Placeholder Content Image

Compulsory voting in Australia is 100 years old. We should celebrate how special it makes our democracy

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-strangio-1232">Paul Strangio</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a></em></p> <p>For nearly 200 years, the notion of American political exceptionalism has had currency in the United States: it is an idea rooted in the nation’s status as the first modern republic. As we watch from afar, disturbed yet mesmerised by the latest chapter of violent political division in America, the country seems less a paragon than a symbol of democratic pathology.</p> <p>America’s certainty in its political uniqueness is symptomatic of a brash national chauvinism. By way of contrast, Australia is prone, if anything, to undue bashfulness about its democratic credentials. How else can we explain that this month marks the centenary of the most extraordinary feature of the country’s democratic architecture, and yet the anniversary is slipping by with neither comment nor reflection. I refer to compulsory voting, which was legislated in the federal parliament in July 1924.</p> <p>Compulsory voting is not unique to Australia. Calculating how many countries abide by the practice is notoriously difficult, since in around half the nations where compulsory voting exists in name it is not enforced. Most estimates, however, put the figure in the vicinity of 20 to 30.</p> <p>If not unique, Australia’s experience of compulsory voting is highly distinctive for a number of reasons.</p> <p>First, its emergence in the early 20th century was consistent with the nation’s larger tradition of innovation and experimentation when it came to electoral institutions and practices. This record is typically traced back to the pioneering in the 1850s of the secret ballot (sometimes called the “Australian ballot”) in a number of the Australian colonies and the embrace of other advanced democratic measures in the second half of the 19th century.</p> <p>These included manhood suffrage, payment of MPs and the extension of the franchise to women, beginning in South Australia in 1894. The innovations continued in the 20th century with such things as preferential voting and non-partisan bureaucratic electoral administration.</p> <p>Second, Australia is alone in embracing compulsory voting among the Anglophone democracies to which it typically compares itself. The electoral systems of Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the United States are all based on voluntary voting.</p> <p>Third, unlike many other compulsory voting countries, Australia does not pay lip service to its operation. Electoral authorities enforce compulsory voting, albeit leniently. It has been strongly upheld by the courts and is backed by a regime of sanctions for non-compliance.</p> <p>Fourth, compulsory voting has been consistently and unambiguously successful in achieving high voter turnout. Though there has been a slight downward trend in turnout at the past five national elections (it hit a low of 90.5% in 2022), it has not fallen below 90% since the adoption of compulsory voting a century ago.</p> <p>This is around 30% higher than the recent average turnout in countries with voluntary voting. It is also well above the recent average in countries with compulsory voting systems.</p> <p>Fifth, the public has strongly and consistently backed the practice. Evidence from more than half a century of opinion polls and election study surveys shows support hovering around the 70% mark.</p> <h2>An impregnable practice</h2> <p>Perhaps the most singular aspect of the nation’s experience of compulsory voting, however, is how seemingly impregnable is the practice if measured by its durability, the dearth of controversy over it, the consistency of its enforcement by authorities and the way citizens have dutifully complied with and supported it. Together these things make Australia an exemplar of compulsory voting internationally.</p> <p>This is not to say compulsory voting has been a sacred cow in Australia. In the final decades of the 20th century and first decade of this century, there was a concerted push to end the practice emanating principally from within the Liberal Party.</p> <p>The torchbearer of the agitation for voluntary voting was the avowed libertarian South Australian senator, Nick Minchin. <a href="https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SGSocUphAUCon/2003/11.html">For Minchin</a>, compulsory voting was anathema:</p> <blockquote> <p>[…] in relation to the most important single manifestation of democratic will, the act of voting, I profoundly detest Australia’s denial of individual choice. It seems to me that an essential part of a liberal democracy should be the citizen’s legal right to decide whether or not to vote. The denial of that right is an affront to democracy.</p> </blockquote> <p>Minchin had a number of like-minded supporters of voluntary voting in the Liberal Party. Among them, importantly, was John Howard, whose prime ministership coincided with the mobilisation to abolish compulsory voting.</p> <p>Howard had been on record as an opponent of the practice since his entry to the federal parliament in 1974. The Liberal Party campaign against compulsory voting manifested in, among other things:</p> <ul> <li>the party’s federal council resolving in favour of voluntary voting</li> <li>shadow cabinet endorsing a recommendation for a change of policy to voluntary voting being placed before the joint Liberal-National party parliamentary room</li> <li>the introduction in the South Australian parliament of two bills to repeal compulsory voting by successive Liberal state governments</li> <li>Coalition members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters repeatedly recommending the abolition of the practice.</li> </ul> <p>In the end, these agitations achieved nought. The most fundamental reason was that the opponents of compulsory voting failed to generate community resentment towards the system. Howard, while restating his preference for voluntary voting, admitted as much in 2005 when shutting down debate on the issue in his government:</p> <blockquote> <p>As I move around the country, I don’t get people stopping me in the street and saying, “You’ve got to get rid of compulsory voting.”</p> </blockquote> <p>Indeed, election survey data suggests the Liberal campaign coincided with a firming of public support for compulsory voting. In the two decades since, opposition has been dormant. For the foreseeable future, Australia’s compulsory voting regime is secure.</p> <h2>An Australian democratic exceptionalism?</h2> <p>As noted above, compulsory voting has kept voter turnout at elections above 90% for the past century. Kindred democracies marvel at, and envy, this level of participation. It affords legitimacy to election outcomes in this country. Significantly, it also produces a socially even turnout.</p> <p>Compare this to the situation in this month’s United Kingdom election. Turnout <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/12/lowest-turnout-in-uk-general-election-since-universal-suffrage-report-shows">is estimated</a> to have slumped to a record low 52%. There was a clear pattern of the “haves” exercising much greater say at the ballot box than the “have nots”. Those who stayed away from the polls were predominantly less well-off, non-homeowners, the young, the lower-educated and of minority ethnic background.</p> <p>Australia cannot be complacent in this regard. Low and declining turnout in remote electorates with high Indigenous populations is the most worrying chink in the performance of compulsory voting. In 2022, turnout in the Northern Territory seat of Lingiari fell to 66.8%. Even so, the practice largely succeeds in achieving inclusive voter participation across the country.</p> <p>Crucially, compulsory voting is also recognised as one reason the political centre holds better in Australia than in many comparable nations. It exercises a moderating influence because it ensures it is not only impassioned partisans at either end of the political spectrum who participate in elections. This in turn means they are not the chief focus of governments and political parties.</p> <p>Under a compulsory voting system, middle-of-the-road citizens and their concerns and sensibilities count. This inhibits the trend towards polarisation and grievance politics evident in other parts of the globe. It helps explain why Australia has been less receptive to the aggressive conservative populism that has taken root in the United States and Europe.</p> <p>Compulsory voting also goes hand in hand with other institutional bulwarks of the nation’s democracy. While there is plenty of evidence in Australia of increasing disaffection with politics, one thing that helps bolster faith in the democratic system is the politically independent national electoral authority, the Australian Electoral Commission.</p> <p>The AEC’s trusted impartial administration of the electoral system lends integrity to the democratic process. So do the many procedures it manages to facilitate voting. To name a few: Saturday election days, assistance for the ill, aged and those from non-English-speaking backgrounds, mobile polling stations, postal, absentee and early voting, and active and regular updating of registration.</p> <p>Indeed, Australia has been described as “the most voter-friendly country in the world”. Compulsory voting encourages this accessibility: if citizens are obliged to vote, then it becomes incumbent to smooth the path to them participating. The ease of voting in Australia contrasts with what goes on elsewhere, for example, the rampant state-based voter-suppression practices in the United States.</p> <p>Dare we suggest, then, that compulsory voting is a mainstay of an Australian democratic exceptionalism? That we little note, let alone extol, the practice is perhaps not only a product of an inherent national modesty but because it is second nature after 100 years. Habituated to being compelled to participate in elections, we are inured to its specialness.</p> <p>Let’s hope this casual familiarity does not induce apathy rather than vigilance when next the system is challenged.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/234801/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-strangio-1232"><em>Paul Strangio</em></a><em>, Emeritus Professor of Politics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a></em></p> <p><em>Image credits: Shutterstock </em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/compulsory-voting-in-australia-is-100-years-old-we-should-celebrate-how-special-it-makes-our-democracy-234801">original article</a>.</em></p> </div>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Vale ‘sister suffragette’: how Glynis Johns became a pop-culture icon in the story of votes for women

