Referendums are relatively infrequent in Australian politics, and difficult to win, as the yes campaign for the voice to parliament is finding out. They are also inherently polarising: we are asked to make a simple, yes or no choice about a complex, multifaceted question.
This tends to advantage the no side – “if you don’t know, vote no”, as the official pamphlet statement by opponents of the voice says – and it’s an easy case to make, even if it means sticking with a status quo that has systemically disadvantaged Indigenous Australians ever since the lie of “terra nullius” was created by the first colonists.
The yes campaign, on the other hand, must make the case for the “positive difference” that a constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples will generate. But since that recognition hasn’t happened yet, its task is to paint a picture of the improvements the voice will bring, without incontrovertible proof that these will definitely eventuate.
The yes campaign is asking voters to take a leap of faith at a time when faith in Australian politics is hard to come by; the no argument is that politicians can’t be trusted, and the apparent inconsistencies in its own campaign help to further cement that perspective.
This asymmetry lends itself to US-style campaigning: American presidential campaigns spend much of their time undermining the enthusiasm of their opponent’s supporters, in order to discourage voter turnout and lead undecided voters to support the side they think is more likely to win the election.
The no side in the referendum can do much the same, even if our compulsory electoral system will still ensure a near-complete voter turnout: its task is to sow enough doubt to kill off the initial enthusiasm for the voice, so that those voters who were never especially invested in the issue and were only going to vote yes because they felt it was the morally right thing to do will now feel emboldened to go with the apparent majority and vote no.
Meanwhile, the yes campaign has been forced into a defensive stance, responding to more and more questions about how the voice might act. But this only creates further uncertainty in voters’ minds.
The communication landscape is markedly different to the last time Australia held a referendum in 1999. The advent of social media and digital advertising means that messaging strategies can be much more localised and targeted.
This requires new tools and approaches to understand the increasingly personalised and fragmented media landscape. PoliDashboard, run by the Social Media Lab at Toronto Metropolitan University and the QUT Digital Media Research Centre, tracks Australian-focused political advertising across Meta’s platforms. In the last 90 days, according to the site, we have seen the no campaign outfits of Advance Australia and Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price spend $243,879 on 402 ads on Meta platforms. The yes campaign has spent $391,169 on 457 ads over the same period through Yes23, a campaign led by Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition.
To provide some context to these figures, about $12.5m was spent on Meta advertising by political parties in the two months prior to the 2022 federal election.
The yes campaign is focusing on messages and slogans that underscore recognition of 65,000 years of Indigenous cultural heritage, and reference themes of belonging, listening and unity. Images used in these ads feature small and large groups of people, usually Indigenous Australians.
What has happened already?
The Albanese government has put forward the referendum question: "A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?"
The PM also suggested three sentences be added to the constitution:
- There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
- The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
- The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
How would it work?
The voice would be able to make recommendations to the Australian parliament and government on matters relating to the social, spiritual and economic wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
The voice would be able to table formal advice in parliament and a parliamentary committee would consider that advice. But the voice co-design report said all elements would be non-justiciable, meaning there could not be a court challenge and no law could be invalidated based on this consultation.
How would it be structured?
The co-design report recommended the national voice have 24 members, encompassing two from each state, the Northern Territory, ACT and Torres Strait. A further five members would represent remote areas and an additional member would represent Torres Strait Islanders living on the mainland.
Members would serve four-year terms, with half the membership determined every two years.
The no campaign’s messages tend to be more negative, but with far greater precision and impact. These ads tend to include single profile photos of key no proponents and conservative politicians and activists. A significant portion of these ads also use images of yes proponents with quotes and messages in an apparent attempt to undermine their credibility or subvert their meaning.
While the yes campaign is presenting a mostly simple mass campaign message and strategy, the no campaign, as reported by Guardian Australia, is running multiple parallel campaigns that push apparently contradictory messages to different demographic groups in different locations. Microtargeting with (often conflicting) political messages, in key locations, has emerged as a key campaign tactic of leading US conservatives.
The yes campaign cannot afford to be drawn in to a rearguard battle with its opponents. Instead, to regain momentum, it could reset the conversation by returning to the fundamental aims of the voice, and by appealing to Australians’ sense of honour and justice. Instead of outlining all the particular ways in which the voice may make a difference in Australian politics (and thereby opening itself up to new questioning), it may be more fruitful to rekindle the fundamental sense that it is time to right the many historical wrongs that have been committed against Indigenous Australians.
Axel Bruns is an Australian laureate fellow and professor at the Digital Media Research Centre of Queensland University of Technology. Prof Daniel Angus is a professor of Digital Communication at the School of Communication, and leader of the Computational Communication and Culture program in QUT’s Digital Media Research Centre
