As campaigning in the referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament continues, No campaigners have repeatedly argued against what they call “the Voice of division”.
The results of The Conversation’s exclusive opinion poll suggest something to the contrary: most prospective No voters see the country as already divided, while Yes voters are more likely to see it as united.
As part of an Australian Laureate Fellowship project, we commissioned a series of questions to explore whether Australian voters saw their country as divided, against the backdrop of the current referendum campaigns. These questions were added to the regular Essential opinion poll in its September 5 poll.
Division and the Voice
Polling on Voice voting intention itself shows polarisation on the issue. In the week our questions were asked, Essential showed an overall split of 42% of respondents likely to vote Yes and 48% likely to vote No, with 10% undecided. (The Yes vote has regained some ground in more recent polling.)
But when we asked respondents “How unified or divided do you think Australian society is?”, their perceptions differed vastly between Yes and No supporters.
Of those who see the country as unified, 58% intend to vote Yes, while only 34% intend to vote No. Those who see division have almost exactly opposite intentions: 59% plan to vote No and 34% plan to vote Yes.
| Voting intention | Very unified + quite unified | Neither unified nor divided | Quite divided + very divided |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intend to vote yes | 58% | 38% | 34% |
| Intend to vote no | 34% | 46% | 59% |
| Unsure | 8% | 16% | 8% |
These results are remarkable, and contradict the No campaign rhetoric that it is the Voice to Parliament proposal itself that divides us. Instead, they show only a part of the Australian population believes the country is divided — and those voters overwhelmingly support the No campaign.
Who sees Australia as divided — and why?
Away from the Voice campaign, though, our poll results show societal division in Australia remains relatively mild overall. Of all the respondents we polled, 27% saw Australia as very or quite unified, and 42% as quite or very divided – which leaves 31% of voters who take a neutral point of view.
| Very unified | Quite unified | Neither unified nor divided | Quite divided | Very divided | Very unified + quite unified | Quite divided + very divided | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percent of respondents | 5% | 22% | 31% | 33% | 9% | 27% | 42% |
This compares favourably with countries such as the United States, where polarisation, especially between political camps, now pervades virtually all aspects of society. Australians may have their disagreements, but only 9% of us see the country as very divided.
It also means No voters believe Australia to be considerably more divided, and Yes voters believe the country to be substantially more unified, than Australians do on average.
These perceptions vary among different demographics. Younger participants see more unity in Australia. In contrast, voters over 55 see more division.
Employment status also plays a role: those in paid employment see considerably more unity than those without employment. This is especially true of retirees — who are also likely to be older, of course. Similarly, residents of capital cities see more unity than those outside them.
| Age | Residence | Employment | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18-34 | 35-54 | 55+ | Capital | Non-capital | In paid employment | Not in paid employment | Retired | |
| Very unified + Quite unified | 32% | 31% | 20% | 30% | 21% | 33% | 18% | 19% |
| Neither unified nor divided | 33% | 30% | 30% | 31% | 31% | 28% | 39% | 30% |
| Quite divided + Very divided | 35% | 39% | 51% | 39% | 48% | 39% | 42% | 50% |
A No campaign that appeals to perceptions of division
Our poll results show the main appeal of the No campaign’s rhetoric of “the Voice of division” is not to Australians who want to prevent deep political division in the country before it can take root.
Rather, it has attracted a substantial share of voters who think the country is already divided — and whose perceptions of polarisation are considerably greater than everyone else’s. In this sense, rather than offering a voice for unity, the No campaign is giving voice to division.
Conversely, the Yes campaign has yet to convince a sufficiently large group of voters that the Voice offers a pathway towards greater unity — even if those who intend to vote Yes on October 14 are already much more inclined to see the country as united.
Methodology
This content was commissioned by Queensland University of Technology and completed by Essential Research. The survey was conducted online from August 30 to September 3 2023 and is based on 1,151 respondents sourced from online research panels.
The target population is all Australian residents aged 18 and over. Demographic quotas were applied to fieldwork and results are weighted. Full details of the methodology can be found here.
This research was conducted in accordance with the Australian Polling Council code of conduct. The council aims to advance the quality and understanding of public opinion polling in Australia.
This article was republished from The Conversation.
It’s not surprising that many No voters think that other people are as nasty and fearful as they are themselves.
God forbid that I should be defending the No campaign, but I don’t think those results contradict its rhetoric at all. By its lights, the left (perhaps the “Woke left”) is already in control of the country, dividing us with its preferential policies for First Nations & other preferred groups, and the Voice is just another step in that sinister agenda, creating & worsening division. It’s nonsense, but I don’t think it’s inconsistent.
This is a solid point.
It is entirely consistent with the contemporary conservative worldview and rhetoric, where they are a persecuted minority under existential threat.
You left out delusional.