<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ana-stevenson-196768">Ana Stevenson</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-southern-queensland-1069">University of Southern Queensland</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/lindsay-helwig-1500979">Lindsay Helwig</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-southern-queensland-1069">University of Southern Queensland</a></em></p> <p>Glynis Johns, most famous for her role as the suffragette mother Mrs Winifred Banks in Disney’s Mary Poppins (1964), passed away last week at the age of 100.</p> <p>A fourth-generation performer who made her <a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-04-17-ca-126-story.html">stage debut</a> in London when she was only three weeks old, Johns inherited her Welsh father’s love of acting. She appeared with him in The Halfway House (1944) and The Sundowners (1960) and argued for the establishment of a Welsh National Theatre <a href="https://twitter.com/huwthomas/status/791367871242862592">as early as 1971</a>.</p> <p>Johns’s career spanned eight decades in Hollywood, Broadway and the British stage and screen. As Palm Springs’s Desert Sun <a href="https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&amp;d=DS19630426.2.50">reported</a> in 1962, her “husky voice and big blue eyes” were her hallmarks. But it was her portrayal of Mrs Banks in Mary Poppins which would make her a pop culture icon.</p> <h2>A childhood inspiration</h2> <p>Feminist activists and scholars often describe the Mrs Banks character as a childhood inspiration.</p> <p>As feminist communications scholar Amanda Firestone <a href="https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Resist_and_Persist/s5HiDwAAQBAJ">reflects</a> on the film: "I especially loved […] Mrs Banks (Glynis Johns), who marches around the family home, putting Votes for Women sashes onto the housekeeper, cook, and the (departing) nanny. Of course, as a kid, I had no idea that the people and events embedded in the song’s lyrics were actual parts of history, but I did find a kind of joy in a vague notion of women’s empowerment."</p> <p>Set in 1910, the symbolism associated with Mrs Banks references the history of the British suffragettes. Johns’ musical showstopper, Sister Suffragette, directly refers to <a href="https://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/articles/the-pankhursts-politics-protest-and-passion/">Emmeline Pankhurst</a>, who founded the militant Women’s Social and Political Union in 1903. In 1906 British newspapers <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859007003239">coined</a> the moniker “suffragette” to mock the union.</p> <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/K0SDECwO54E?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <p>This ambivalence continued into the 1960s. Historian Laura E. Nym Mayhall <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/4316653">argues</a> that American concern over the impact of women’s public roles on their domestic responsibilities influenced the film’s depiction of Mrs Banks, especially her movement from a public suffragette back into an involved mother at the film’s end.</p> <p>For Mayhall, the figure of the suffragette emerges in popular culture as “a symbol of modernity”: a harbinger of democracy and political progress whose characterisation would elide ongoing struggles such as the civil rights movement.</p> <figure class="align-right zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/568335/original/file-20240108-23-tf6kwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/568335/original/file-20240108-23-tf6kwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/568335/original/file-20240108-23-tf6kwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=949&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568335/original/file-20240108-23-tf6kwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=949&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568335/original/file-20240108-23-tf6kwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=949&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568335/original/file-20240108-23-tf6kwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=1193&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568335/original/file-20240108-23-tf6kwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=1193&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568335/original/file-20240108-23-tf6kwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=1193&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /></a><figcaption><span class="caption">This 1909 Dunston Weiler Lithograph Co. anti-suffrage postcard offers resonances of Mrs Banks and her household staff in Mary Poppins.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://thesuffragepostcardproject.omeka.net/items/show/44">Catherine H. Palczewski Postcard Archive/The Suffrage Postcard Project</a></span></figcaption></figure> <p>While some see the character of the suffragette mother as <a href="https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Mary_Poppins/BLujEAAAQBAJ">supporting</a> women’s votes during the 1910s and women’s liberation during the 1960s, other readings of the film suggest a more satirical representation of the suffrage movement. Some historians even find <a href="https://doi.org/10.1215/02705346-6923118">resonances</a> of anti-suffrage propaganda in Mrs Banks, including in her usage of her Votes for Women sash as the tail of a kite in the film’s final scene.</p> <p>Looking back at film reviews offers insight into how audiences received this character – and, by extension, Johns as an actor. American studies scholar Lori Kenschaft <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Girls_Boys_Books_Toys.html?id=Or13vhnA_W4C">suggests</a> that film critics who saw Mrs Banks as a “nutty suffragette mother” reiterated popular stereotypes about suffragettes and feminists being “mentally unbalanced”.</p> <p>Such stereotypes may have been reinforced by the film’s depiction of motherhood and the nuclear family. Involved parenting emerged as the bedrock of the 1960s nuclear family, an idea both supported and actively promoted by Walt Disney in both his films and his theme parks, as <a href="https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Children_Childhood_and_Musical_Theater/XHrRDwAAQBAJ">argued</a> by American musicologist William A. Everett.</p> <p>As Mrs Banks, Johns embodied the transition from the distant, uninvolved parenting of the British middle-class in the earlier 20th century to the involved mother who facilitated the stable nuclear family. As women’s studies scholar Anne McLeer <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/4316893">argues</a>, Mary Poppins, through Johns’ portrayal of Mrs Banks, demonstrated the liberated woman of the 1960s could be contained within the nuclear family: the bedrock for a Western capitalist economy.</p> <h2>A long career</h2> <p>Beyond Mary Poppins, her most prominent role was in Stephen Sondheim’s Broadway musical A Little Night Music (1973).</p> <p>Johns originated the character of ageing actress Desiree Armfeldt, becoming the first to sing Send in the Clowns. As she <a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-04-17-ca-126-story.html">reflected</a> of the classic in 1991: "It’s still part of me. And when you’ve got a song like Send in the Clowns, it’s timeless."</p> <p>Sondheim composed this song with Johns’s famously husky voice in mind. Yet some were less enamoured with her performance. One 1973 theatre critic <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3850619">described</a> Johns as “a now somewhat overage tomboy, kittenish and raspy-voiced, precise and amusing in her delivery of lines but utterly, utterly unseductive.”</p> <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OAl-EawVobY?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <p>A veteran of stage and screen, Johns appeared in more than 60 films and 30 plays. In 1998, she was honoured with a Disney Legends Award for her role as Mrs Banks. Johns also received critical acclaim throughout her career, including a Laurel Award for Mary Poppins and a Tony Award and Drama Desk Award for A Little Night Music.</p> <p>Regardless of how incongruous her status as a “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-05/glynis-johns-mary-poppins-send-in-the-clowns/103287036">Disney feminist icon</a>” may be, Johns’s extraordinary influence upon the 20th century’s cultural memory is a remarkable legacy. <!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/220766/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ana-stevenson-196768"><em>Ana Stevenson</em></a><em>, Senior Lecturer, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-southern-queensland-1069">University of Southern Queensland</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/lindsay-helwig-1500979">Lindsay Helwig</a>, Lecturer in Pathways, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-southern-queensland-1069">University of Southern Queensland</a></em></p> <p><em>Image credits: Disney</em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/vale-sister-suffragette-how-glynis-johns-became-a-pop-culture-icon-in-the-story-of-votes-for-women-220766">original article</a>.</em></p>

