fbpx Skip to main content

The referendum question is questionable.


The Australian people will soon be posed with a referendum question to which they can only answer YES or NO.

Is the question fair? Is the question designed to generate a clear understanding of the wishes of the people?... OR is the question designed with a political motivation to illicit only a YES vote?

Let's have a look at the details and you can make up your own mind.


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 of this proposed alteration?


NOTE there are TWO parts to the question and that you only get to give ONE answer.

The question has TWO separate concepts in ONE question. One concept is recognition of First Peoples. The second concept is establishing a Voice. It is possible that the Australian peoples want to “recognise” but not give a constitutional “Voice.” It is also conversely possible the Australian people want to give a constitutional “Voice” but not “recognise.”

Reasearch shows that Australians will vote YES to “Recognition” but are greatly concerned about entrenching a racially specific power in the constitution. (Voice) The draft referendum question intrinsically links these two distinctly different concepts and only gives one way of answering. (YES or NO.)

Does this confuse the Australian people over the precise part of the question to which they are answering YES or NO? Why is that? Is the question designed with a political motivation to illicit only a YES Vote? Is the Australian population being manipulated?


The question asks the Australian people if they wish to recognise the First Peoples of Australia; the word First uses a capital letter and therefore FIRST can be construed as meaning:

1) recognised as a superior status or class of Australian peoples, OR

2) arriving in the country prior to any other subsequent wave of migration of other Australians.

The referendum question leaves both these options  open for interpretation by the voters, and eventually, the Parliament or High Court. Do you think the voting Australian population will get confused by the current referendum question wording?

What FIRST are you voting for? Should we define Aboriginal? Why is it unclear? How will this lack of question clarity impact the result and therefore the future operations of our country over the future decades and centuries?

The referendum question does not give the voter “the fine print.”

It’s interesting to note that the referendum question does not communicate the actual wording changes to be made in the constitution …. when it very easily could.

The voter in the voting booth will only visually see the referendum question and not explicitly be able to see the actual clauses to the be added to the constitution.

When you sign a contract, do you like to see the actual words in that contract?

Do you think it would be possible for the government to make the referendum question really simple and clear? … for example ….

“Do you approve the following change to the Constitution?” (And then provide the exact words to be changed in the Constitution. The changes are only three sentences.)

Would you sign a contract without knowing the precise words in the contract you are signing?

Why does the government not give us all the words to be changed in the constitution in the referendum question?

Why is the question not really simple and clear?