Viv Forbes: How the Big End of Town Gambled and Lost

Australia’s Big End of Town gambled heavily in the Voice referendum - and lost.

Only the Nanny “State” (Canberra) voted “Yes”. But their horse ran last in every other state and territory and now has to be put down.

This costly ($400M) and divisive exercise showed that Australians do not want politicians meddling with their federal constitution. We have learned to distrust proposals supported by big government, big business, trade unions, woke celebrities and the ABC. And the more we heard of this racist proposal, the less we liked it.

Penn Raine: In the eye of the beholder

Since Saturday, the usual suspects have, among their cries of surprise at Labour’s slap-down, been suggesting that their slide into ignominy could have been avoided if only they had not incinerated so many of their contentious policies.

This amusing anti-logic has us scratching our heads. Are these journos suggesting that if the secretive Three Waters proposals had been enshrined in law along with the widely criticised social insurance policy and the RNZ/TVNZ merger then the public thumbs-down would have miraculously turned to cheers? Do they hold the view that the proposed hate speech laws would have become cherished in familiarity by those for whom they were designed to muzzle?

Clive Bibby: Lessons from the vote

My guess is that most people reading this column headline will be anticipating the author writing about Saturday’s general election in this country - a result from which we could draw some pretty obvious conclusions. 

Well, if people did think that, they’d be half right but regarding the lessons to be learned, I am actually mainly referring to Saturday’s referendum on the “Voice “ in Australia that enables me to make some really startling observations, drawing comparisons with our closest neighbour that are very revealing.

Lushington D. Brady: Winston Weighs in on Voice

Same mistake as co-governance, says Peters

Next weekend, both New Zealanders and Australians will go to the polls: one in a general election, the other in a referendum. In both cases, there’s a strong case that the future of our countries as liberal democracies is at stake.

NZCPR Podcast: Healing Racial Tensions

The 14th of October is an important day for both New Zealand and Australia. 

Australia is holding a referendum about giving a Voice to indigenous rights. 

We are holding a general election where indigenous rights – co-governance – have become a significant issue. It may well be a defining issue of the campaign and could explain the rise in support for New Zealand First. 

Lushington D. Brady: ‘No’ Campaign a Big Boost for Price

One big winner from a divisive referendum

For all the “progressive” posturing of the Australian left, it was the Liberal Party who elected Australia’s first woman MP in the lower house, Dame Enid Lyons, and Australia’s first Aboriginal parliamentarian, Sir Neville Bonner, and first Aboriginal cabinet minister, Ken Wyatt.

Some political observers are speculating that the Liberal Party may already be fostering Australia’s future first Aboriginal Prime Minister. Somewhat perversely, as an unintended consequence of the current PM’s blundered, divisive, “Indigenous Voice” referendum.

NZCPR Newsletter: Healing Racial Tensions

The same day that New Zealanders vote in the General Election to choose a new government, Australians vote in the Voice referendum to see whether constitutional recognition will be given to Aboriginal people.

This is a landmark decision for Australia. If the Voice succeeds, the country will be divided by race.

This is essentially what’s happened in New Zealand. The difference is that in Australia the debate is out in the open and the public are being asked to vote on whether or not they want to go down this track. In contrast, in New Zealand there has been no openness nor debate –  a race-based future has been imposed on us by the Hipkins-Ardern Labour Government.

Lushington D. Brady: Good News and Good News on Voice

I have good news and good news on the “Indigenous Voice” referendum.

The good news is that support for Yes continues to fall, with No now reaching an all-out majority for the first time.

The other good news is that the referendum is killing Labor, and Anthony Albanese personally.

Lushington D. Brady: What Is All This ‘Voice’ Business About?

Explaining the referendum for Kiwis

BFD readers will have seen a slew of posts from me regarding the upcoming “Indigenous Voice”. As many of us do, when it comes to our local politics, perhaps I have taken too much background knowledge for granted, on behalf of my readers. As became painfully obvious when a commenter asked if there was “Any chance for a summary article for what this whole voice vote is about for uninformed Kiwis like me. Even a link to an article that isn’t written by a wokoid or wet conservative.”

Well, you’re in luck: “wokoid” or even “wet conservative” are neither things I have ever been called.

David Hughes: What is ‘Indigenous policy’?

We increasingly use ‘catch all’ terms such as ‘Women’s Policy’, ‘Youth Policy’ and ‘Indigenous Policy’, when in reality most areas of public policy impact these groups.

A rising star in the Australian Federal parliament, Zoe McKenzie expressed her frustration the other week at the use of the term ‘Women’s Policy’. She has a point: it is far too simplistic (and even demeaning) to package up childcare measures and women's workforce participation measures and think you have ticked a box to satisfy female voters. In reality, most women care just as much about tax policy as men, and fathers care just as much about childcare subsidies as mothers.

Lushington D. Brady: Voice Polling Just Keeps Getting Better

Better for the “No” case, that is

The “Indigenous Voice” referendum in Australia is in serious trouble. With just months to go before Australians vote whether or not to change their Constitution, polls are trending steadily downward for the “Yes” vote. The newest poll shows the “No” vote winning.

Australian referendums need a double majority to pass: a majority of voters overall, and a majority of voters in each of a majority of states.

According to the latest Newspoll, the referendum would fail on both.