Caring

Placeholder Content Image

Explainer: Australia has voted against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Here’s what happened

<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/amy-maguire-129609">Amy Maguire</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-newcastle-1060">University of Newcastle</a></em></p> <p>A majority of Australian voters have rejected the proposal to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, with the final results likely to be about 40% voting “yes” and 60% voting “no”.</p> <h2>What was the referendum about?</h2> <p>In this referendum, Australians were asked to vote on whether to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander <a href="https://voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment">Voice</a> to Parliament. The Voice was proposed as a means of recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the <a href="https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/australias-first-peoples">First Peoples of Australia</a> in the Constitution.</p> <p>The Voice proposal was a modest one. It was to be an advisory body for the national parliament and government. Had the referendum succeeded, Australia’s Constitution would have been amended with a new section 129:</p> <blockquote> <p>In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:</p> <p>i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</p> <p>ii. 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</p> <p>iii. 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.</p> </blockquote> <p>This proposal was drawn from the <a href="https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement/view-the-statement/">Uluru Statement from the Heart</a> from 250 Indigenous leaders, which called for <a href="https://deadlystory.com/page/culture/Annual_Days/NAIDOC_Week/NAIDOC_2019/Hey_you_Mob_it_s_NAIDOC_week#:%7E:text=The%20statement%20outlines%20a%20need,see%20below%20for%20more%20information">three phases of reform</a> - Voice, followed by Treaty and Truth -telling about Australia’s colonial history. The proposal was for constitutional change to ensure the Voice would not be abolished by government in future, as previous Indigenous bodies have been.</p> <h2>How did Australians vote?</h2> <p>Voting is <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/publications/voting/">compulsory</a> in Australia. Every eligible Australian citizen over 18 years of age is obliged to vote in elections and referendums. Australia has one of the <a href="https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/how-many-people-voted-in-the-last-election/#:%7E:text=According%20to%20the%20Australian%20Electoral,voter%20turnouts%20in%20the%20world.">highest rates of voter turn out</a> in the world - over 90% of those eligible have voted in every national election since compulsory voting was introduced in 1924.</p> <p>Australia has a written <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005">Constitution</a>. A successful referendum vote is required to <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter1/Constitution_alteration">change</a> the Constitution in any way.</p> <p>To succeed, a referendum proposition requires a <a href="https://voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/how-referendum-works#:%7E:text=For%20a%20referendum%20to%20be,4%20out%20of%206%20states.">double majority</a>. This means it must be agreed to by a majority of voters, and a majority of states. Australia has six <a href="https://digital-classroom.nma.gov.au/images/map-australia-showing-states-and-territories">states</a>, so at least four must have a majority of voters in favour for a referendum to succeed.</p> <p>Australia also has two territories - individuals in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-and-territory-ballots-will-be-counted-differently-at-the-voice-referendum-is-that-fair-212703">territories</a> contribute to the overall vote, but the territories do not count towards the majority of states.</p> <p>It’s very difficult to achieve constitutional change in Australia. Since federation in 1901, 45 questions have been put to Australian voters in <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/referendum_dates_and_results.htm">referendums</a>. Only eight of those have succeeded.</p> <p>In the Voice referendum, only the Australian Capital Territory voted “yes” by majority. A <a href="https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/ReferendumNationalResults-29581.htm">clear majority</a> of the national electorate voted “no”. All states returned majority “no” results.</p> <p>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people constitute <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples/estimates-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-australians/latest-release#:%7E:text=Data%20downloads-,Key%20statistics,Queensland%20and%20Western%20Australia%20combined.">3.8% of Australia’s population</a>. Government members claimed on ABC TV in the referendum coverage that polling booths including high proportions of Indigenous voters, for example Palm Island in Queensland, returned high “yes” votes. However, in a majoritarian democracy like Australia, such a small proportion of the national population cannot dictate the outcome of a national poll.</p> <p>Importantly, the Voice referendum did not have unanimous support across the two main political parties in Australia. The Labor government <a href="https://theconversation.com/were-all-in-declares-an-emotional-albanese-as-he-launches-the-wording-for-the-voice-referendum-202435">announced</a> and has campaigned for “yes”. The leader of the opposition, Liberal Queensland MP <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-05/peter-dutton-voice-to-parliament-yes-no-vote-referendum/102797582">Peter Dutton</a>, campaigned strongly against the referendum proposal.</p> <h2>What happens now?</h2> <p>The government is bound to abide by the referendum result. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has confirmed that his government <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/08/labor-wont-try-to-legislate-indigenous-voice-if-referendum-fails-albanese-says#:%7E:text=The%20prime%20minister%2C%20Anthony%20Albanese,away%20from%20the%20voice%20altogether%3F%E2%80%9D">will not seek to legislate a Voice</a> as an alternative to the constitutional model.</p> <p>Albanese, conceding the failure of the referendum, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-14/live-updates-voice-to-parliament-referendum-latest-news/102969568">said</a>: “Tomorrow we must seek a new way forward”. He called for a renewed focus on doing better for First Peoples in Australia.</p> <p>The referendum outcome represents a major loss for the government. But much more important than that will be the negative impacts of the campaign and loss on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.</p> <p>On ABC TV, Arrernte/Luritja woman <a href="https://www.snaicc.org.au/about/contact/staff-bios/">Catherine Liddle</a> called for a renewed focus on truth-telling and building understanding of Australia’s history across the population. She said the failure of the referendum reflected a lack of understanding about the lives and experiences of Indigenous people in Australia.</p> <p>“Yes” campaign advocates reported <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/we-are-tired-victorian-yes-advocates-devastated-as-no-vote-refuses-voice-20231012-p5ebse.html">devastation</a> at the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/14/australian-voters-reject-proposal-for-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-at-historic-referendum">outcome</a>. Sana Nakata, writing <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-political-subjugation-of-first-nations-peoples-is-no-longer-historical-legacy-213752">here</a>, said: “now we are where we have always been, left to build our better futures on our own”.</p> <p>Some First Nations advocates, including Victorian independent Senator <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/8/16/lidia-thorpe-says-australias-voice-referendum-should-be-called-off">Lidia Thorpe</a> - a Gunnai, Gunditjmara and Djab Wurrung woman - argued the Voice proposal lacked substance and that the referendum should not have been held. Advocates of a “<a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/article/these-progressive-no-campaigners-are-looking-beyond-the-vote-heres-what-they-want/tdyj2ilx6">progressive no</a>” vote (who felt the Voice didn’t go far enough) will continue to call for recognition of continuing First Nations sovereignty and self-determination through processes of treaty and truth-telling.</p> <p>The information landscape for Australian voters leading up to this referendum was murky and difficult to navigate. The Australian Electoral Commission published a <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/media/disinformation-register-ref.htm">disinformation register</a>. <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/extremely-politicised-and-very-worrying-how-misinformation-about-the-voice-spread/w9sl4pzba">Misinformation and lies</a>, many circulated through social media, have influenced the decision-making of a proportion of voters.</p> <p>It’s open to question whether constitutional change of any kind can be achieved while voters remain so exposed to multiple versions of “<a href="https://www.amnesty.org.au/sorting-fact-from-fiction-in-the-voice-to-parliament-referendum/">truth</a>”.</p> <p>For many First Nations people, the proliferation of lies and misinformation driven by <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-66470376">racism</a> throughout the Voice debate have been <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-03/indigenous-mental-health-impacts-of-voice-referendum-debate/102923188">traumatising</a> and brutal.</p> <p>Indigenous Australians’ Minister, Wiradjuri woman Linda Burney, spoke to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people after the result: “Be proud of your identity. Be proud of the 65,000 years of history and culture that you are part of”. Her <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/videos/national/linda-burney-gives-emotional-speech-following-referendum-result/clnpw6w0n009u0jp8kvgbijuy">pain</a> was patently obvious as she responded to the referendum outcome.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/215155/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/amy-maguire-129609"><em>Amy Maguire</em></a><em>, Associate Professor in Human Rights and International Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-newcastle-1060">University of Newcastle</a></em></p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images </em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-australia-has-voted-against-an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-heres-what-happened-215155">original article</a>.</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

