More Australians are planning to vote no in the Indigenous voice referendum than yes, a first for Guardian’s Essential poll.
The Essential poll of 1,150 voters released on Tuesday found that 47% did not approve of the voice, with 43% in favour and the remaining 10% unsure. That represents a reversal of July’s results, which found yes narrowly ahead by the same margin.
In a further concerning sign for the yes campaign, opponents outnumbered supporters in all states except Victoria, putting the requirement for a majority of states in addition to a nationwide majority out of reach without a swing in sentiment.
On a state-by-state basis, no was ahead of yes in: Queensland, 51% to 40%; Western Australia, 48% to 39%; New South Wales, 47% to 41%; and South Australia 48% to 45%. In Victoria, yes was narrowly ahead 47% to 46%.
Tasmania was polled and will count to the requirement of a double majority for a referendum to succeed, but smaller sample sizes make results there less reliable and they are not regularly reported separately.
Essential found that a higher proportion of respondents described themselves as “hard no” compared with “hard yes”, with 38% to 31%. There were fewer “soft noes” (9%) than “soft yeses” (12%).
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.
Support for the voice was strongest among women, with 47% in favour compared with 40% opposed, and among people aged 18 to 34, with 62% in favour compared with 26% opposed.
Opposition to the voice was strongest among men, 55% of whom said no; among people aged over 55, 65% of whom said no; and among supporters of the Coalition, minor parties and independents.
The most common reason cited for opposing the voice was “It won’t make a real difference to the lives of ordinary Indigenous Australians” (cited by 58% of no voters), followed by “It will give Indigenous Australians rights and privileges that other Australians don’t have” (42%).
Guardian Australia’s average of polls has shown support dropping to 50-50 or lower, driven by the no side leading in the most recent Resolve, Newspoll and Redbridge polls.
In new qualitative work conducted by focus group, supporters of the voice cited the need to listen to Indigenous people, described recognition as the right thing to do and mentioned it being a step towards reconciliation as reasons for their position.
Those opposed claimed the voice would result in racial division, that it would either not make a difference or that it would have too much power.
One man who voted Greens in a regional area said the referendum “isn’t just recognition of Aboriginal people in the constitution, the government is asking us to vote yes to a taxpayer-funded lobby group for Aboriginal people on every issue”.
Another man, over 55, who voted independent, said the public had “not been given any specific information about the details” of the voice.
Among their reasons for opposing the voice, respondents also cited misleading or false claims including “a list of demands like cheap sport and music tickets, fees to be paid for property on their land” or that “we will have to pay to go to the beach [and] national parks”.
The Essential poll found less than one-third (32%) of respondents believed Australia was heading in the right direction, with 48% saying it was on track and another 20% unsure.
In a concerning sign for the Albanese government, less than a quarter of respondents thought it was doing an “excellent or above average” job in a range of key policy areas: international relations (24%), the Indigenous voice (17%) and climate change (13%). Support was in single digits for handling the cost of living (9%) and housing affordability (8%).
On cost of living, the government’s performance was judged below average (26%) or poor (44%) by most voters.
On housing affordability, the figures were similar: 29% said its performance was below average, and a further 38% said poor.
More than half of respondents (52%) said they were “financially struggling” or in “serious difficulty”, while the other half (48%) reported they were financially “comfortable” or “secure”.
Almost two-thirds of voters thought the government could “definitely” make a meaningful difference (30%) or “probably can” (37%).
In a repeat of results in May’s poll, 43% of respondents said that sports betting ads should be banned.
With the prime minister expected to soon meet with television executives to discuss an outright ban, just a quarter (25%) of respondents favoured the softer option of a ban during sports games only. Some 16% said gambling ads should be allowed at all times and a further 16% were unsure.
After a spate of killings and gun violence in Sydney sparked renewed calls for drug decriminalisation, the poll found a quarter to half of respondents would like to see many illegal drugs “regulated and taxed by the government in a similar way to tobacco or alcohol”.
Support was highest for this approach for marijuana (50%), followed by LSD, magic mushrooms and similar hallucinogens (33%). About 29% said the same about party drugs MDMA/ecstasy and cocaine, and even heroin and opiates. A further 27% favoured this approach for ketamine.