The country has always had divisions. Aside from indigenous and white colonials, we had the English and Irish, the convict and free, the men in power and the suffragettes ( still ongoing), black and white, climate deniers and those wanting the climate change to be addressed, anglos and European immigrants, flag wavers and those against nationalistic behaviours, republicans and monarchy lovers, and so on and so on.
According to polling post WWII, the majority of then WASP dominated Australia did not want either Catholic or Jewish immigration; then we move on and target other groups…..
In other words, it’s the perpetual fears of those with oversize amygdala warring against those who wish to peer outside the cave.
Yes always. It’s about what the division are, how long they persist and when they are raised and what narratives tie them together. Stability is a product of at best a consensus, or at least a solid majority, around the proposition that what unites us is greater than what divides us. Politically for example, that the benefits of democracy and rule of law outweigh the divisions they overlay. Both the populism and the atomising individuation the digital world of social media enables, because it breaks down dominant narratives, agreed positions and trusted gatekeepers, threatens to overwhelm the proposition. When old media has also given itself over to stoking all this for profit the cracks are becoming fissures. So you get calls for chaos, demands to win at all costs and conmen posing as saviours. We have seen it before but we are being particularly tested now, under new conditions. We should not assume we need do nothing and she’ll be right. That said, I don’t fear the RWNJs. On their own they would barely be much more than 5% of the population. It’s the unscrupulous preying on the naive worried that are the main threat in my view.
I still dont understand what the NO people get out of this. Any ideas?
Don’t you read no good?
There is no shortage of evidence as to why this is a total furcup (nod to brit cartoonist Rowland) carefully designed to fail.
Then ‘Labor’ can wash its putrid hands, say “We tried” and get on with their real job of serving their donors.
What’s the evidence ? Or condemn yourself as just another mendacious purveyor of anti-truth and racism.
The apparatchik assigned here has been released from its pod with a new script – except that it is the same-old, same-old tattered carbon.
The warm fuzzy feeling of things being the same afterwards as they were before.
One major driver is simply party political. Just as Abbott weaponised climate Dutton and the Coalition cheerleaders could not resist the opportunity to mobilise a win against Labor. Too bad if the country or First Nations were collateral damage. Why would the Coalition care about hurting 5% of the population, they already did massive drive-bys on the nation’s children, housing, environment, wages and so on.
Others no doubt gain psychological and material benefits, the Aboriginal faux Hanson brigade for a start, then add the seething small minded anxious white men resentful of anything that might offend their privilege, including calling it privilege. Chuck in the economically insecure who will be quick to rush to talkback about how poor they are and in need of tax relief and a subsidy. Add in the country landholders resentful of any black armband history that might raise uncomfortable questions. Then stir. Nice muddy colour isn’t it. Pongs a bit too.
The choice to hit GO on this referendum rests completely with Albanese and his pollsters / strategists/ spin doctors.
Holding a referendum mid term will always lower the chances of passing. Given how few pass, this was almost certain to fail.
What protections did the Albanese Government put in place to protect the community, and especially the First Nations peoples, given the dominance of right-wing media (News Corp) and the recent events of seething right-wingers in the USA?
Less than nothing. They deliberately prevented official YES and NO organisations being formed to put forward official cases, for and against, as we had for 1999.
Remember also that the Strategist for the YES case working with Albanese is one of the two founders of CT Group – who are pollsters/ strategists for the Liberal Party since Howard – railing against boat people: “Stop the boats”.
That is on the YES sides – and they initially tried to define opposition (NO voters) as racists.
What they have now, thanks to the open slather NO campaigns are the following:
1) What they think is a good justification for bringing in laws to enforce censorship over social media. The legislation has already been drafted and is ready to be introduced. It has been widely condemned by experts.
2) It also provides an opportunity to redeem Australia and save us from the “original sin” of this referendum failure, through a second referendum proposal on a republic. The A have their Choice Model ready to go. Albanese has said he is planning on a second referendum on a republic within the next three years – perhaps on the second term but given the failure of this referendum they might try to usher it in with the next general election.
The very hasty timing for this first referendum leaves open the possibility for a second referendum in the next general election. (2025)
Note that Albanese’s strategist for the YES side in this referendum has worked for the Australian Republic Movement. The main consideration after 1999 was waiting until the realm of Queen Elizabeth II has ended before another attempt be tried on a republic referendum.
Back to the first paragraph of this comment – when has the Albanese Government shown concern to help the First Nations people through this referendum? I don’t think they ever had an intention to help the First Nation communities. I think this referendum was always intended as preparation for a second referendum on a republic.
What would this give the NO voters? A chance at redemption with a vote on a republic.
Well that’s surprising. I’m a confirmed ‘Yes’ voter and have never believed any other option is acceptable, but I definitely see Australia as already divided; that’s precisely why a Voice to Parliament is so desperately needed.