What kind of Australia will we wake up to if the Voice referendum is defeated on October 14?

<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-strangio-1232">Paul Strangio</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a></em></p> <p>It was Robert Menzies, father of the modern Liberal Party, who famously remarked: “to get an affirmative vote from the Australian people on a referendum proposal is the labour of Hercules”.</p> <p>Menzies knew this from bitter experience. The politician with the electoral Midas touch was the sponsor of three unsuccessful referendums. Most notable was Menzies’ (thankfully) failed 1951 attempt to win public support for amending the Constitution to grant his government the power to outlaw the Communist Party of Australia.</p> <p>On the Labor side of politics, the feat of constitutional change has been an even more unfulfilling exercise. The party has been responsible for 25 amendment proposals and only one has been successful. It has been a truly Sisyphean quest.</p> <p>If the opinion polls are to be believed, history is repeating itself with the impending Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice referendum. Since the middle of the year, those polls have been relentlessly moving in the wrong direction for the “yes” case. On the current trajectory, the Voice will secure less than 40% of the national vote and also fail to win the support of a majority of states. The frontier states of Queensland and Western Australia in particular are lost causes.</p> <p>As it must, the “yes” camp continues to evince optimism. Its advocates point, for example, to the relatively high number of undecided voters, hoping they break heavily in their favour. I fervently pray this optimism is well placed. Yet a prudent government would now be wargaming what to do in the scenario that the Voice is defeated on October 14.</p> <p>For Anthony Albanese, a “no” vote will present diabolically difficult challenges. As prime minister, he will be tasked with making sense of that result. His response will need to be finely calibrated, modulating the message to different audiences.</p> <p>First, and most importantly, he will have to devise a formula of words to console and soothe the Indigenous population, the majority of whom will likely feel that the rejection of the Voice is another in a long line of acts of dispossession and exclusion by settler Australia. Albanese has often likened the Uluru Statement from the Heart to a generous outstretched hand. He will not only need to explain why that hand has been spurned, but give cause why First Nations people should continue to keep faith with non-Indigenous Australia. He will have to provide reassurance that reconciliation endures as a genuine project.</p> <p>Both at home and abroad there will be those who view a “no” vote as having exposed a dark streak of racism in Australia’s soul. Albanese will feel obliged to seek to absolve the nation of that stigma. But given some of the more noxious attitudes aired during the referendum campaign, airbrushing racism out of the picture will not be easy.</p> <p>On election nights, leaders are typically magnanimous in victory and gracious in defeat. There is a convenient myth about election results: that the punters always get it right. Albanese will no doubt have to publicly give lip service to that notion if the referendum fails. He will avoid recriminations, despite the sophistry and mendacity that has characterised the “no” side of the debate. In this way, he will play the role of healer-in-chief after the bitter divisions of the referendum campaign. What attacks there are on Peter Dutton for being a wrecker will probably be left to be made by other government members, but even these will have to be carefully framed so as to not indict all those who fell in behind the “no” cause.</p> <p>The larger dilemma Albanese and his government will face if the referendum is lost is where to next with the Uluru Statement agenda, to which the prime minister signed up lock stock and barrel on election night in May 2022.</p> <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MlulrQ1w9Zs?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <p>Most pressing will be the question of what happens to the idea of an Indigenous Voice to parliament. The most obvious fallback position will be a legislated rather than constitutionally enshrined Voice. The complication is that Dutton has claimed some of that space and Indigenous leaders have rightly portrayed a legislated Voice as a poor substitute because it can be repealed by a future government. Somehow a legislated Voice will have to be transformed into a palatable alternative.</p> <p>The Voice was the low hanging fruit of the Uluru statement when compared to treaty-making. The realpolitik takeout from the rejection of the Voice referendum will be that there is next to no chance of delivering on a national treaty in the short to medium term, especially if that were to involve some form of constitutional amendment. It would provoke an even more shrill scare campaign than the one we have endured over the Voice. In the absence of progress at the national level, it will be left to the states to advance treaty making and truth telling.</p> <p>The defeat of the Voice referendum may set back other elements of Labor’s vision for the nation. When he won office, Albanese appointed an assistant minister for the republic in a clear signal that a move to a republic would be a feature of his government’s longer term reform program.</p> <p>With the Australian public’s profound reluctance to embrace constitutional change demonstrated yet again, it will likely douse enthusiasm within the government for proceeding to a referendum on a republic in its second term. The idea will continue to drift, as it has since 1999.</p> <p>Another probable consequence of the loss of the referendum will be a narrowing of the priorities of the government. Labor hardheads will read that result and opinion polls showing a dip in the government’s support as evidence that voters are growing frustrated by what they regard as a straying from bread and butter issues.</p> <p>So, we are likely to see a less expansive government as it steers towards focussing chiefly on matters such as the economy, cost of living pressures and housing shortages. These, of course, are vital issues, but they will not stir the soul or etch themselves into history as would a Voice, treaty and republic.</p> <p>All of this seems a desperate shame. But it is the Australia we will wake up to the morning after October 14, if indeed the referendum goes down.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/214359/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-strangio-1232"><em>Paul Strangio</em></a><em>, Emeritus professor of politics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a></em></p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images </em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-kind-of-australia-will-we-wake-up-to-if-the-voice-referendum-is-defeated-on-october-14-214359">original article</a>.</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Cathy Freeman reveals her stance on the Voice

