Save articles for later
Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.
A disputed claim over the Indigenous Voice is now the biggest factor in turning people against the proposal, with 22 per cent of voters saying they find it persuasive when critics argue it would divide Australians by race.
Voters are being convinced to back the Voice, however, by assurances that it would help solve entrenched disadvantage and produce better outcomes by listening to Indigenous people.
The exclusive findings highlight the most powerful arguments at play ahead of Saturday’s referendum when many “soft” voters are yet to cast their votes.Credit:
The exclusive findings highlight the most powerful arguments at play ahead of Saturday’s referendum when many “soft” voters are yet to cast their votes – and many of them are swayed by the claim the Voice offers a practical way to recognise First Australians.
With 56 per cent of Australians against the Voice in the latest Resolve Political Monitor, the campaign for change is ramping up efforts to convince “soft No” voters – about 9 per cent of the electorate – to swing to Yes.
The survey, conducted by Resolve Strategic for this masthead, found 10 per cent of voters thought the most persuasive case for the Voice was that it was a practical way to recognise Indigenous people.
Another 7 per cent found it most convincing when advocates said it would help solve disadvantage, and a separate 7 per cent named the argument that voting No meant nothing would change and that this was not good enough.
“Voters currently see more risk in a permanent, untested institution than they see reward in potential impact and reduction of waste,” Resolve director Jim Reed said.
“The only way to counter that is to show the risk of not acting. The Yes camp is finally focusing in on this, with appeals that this is the only opportunity to do something and that doing nothing is not an option, with particular reference to closing the gap.”
The survey asked 3116 eligible voters their views on the main reasons given by the Yes and No camps to endorse or reject the Voice, as part of a broader survey from September 22 to October 4 that asked 4728 voters whether they would vote for or against the change. Respondents could choose one reason they found most persuasive on each side.
When voters were presented with key arguments from the No camp, 22 per cent chose the claim that the Voice would divide Australians by race, making this the single most powerful argument on either side.
Northern Territory senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, the Coalition spokeswoman on Indigenous policy, has repeatedly warned that the Voice would divide the country by race – a claim the No side also spreads on social media.
Former High Court chief justice Robert French countered the argument in recent days by noting the Voice was about recognising the first occupants of the land, not a separate race. Yes campaigner Noel Pearson has urged Australians to vote for unity by approving the Voice and has rejected the claim it is about race.
Another 15 per cent of voters thought the repeated claim that there was not enough detail about the Voice was the most persuasive No argument, while 8 per cent named the concern that not all Indigenous people wanted the Voice.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Monday urged voters to reject “absurd debates” from the No campaign and focus on the question being put in the referendum to recognise Indigenous Australians and create the Voice.
“The form of recognition is just a non-binding advisory committee,” Albanese said during a spate of interviews before flying to Broken Hill and Uluru for Yes events.
“It doesn’t change the way that parliament works, doesn’t have the right of veto, isn’t a funding body. Nothing to fear here, just the opportunity to listen to first Australians about matters that affect them, so that we can get better results.”
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said Albanese had decided not to reveal the details of the Voice and this meant voters should reject the idea because they could not be “absolutely certain” about how it would work.
“There’s so much ambiguity, so much uncertainty and risk, it’s permanent once it goes into the Constitution,” he said while campaigning in Tasmania before heading to South Australia.
“A law passed by the parliament can’t override the Constitution, and I think that’s why millions of Australians are deciding to vote No.”
Asked for his alternative, Dutton said he would drop the Voice and seek a vote on recognition alone.
The survey found 58 per cent of voters supported altering the Constitution to recognise Indigenous people as Australia’s first inhabitants, when this was kept separate from the Voice. Another 27 per cent of voters were against and 15 per cent undecided.
Price has also warned the Voice would create a “bloated bureaucracy” when there should be an audit of spending instead.
Albanese has assured voters the Voice would reduce waste because it would lead to better policies.
Forty-nine per cent of voters surveyed said it would create waste and inefficiencies and only 20 per cent said it would be reduced, with the rest undecided.
Australians have mixed views, however, on Price’s recent claim that colonisation had been good for Indigenous people and dismissal of the idea that it had led to generations of trauma.
The question mentioned the senator’s comments and asked: “On the whole, do you think the impact of colonisation since 1788 has been a positive or a negative one for Indigenous people?”
Thirty-eight per cent of respondents said colonisation had been good for Indigenous Australians and 23 per cent said it had not, with the rest unsure.
A related question asked: “Do you think colonisation has resulted in inter-generational trauma for Indigenous people?”
Forty per cent agreed it had, while 28 per cent disagreed and the rest were unsure.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.
Most Viewed in Politics
From our partners
Source: Read Full Article
