The crucial role of multicultural voters in the failed referendum

I have spent the past 12 to 13 years working with Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson on Indigenous constitutional recognition. The referendum’s failure on 14 October 2023 marked a sad conclusion to a story of attempted collaboration across political, ideological and cultural divides.

The concept of a constitutionally guaranteed Indigenous Voice germinated through negotiation and compromise between Indigenous leaders and constitutional conservatives. But the goodwill Indigenous people showed through the generous invitation issued in the Uluru Statement from the Heart was ultimately not reciprocated by the political right.

My new book, Broken Heart, tells that complicated story. It also traverses the nuances of attempted collaboration across cultural and ethnic divides, from my perspective as an Australian constitutional lawyer of Indian and Fijian-Indian ancestry.

It was a political reality that the Indigenous 3% minority would need supporters and advocates from the 97 % non-Indigenous majority to achieve their desired reforms. Multicultural voters were going to be crucial.

Yet (if my survey is correct) none of the official committees convened by Australian governments to progress Indigenous recognition over the last fifteen years, included a sitting participant of a non-European migrant background. Among the many leadership bodies officially charged with progressing Indigenous constitutional recognition, there was never a Chinese, Indian, Sudanese, Iranian or Vietnamese Australian expert or advocate in sight – almost as if this was a conversation exclusively between the Indigenous peoples and the white colonisers, with non-white migrants playing no role. This was also true of the various campaign bodies going into the referendum, which were headed up by Indigenous and white Australian leaders.

It is perhaps unsurprising that I ended up working on multicultural engagement in the final years before the referendum, as director of the Radical Centre Reform Lab at Macquarie University Law School. This was not my expertise, but the gap needed filling. We had some success, but the going was tough.

With the backing of Foundation Donors, Henry and Marcia Pinskier, our small team helped coordinate a joint resolution of peak religious organisations calling for bipartisanship on the Voice referendum. It was released on the fifth anniversary of the Uluru Statement and was signed by prominent representatives of the Anglican Church of Australia, the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, the Australian National Imams Council, the Australian Sangha Association, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Hindu Council of Australia, the National Council of Churches in Australia, the National Sikh Council of Australia and the Uniting Church in Australia Assembly.

Can you imagine: all those diverse groups standing together united, calling on political parties to also put their differences aside and co-operate for the national good? Later, we coordinated another joint resolution of well over 200 multicultural community organisations in support of the Voice referendum.

Noel Pearson and I did extensive multicultural and multifaith engagement, both together and separately. Noel spoke to the Queensland African Communities Council – a festive event with dancing, food and rousing interjections during Noel’s remarks. They expressed immense empathy for Indigenous people’s struggles for acceptance. He turned up to Friday prayers at multiple mosques and found deep solidarity in the Muslim community. He spoke at churches and temples. There was an event with Afghan cameleers in Queensland who had crafted a generous response to the Uluru Statement, which Noel read out to the massive gathering. ‘We, the Gold Coast Afghan community, have heard your call,’ it declared. ‘With tear-filled eyes, open hearts, and resolute spirits, we pledge to walk with you.’

In these moments, love was truly in the air. Hope bubbled in our chests.

I spoke at African, Chinese, Indian, Sri Lankan, Iranian, Greek, Jewish, South-East Asian and Islamic community events around the country, and worked with Indigenous filmmaker Rachel Perkins on a video showcasing the growing multicultural support for the Voice. I did several events with the proactive Jewish advocacy organisation, Stand Up, and the Kol Halev initiative – the Jewish Voice for Yes. This included speaking at gatherings in people’s homes, with community members offering to host discussions. A multifaith collection of essays in support of the referendum was launched at The Great Synagogue in Sydney.

We engaged extensively with the Indian community, especially in Western Sydney, and did several events with Amar Singh, the Australian of the Year, who took off in a van around Australia to help convince multicultural communities to vote Yes. I spoke at an Indian seniors’ gathering, and unexpectedly had to dance with some of the old ladies while another performed karaoke.

These efforts were not enough, especially given Liberal and National Party opposition to the referendum. Too often community leaders would express support, then equivocate under pressure from Liberals in their ranks. Saying you support something is easy. Actually doing something to assist takes effort many were unwilling to expend in the politically fractious environment.

Lack of bipartisanship was the key reason for the referendum’s failure. A study conducted by ANU confirmed the referendum was viewed by voters as a left-wing cause, which influenced voting choices.

The No campaign was ruthlessly effective. Migrants were targeted with tailored lies via WeChat and other platforms: if you vote ‘Yes’, your business will have to do ‘zero dollar buying’ (giving away free stuff to Indigenous people), was one warning. Asian students will need to ‘score much higher’ in exams to compete with Indigenous people for university entrance, was another false claim, and your kid’s scholarship could be given away to a black. Other falsities included the claim that a successful referendum would allow Indigenous people to confiscate your homes and charge land tax.

These were all variations on the same prejudicial message: the Voice will give Indigenous people special treatment, which will disadvantage other Australians.

The ‘Yes’ campaigns struggled to counteract these forces and connect with non-English speaking voters, who may have been swayed by the targeted scare campaigns. Those who voted ‘No’ were more likely to speak a language other than English at home. Their vote declined significantly, especially late in the campaign.

This opinion piece contains edited extracts from Broken Heart: a true history of the Voice referendum (https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/books/broken-heart) by Shireen Morris out now