<p>Cathy Freeman has revealed her stance on the upcoming Voice to Parliament referendum, joining the Yes campaign in their latest promotion video. </p> <p>The Olympic champion, who is a proud Kuku Yalanji and Birri Gubba woman, spoke out for the first time in support of the Voice, and asking other Aussies to "stand with me". </p> <p>"I can't remember a time when change has felt so urgent, where momentum has been so strong," Freeman says in the video.</p> <p>"From small towns to big cities, something is in the air. I know all Australians feel it too."</p> <p><iframe title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0X1H4ms2BtI?si=8Fu5guV41zxs2sge" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p> <p>"We have the chance to be part of a moment that brings people together, to work hard for something that we can all believe in."</p> <p>"And right now, each of us can be part of something that really matters. To stand together and to show our support for Australians who need it the most."</p> <p>"To recognise Indigenous peoples in our constitution for the very first time, to give our kids the very best start in life, an equal start in life."</p> <p>"And to open our hearts and change our future."</p> <p>She concluded the video by urging undecided Aussies to join her at the polls and vote Yes in the historic referendum.</p> <p>"I'm voting yes, and I am asking that all Australians do too. So please stand with me and write Yes on October 14," she said. </p> <p>Freeman has joined the campaign just after an estimated 200,000 people turned out across the country to march in support of the Yes campaign, just four weeks before the vote is set to take place. </p> <p>Australians will head to the polls on October 14th to either vote Yes or No to instate an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, which will act as an advisory board to amplify issues plaguing Indigenous communities.</p> <p><em>Image credits: YouTube - Yes23</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

