ~600 views

Desis For Yes

To speak specifically to the large Indian diaspora, a volunteer group called Desis For Yes was launched. Their signature was having conversations over chai — grassroots conversations about the Yes Campaign over coffee/tea.

South Asians For Voice — Another volunteer-run group emerged to speak to South Asian audiences specifically. They created a website to upload their reasons for voting ‘Yes’.

Being South Asian, it included Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sri Lankan and Indian perspectives. The video they launched went viral organically, reaching ~2000 views.

4.3 Tamils For Yes

Tamils are an ethnic group that has defended against the majority to preserve one of the oldest living languages in the world — both in India and Sri Lanka.

Being Tamil, I felt many will relate to the First Nations’ struggle for recognition, truth and the right to self-determination.

After saying this, it was still a challenge to communicate the issue’s importance to various community leaders to gain their support in NSW. While we have over 100,000 Tamils in Australia, many organisations are disparate and do not communicate with each other.

To their credit, other state community leaders had already started their initiatives.

In a very short time, we connected and communicated with various community leaders in four states.

Many individuals shared their reasons for why, reaching thousands of views on instagram.

While the volunteers for Tamils For Yes were based in Sydney, we coordinated with other ‘Tamils for Yes’ initiatives in Adelaide, Melbourne, Perth, and Brisbane, sharing each other’s initiatives.

In Sydney, our volunteers held several forums, reaching community leaders and community radio. We also walked the streets of Western Sydney together with South Asians for Voice to speak to locals and to address any concerns. We even made a video with 100 Tamils from the full political spectrum of the community supporting the ‘Yes’ campaign.

Interestingly, the Tamils for Yes volunteer base median age was closer to the mid-fifties. This appears to be like NFP Getup’s older demographic. I was surprised that the younger audience was less engaged in this topic.

Tamils For Yes 100 Community People Saying Yes

The video was created to be shared with the community through viral WhatsApp — the public viewing was a bonus. This video reached over 6000 people on Facebook alone. With a dedicated Facebook and Instagram channel, we continue supporting Indigenous recognition and success stories.

The Perth & Queensland Tamils videos below to demonstrate the combined Australia-wide effort.

Perth Tamils

Queensland Tamils Say Yes Through Facebook

With over 50 members contributing over 750 hours, I would say we accomplished our goal, where the majority of the Tamils-speaking community in Australia did not vote ‘No’ because they didn’t know.

5. Opportunities For Future Campaigns

While there were many successes, there are many opportunities for the future.

5.1 Government Dilemma & Election Cycles
Having championed the referendum, the federal government was eventually caught in a dilemma when the opposition decided to move against it. By championing ‘Yes’, the referendum would appear partisan, so I would argue the government MPs did not champion as publicly as they wanted to.

The seats with Teal independents and Green representatives campaigned more publicly.

Teal electorates with a large volunteer base ended up supporting the referendum.

Furthermore, there is also the election cycle to consider. The Government probably didn’t want the issue carried into the next election cycle.

5.2 Talking Points & Engaging Content
The reasons for ‘Yes’ needed to be super clear, with ‘talking points’. It was not!

The ‘No’ campaign excelled in this with “Vote No — If you don’t know” or “Voting Yes will divide Australia.”

In my write-up supporting yes, I shared these statements:

“We: lose nothing
First Nations: Start healing
Together: We Become One
By: Closing the Gap.”

Or “we become one” provides a far simpler message to communicate and seeds the idea that the indigenous are left behind. This is how I communicated at the polling booth, and it resonated with the public.

A media and communications specialist, David Fedirchuk, is far more critical of the Yes campaign, arguing it was one of the worst own goals in democratic election history.

Talking points are part of the greater strategy to create engaging content. This is the key to reaching the public.

ABC Media Watch summed up the guerrilla-style marketing of the ‘No’ Campaign well, using platforms like TikTok to reach a wider audience. The ‘edgy’ ‘No’ campaign had far better cut through, with over 800,000 views vs 40,000 views for the most successful Yes Video.

Engaging content also needs to be fun. In only a few weeks, Dan Ilic and other comedians created a crowdsourcing campaign to raise funds for their work. They tried their best to counter the ‘No’ narrative with humour in ‘F- Yes’ and did a fantastic job in a short time. We shared their content through Tamils for Yes.

F-Yes - By Dan Ilic - Satirical Campaigns

First Nation rapper Briggs and comedy duo Freudian Nip (Jenna Owen and Vic Zerbst). This video was released on the 4th of October and garnered millions of views in different mediums.

The takeaway — make it catchy and fun!

5.3 Clarity Of Outcome
While more explanation was forthcoming towards the end of the campaign, the lack of detail was raised as a resistance to change. A few scenarios could have been better communicated to show the extensive local and overseas research.

5.4 Who Opposes — Who Gains?
This is not very politically correct, but it needs to be said. Any further progress in creating harmony with the First Nation people can have a cost for some. These include fossil fuel and mining interests, pastoralists, and those developing property or clearing land in disputed lands. We’ll cover these in Part II.

5.5 Reasons for Resistance
Remember the reasons for voting ‘No’: it will divide Australia, there is not enough detail, it won’t make a difference, and it will give indigenous greater rights.

With the amount of effort in creating The Voice, the reasons people gave for voting no could have been foreseeable. All the main reasons for voting no could have been managed from the beginning. Even the topics that are rarely discussed could have been addressed, like the fear of ‘Truth Telling’. Some people would have voted no because they didn’t want to look back at their history.

With a strong clarity of outcome, talking points, and reasons for resistance, the message can be spread far and wide to the grassroots indigenous communities and allies.

5.6 Communication & Grassroots Consensus
The Voice has highlighted a stark gap in communication between many Indigenous leaders, the grassroots and youth. The elders are considered the custodians, and the youth don’t necessarily agree with the outcome.

Some Indigenous leaders were ambivalent about The Voice. Some wanted more and are working towards a Treaty but were not confident about the outcome. Other elders, like Cheryl Drayton, campaigned against the Voice for various reasons, namely not trusting the politicians to implement and wanting more details.

After the referendum, two Indigenous elders — one who voted ‘Yes’ and the other ‘No’ — discuss what should happen next. Interestingly, Kelly Menzel, the elder who voted yes, only switched right at the end. This further supports the point that consensus needs to be built from the grassroots.

Regarding Indigenous national policy matters, every Indigenous person becomes a spokesperson for the cause. So, better communication is a must to build any grassroots consensus.

5.7 Allyship
While supportive on paper, many organisations left it to their constituents to decide. They didn’t want to ‘tell them what to think’. We faced this in the Tamil Community, where a community group wanted to hear from both sides.

Had there been a tighter strategy to counter the ‘No’ arguments, with over 60,000 volunteers, the outcome would have probably been different.

To Conclude Part I

Many motivated older Australians and growing multicultural communities know the First Nation’s history and are open to continuing the support.

With the continued effort, we can close the gap much sooner and even create treaties.

While the referendum result was disappointing, many successful stories helped us achieve 40% for the affirmative. There are also many opportunities for any future campaign to make it harder for those opposing reconciliation and treaties.

Now, let’s turn to analysing the strategies from the ‘No’ campaign and appreciate why they succeeded. And even more importantly, we need to know who will likely fund any move against reconciliation and treaty.

Let’s move to Part II –No Campaign Strategies, Non-Politically Correct Reasons for Voting No, Disenfranchised Public and the Distortion of Democracy.