7 rules for a respectful and worthwhile Voice referendum

<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/joe-mcintyre-251004">Joe McIntyre</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180">University of South Australia</a></em></p> <p>In October, Australians are, for the first time in a generation, going to the polls to vote in a referendum.</p> <p>Unfortunately, we’re out of practice in how to conduct ourselves in a referendum. This process is supposed to promote dialogue about the fundamental rules and identity of our nation.</p> <p>Yet passions can run hot, and misinformation is rife. How can we make sure our discussions with friends and family are respectful? How can we find reliable sources to ensure we make an informed choice? These seven rules may help.</p> <h2>Rule 1: remember there is no right answer</h2> <p>First, there is no one right answer. No side has the exclusive claim to the right(eous) solution, and there are valid concerns and arguments for both sides. You are not racist because you vote “no”. You are not a woke idealist because you vote “yes”.</p> <p>While the “<a href="https://www.yes23.com.au/">yes</a>” and “<a href="https://www.fairaustralia.com.au/">no</a>” campaigns rely heavily on emotional motifs, ultimately each Australian voter is entitled to make their own choice based on the best evidence.</p> <p>Even some experts disagree, for example, on whether the change is constitutionally <a href="https://www.referendum-voice.com.au/uploads/1/4/6/3/146303838/very_high_risk_very_low_reward_this_voice_referendum_deserves_to_be_defeated.pdf">risky</a> or <a href="https://theconversation.com/solicitor-general-confirms-voice-model-is-legally-sound-will-not-fetter-or-impede-parliament-204266">not</a> – depending on their risk appetite and ideological viewpoints. There is no single answer, and the consequences of either choice are uncertain.</p> <p>A proposal to change the Constitution is an opportunity for us to reflect on the type of nation we wish to be. In a democracy, that means valuing a wide range of different perspectives and opinions.</p> <p>The <a href="https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement/view-the-statement/">Uluru Statement</a> offered one vision for recognition of First Nations people in Australia. It was an invitation from a significant body of Indigenous leaders to walk a particular path.</p> <p>At the referendum we are asking whether that path is, at this time, the specific path the Australian people wish to walk.</p> <h2>Rule 2: don’t approach a referendum as if it is an election</h2> <p>Given the lack of bipartisan support for the proposal, it’s easy to default to the tribal operating mode of the three-year electoral cycle. This is wrong. A referendum is not like an election, in which we support one party or another. Instead, we have three parts:</p> <ol> <li>what is being proposed</li> <li>the case for reform</li> <li>the case against reform.</li> </ol> <p>In the bipartisan 1967 referendum, little attention was paid to what was being proposed – with the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-03/voice-referendum-vote-on-92-words-stay-out-of-weeds/102800166">result that it remains poorly understood</a>.</p> <p>The ‘67 referendum allowed the government to make special laws for Indigenous people, and ensured all Indigenous people were counted in the census. However many people mistakenly believe the referendum gave Indigenous people the right to <a href="https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/1967-referendum">vote</a>, or <a href="https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/indigenous-citizenship-myth-shrouds-1967-referendum/#:%7E:text=This%20is%20false.,were%20granted%20citizenship%20in%201948.">citizenship</a>, or that they were previously counted as <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/fact-check-flora-and-fauna-1967-referendum/9550650">flora and fauna</a>.</p> <p>The benefit of a contested Voice referendum is that there is accurate, impartial and accessible information about the proposal – including its <a href="https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles">design</a>, <a href="https://www.referendum-voice.com.au/voicehistory.html">history</a> and <a href="https://ulurustatement.org/the-voice/what-is-the-voice/">objectives</a>.</p> <p>The challenge is to remain alert to the distinction between the factual question of what is being proposed, and the policy question of whether we support it or not.</p> <h2>Rule 3: remember the Constitution belongs to all of us, and we can change it</h2> <p>It’s important to understand some key points about our constitution. Constitutions serve <a href="https://www.referendum-voice.com.au/con.html">a number of roles</a>: they create the basic political and legal institutions of a society, and regulate how they operate, interact and are limited.</p> <p>But they are also a potent symbol of national identity and a means of refining and crafting a defining national narrative.</p> <p><a href="https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/the-australian-constitution/australian-constitution/">Australia’s Constitution</a> is not a religious text. It was designed to evolve and change. It should not be viewed as static or set in stone.</p> <p>We have had <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2223/Quick_Guides/ConstitutionalReferendumsAustralia">44 referendums</a> in our history, at an average of one every 2.7 years.</p> <p>While only eight referendums have passed, five received majority support and another <a href="https://www.referendum-voice.com.au/referendumhistory.html">nine achieved more than 49% support</a>.</p> <p>The Constitution belongs to all of us, and we all have a right to have a say in its development. We are entitled to renew and reform it – and if something doesn’t work, to try again.</p> <h2>Rule 4: don’t believe (or repeat) everything you hear</h2> <p>Unfortunately, both <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-we-can-avoid-political-misinformation-in-the-lead-up-to-the-voice-referendum-206500">disinformation and misinformation</a> are rife in the public debate about the Voice. Both campaigns can (lawfully) <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-is-it-legal-to-tell-lies-during-the-voice-referendum-campaign-209211">lie to you</a>.</p> <p>While the Australian Electoral Commission has an online <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/media/disinformation-register-ref.htm">referendum disinformation register</a> addressing errors about the referendum <em>process</em>, there is no register of misinformation about the Voice proposal itself.</p> <p><a href="https://theconversation.com/how-do-the-yes-and-no-cases-stack-up-constitutional-law-experts-take-a-look-212364">Academics</a> and media organisations (including <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck">RMIT ABC Fact Check</a>, <a href="https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/">AAP Fact Check</a> and <a href="https://factcheck.afp.com/afp-australia">AFP Fact Check</a>) are fact-checking claims about the Voice.</p> <p>Yet it remains difficult to isolate accurate information in a contested space. There remains a key difference between factual claims that can be verified, and subjective claims or opinions which cannot.</p> <p>This referendum demands we critically reflect on the source, authority and ambitions underlying all information we see, hear and share.</p> <h2>Rule 5: it’s OK to find this hard and confusing</h2> <p>The contested nature of the referendum, endless misinformation, complex social issues and lack of practice with referendums will leave many of us feeling confused and overwhelmed. This is OK. This referendum is complex, and raises many issues.</p> <p>This is compounded by our lack of <a href="https://www.referendum-voice.com.au/legalliteracy.html">legal literacy</a> and civics education. Too often, Australians feel alienated from our legal institutions.</p> <p>Every year, <a href="http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/app/6DDF12F188975AC9CA257A910006089D.html.">one in four</a> Australians experience a substantial legal problem. However, only 3% of those problems are resolved through the legal system, with many choosing not to take action due to cost or not knowing what to do, or resolving the matter outside of the courts.</p> <p>Without meaningful regular engagement with the law, we too often lack the language and framework to understand something so complex and archaic. It’s therefore completely understandable we may struggle with esoteric issues such as constitutional law.</p> <h2>Rule 6: don’t be afraid of expertise</h2> <p>The corollary of this, however, is that we should not be afraid of turning to experts to understand and assess the issue. The referendum is replete with issues that are technical and specialised.</p> <p>The good news is there are lots of experts trying to help the public understand the issues, including <a href="https://lawcouncil.au/policy-agenda/the-referendum-for-an-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-voice">Law Councils</a>, former <a href="https://www.auspublaw.org/first-nations-voice/the-voice-a-step-forward-for-australian-nationhood">judges</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/australians-will-vote-in-a-referendum-on-october-14-what-do-you-need-to-know-195352">legal</a> <a href="https://www.referendum-voice.com.au/legal-analysis-by-the-experts.html">academics</a>.</p> <h2>Rule 7: if you don’t know, learn</h2> <p>This leads to perhaps the most important point: as citizens, we have an obligation to ensure we are informed about the key ideas and issues before we enter the ballot box.</p> <p>Fortunately, there are many excellent sources - including <a href="https://ucfm.com.au/series/its-the-constitution/">podcasts</a>, <a href="https://www.unimelb.edu.au/voice/voicefacts">short videos</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/@constitutionalclarion1901">discussions</a>, and <a href="https://www.monash.edu/law/research/centres/castancentre/our-areas-of-work/indigenous/voice-to-parliament-resources">carefully</a> curated <a href="https://www.referendum-voice.com.au/">websites</a> – that have been designed by experts to ensure Australians are empowered to make a meaningfully informed choice. These sources are designed to provide impartial, accurate and accessible information.</p> <p>Ultimately, the Voice proposal is about the dignity offered by listening to diverse opinions. Our challenge is to bring this same approach to our discussions about the referendum. These rules should help.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212974/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/joe-mcintyre-251004">Joe McIntyre</a>, Associate Professor of Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180">University of South Australia</a></em></p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/7-rules-for-a-respectful-and-worthwhile-voice-referendum-212974">original article</a>.</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Australians will vote in a referendum on October 14. What do you need to know?

<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/anne-twomey-6072">Anne Twomey</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841">University of Sydney</a></em></p> <p>Australians will go to the polls on October 14 to vote in a referendum on an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. We have not voted in a federal referendum since <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/1999_referendum_reports_statistics/1999.htm">1999</a>. So what do you need to know?</p> <h2>How is a referendum run?</h2> <p>A referendum is run by the Australian Electoral Commission in the same way as they do elections. That means most people will vote in a polling booth on Saturday October 14 at a local school or community centre. There will probably be a barbecue, with a democracy sausage or two, and a cake stall if you are lucky.</p> <p>But there will also be <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/voting/ways_to_vote/">pre-poll voting</a> and postal voting, just like in an ordinary election. Voting in a referendum, like an election, is <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rpa1984353/s45.html">compulsory</a>.</p> <p>One difference will be that there will only be one ballot paper, and it will be short and easy to fill out. So the queues at polling booths should move quickly.</p> <h2>What will I be voting on?</h2> <p>A referendum is used to ask the Australian people whether they approve of a change being made to Commonwealth <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005">Constitution</a>, which is Australia’s ultimate law.</p> <p>In this case, the amendment doesn’t change existing words, but instead adds new words to the Constitution. If passed, the amendment would insert a <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr7019_aspassed%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr7019_aspassed%2F0000%22">new Chapter IX</a> at the end of the Constitution, saying:</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>Chapter IX — Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples</strong></p> <p><strong>129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</strong></p> <p>In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:</p> <p>(i) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;</p> <p>(ii) 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;</p> <p>(iii) 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.</p> </blockquote> <p>Despite the rather confusing public debate about other issues, all that voters are being asked to do in a referendum is decide whether or not the above words should be inserted in the Constitution.</p> <h2>What is the question and how do I fill in the ballot paper correctly?</h2> <p>The ballot paper does not contain the words of the amendment you will be voting on, as in many cases the amendment would be far too long.</p> <p>Instead, voters are asked to approve the amendment as set out in the proposed law that has been already passed by parliament. That proposed law is identified by its “long title’, which gives a brief description of its nature. In this case, voters <a href="https://voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment">will be asked</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.</p> <p>Do you approve this proposed alteration?</p> </blockquote> <p>A <a href="https://twitter.com/AntonyGreenElec/status/1694456812370903178">single box</a> is then provided, and you fill in your ballot paper by either writing "yes” or “no” in that box.</p> <p>While there are some “savings provisions” that allow <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/media/2023/08-25.htm">votes in other forms</a> to be counted if the voter’s intention is clear, it is best not to risk it. Just follow the directions and vote “yes” or “no” to ensure your vote counts.</p> <p>If you want to see a copy of the amendment when you are voting, you could bring with you the <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/your-official-yes-no-referendum-pamphlet.pdf?=v1.0">pamphlet outlining the “yes” and “no” cases</a> that the Australian Electoral Commission is currently sending to each household. It sets out the amendment and the arguments either way.</p> <p>Giving an informed vote is important. The people who wrote the Constitution entrusted us with the final say about changes to Australia’s most important law, in the expectation that we would perform our constitutional duty responsibly. We shouldn’t betray that trust.</p> <h2>How is the outcome of the referendum determined and when will we know?</h2> <p>All the votes given in polling booths will be counted by hand on the night, so the results should come in pretty quickly, as it is a single ballot paper with a simple “yes” or “no” choice. Pre-poll votes and those postal votes that have already been received will also be counted on the night.</p> <p>That means we should get a good idea of the result on the night, but if it is very close, we would have to wait some days until the rest of the postal votes arrive and are counted.</p> <p>All votes go through two counts to double-check results and the counting process can be watched by scrutineers.</p> <p>Unlike an election, there is a special double majority that has to be met for a referendum to pass.</p> <p>First, a majority of formal votes across the country (including in the territories) would need to be “yes” votes.</p> <p>Second, there would have to be a majority of “yes” votes in at least four out of six states (for which territory votes do not count). This means, for example, that 60% of voters in the country could vote “yes”, but the referendum could still fail if a majority of voters in three of the less populous states voted “no”.</p> <h2>What happens if the referendum passes or fails?</h2> <p>If the referendum passes, it is then sent to the governor-general, who gives assent to it. Once that happens, the amendment to the Constitution is made.</p> <p>The amendment says “there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice”. But it also says legislation is needed to determine the composition of the Voice and how it operates. The next step would be consultation about such matters before legislation is enacted to give effect to the Voice.</p> <p>If the referendum fails, no change to the Constitution is made.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/195352/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/anne-twomey-6072">Anne Twomey</a>, Professor emerita, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841">University of Sydney</a></em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australians-will-vote-in-a-referendum-on-october-14-what-do-you-need-to-know-195352">original article</a>.</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

“That sounds dodgy”: Ben Fordham slams “bizarre” Voice to Parliament voting rules

<p dir="ltr">Ben Fordham has slammed the “bizarre” rules Aussies will have to abide by when casting their vote in the Voice to Parliament referendum.</p> <p dir="ltr">The confusion over the rules for the upcoming vote was sparked when the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) suggested that ticks will be counted as Yes votes but crosses will not be counted as No votes.</p> <p dir="ltr">On referendum day, which is widely expected to be October 14th, Aussies will be asked to write either “yes” or “no” in English on the ballot paper to the 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?”</p> <p dir="ltr">On Wednesday, AEC commissioner Tom Rogers was asked by <em>Sky News</em> host Tom Connell how Australians will be asked to vote on the ballot.</p> <p dir="ltr">“It’s a bit simpler than a normal election, it’s a yes or no — are you accepting anything inside the box?” Connell said. “A tick, a cross, a yes, a number one? How broad will you allow this, given the intention of people is going to be pretty clear, you’d think?”</p> <p dir="ltr">Mr Rogers said it was a “great question”, saying, “Now there are some savings provisions, but I need to be very clear with people – when we look at that, it is likely that a tick will be accepted as a formal vote for yes, but a cross will not be accepted as a formal vote.”</p> <p dir="ltr">“We’re being very clear with people, part of our education campaign will talk about this, the materials in the polling place so people can look at it. But please, make sure you write ‘yes’ or ‘no’ clearly on the ballot paper in English. That way you can assure yourself that your vote will count.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Ben Fordham went on to slam Rogers’ comments, saying the ticks and crosses system would favour the Yes vote. </p> <p dir="ltr">“How bizarre,” he said. “A tick counts as yes but a cross does not count as no. That sounds dodgy. If you’re going to count the ticks, you’ve got to count the crosses, don’t you? Otherwise the yes camp has an advantage. Surely he would see the unlevel playing field here. But apparently not.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Fordham said the AEC “has one job”.</p> <p dir="ltr">“We’re giving them $365 million to hold the referendum,” he said. “Tom Rogers is on more than the Prime Minister, he earns $600,000 a year. How hard is it to get this right?”</p> <p dir="ltr">Opposition leader Peter Dutton also slammed the voting rules, urging Anthony Albanese to draft legislation to make it clear what will be accepted on the voting ballot.</p> <p dir="ltr">“It’s completely outrageous, to be honest,” he told 2GB.</p> <p dir="ltr">“I mean, if a tick counts for Yes then a cross should count for No. It’s as clear as that. Otherwise it gives a very, very strong advantage to the Yes case. I just think Australians want a fair vote. They want to be informed.”</p> <p><em>Image credits: 2GB / AEC</em></p>

News

Placeholder Content Image

Should the voting age in Australia be lowered to 16?

<p><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/intifar-chowdhury-741153">Intifar Chowdhury</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a></span></em></p> <p>Attempts to lower the voting age in Australia to 16 have been historically <a href="https://law.unimelb.edu.au/centres/errn/about/past-events/lowering-the-voting-age-in-australia">unsuccessful</a>. More recently, the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwik97j_5d__AhWBSWwGHX-2BWoQFnoECBAQAQ&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.makeit16.au%2F&amp;usg=AOvVaw3O0c90Y1uz8y5KvToM7e_Y&amp;opi=89978449">Make It 16 campaign</a> has been advocating for the enfranchisement of 16 and 17-year-olds, but with <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-13/lowering-the-voting-age-to-16/102473606">no fines</a> for under 18s who fail to cast their ballots.</p> <p>Voluntary or not, lowering the voting age will have consequences for how political behaviour shapes political outcomes, especially for issues that particularly interest the young, such as climate change, cost of living, mental health and wellbeing.</p> <p>Younger people tend to be more <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/28/young-australians-far-less-likely-than-parents-to-vote-coalition-as-they-get-older-report-finds">progressive</a> in their views. This in turn would alter the make-up of the Australian electorate at each election or referendum. The addition of socially progressive voters might well be <a href="https://reporter.anu.edu.au/all-stories/young-people-may-decide-the-outcome-of-the-voice-referendum-heres-why">decisive</a> on a highly contentious and divisive issue such as the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.</p> <h2>Who should have the right to vote?</h2> <p>In 1973, following mass youth casualties in the Vietnam War, Australia’s voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. The reasoning behind this centred on equity: if 18-year-olds were old enough to fight and die, they should be old enough to vote.</p> <p>Today’s equity arguments centre on taxation: many 16 and 17-year-olds pay tax and therefore should have equal rights to representation. However, this representation logic is not <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/VotingAge/Advisory_report/section?id=committees%2Freportjnt%2F024195%2F26301#:%7E:text=Civics%20education,-2.81&amp;text=Lowering%20the%20voluntary%20voting%20age,for%20politics%20and%20civics%20education.">unique</a> to 16 and 17-year-olds. It applies equally well to those under 16, as well as to tourists and temporary residents, who pay tax but do not have the right to vote.</p> <p>Beyond the taxation argument, the franchise has been aligned with other adult responsibilities such as driving a car and consenting to sex. An important point of distinction, though, is the motivation: do they actually want to vote?</p> <p>Although enthusiastic young leaders are driving campaigns such as Make It 16, we cannot be confident that a subset of politically engaged young people is representative of the Australian youth. There is no question about the cognitive abilities of 16 to 17-year-olds to engage with the electoral process. But there is little longitudinal data to firmly establish that younger people are <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/everyday/do-young-people-care-about-politics/10905604">enthused</a> about voting.</p> <p>That is not to say young people are not <a href="https://theconversation.com/young-australians-are-supposedly-turning-their-backs-on-democracy-but-are-they-any-different-from-older-voters-163891">interested in politics</a>. <a href="https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/292274/2/Full%20Thesis%20Revisions_clean%20copy.pdf">Evidence</a> from Australia and elsewhere shows young people engage differently: their engagement with politics is based more on issues than party loyalties.</p> <p>Being able to vote would mean younger people feel less excluded and alienated from politics. However, critics <a href="https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/gen-z-pushing-for-australias-voting-age-to-be-lowered-to-16/news-story/ba9103ed2b5bb825b9178b6efb52a1d9">worry</a> voluntary voting for 16 to 17-year-olds would weaken compulsory voting.</p> <p>Australia’s compulsory voting means it has <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10361146.2021.1899131">resisted</a> youth electoral disengagement at the polls, which has markedly happened in other non-compulsory voting democracies. Given the highly transitory life stage they are in, young people are more likely to abstain if voting is voluntary. This would also run the risk of imprinting the habit of abstention.</p> <h2>What does the evidence suggest?</h2> <p>Data from the Australian Election Study <a href="https://australianelectionstudy.org/wp-content/uploads/McAllister-Voting-Age-2014.pdf">suggest</a> lowering the voting age would not invigorate electoral participation. It is likely early enfranchisement alone <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/VotingAge/Advisory_report/section?id=committees%2Freportjnt%2F024195%2F26301#footnote28target">will not be a panacea</a> for youth engagement. Rather, there are concerns that voluntary voting might further exacerbate the problem of lower youth enrolment.</p> <p>My <a href="https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/292274/2/Full%20Thesis%20Revisions_clean%20copy.pdf">comparative study</a> of youth electoral disengagement in advanced democracies studied a suite of institutional factors, including:</p> <ul> <li>electoral system (majoritarian versus proportional)</li> <li>type of executive (parliamentary/presidential)</li> <li>type of system (federal/unitary)</li> <li>party system (two/multi)</li> <li>voting age (16-21).</li> </ul> <p>I found that, even when controlling for compulsory voting, it is the registration system that significantly influences generational engagement at the polls.</p> <p>Transition to adulthood is characterised by increasing mobility in every aspect of life. On top of this, registration rules make it difficult for young people without a permanent, long-term residence to register to vote.</p> <p>Within the voluntary registration system, young people are especially disadvantaged since new eligible voters are often unfamiliar with the registration system, including how and where to register to vote. Consequently, many confused, eligible voters inadvertently miss voter registration deadlines. Current <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Enrolment_stats/performance/national-youth.htm">evidence</a> shows voter enrolment is lowest among those aged 18-24, at 89.5%, compared to a <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/enrolling_to_vote/enrolment_stats/">national figure</a> of 97.2%.</p> <p>However, what has been largely missing in the voting age debate is that lowering it to 16 may be a way to redress this enrolment discrepancy. It may be an institutional design feature that could cater to youth transition: 16-17-year-olds are more likely to be in parental homes when they enrol and then finally vote. This may help attract and keep them as active voters as they gain independence.</p> <h2>What does this mean for (major) parties?</h2> <p>The Coalition’s historic low support among young voters in the <a href="https://australianelectionstudy.org/wp-content/uploads/The-2022-Australian-Federal-Election-Results-from-the-Australian-Election-Study.pdf">2022 federal election</a> may be a symptom of a long-lasting generational shift in the electorate. In the past two elections, only 26% of Gen Z voters, born after 1996, reported voting for the Coalition, while 67% of them voted either for the Greens or Labor. Although historically young people have tended to become more conservative as they age, <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/millennials-are-getting-older-but-not-more-conservative-20221205-p5c3na">recent evidence</a> suggests voters born after 1980 are not doing that.</p> <p>Extrapolating this trajectory of voting preferences, the addition of more socially progressive, issue-based younger voters will potentially benefit the left-of-centre parties, particularly the Greens. One political reason for Labor’s reluctance to lower the voting age seems to be the stark popularity of the Greens among Gen Z voters, which would increase the Greens threat to the incumbent.</p> <p>Over the years, both major parties have been losing their (youth) votes to the Greens. Lowering the voting age may well pronounce this.</p> <h2>What would it mean for young voters?</h2> <p>Given the context of compulsory voting, Australia is best placed to implement the lowering of voting age to reap the benefits of engaging younger voters to the electorate. Much <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/push-to-follow-overseas-lead-and-lower-voting-age-to-16-gains-momentum-20220401-p5aa3o.html">has been said</a> about how this would improve youth representation, efficacy and outcomes.</p> <p>However, lowering the voting age might not address the problem of <a href="https://www.policyforum.net/overly-suspicious-youth-or-dodgy-politicians/">youth distrust</a> of politicians and the widening gap between younger generations and political parties. This would require a sincere effort to understand what causes the drift, before enfranchising younger voters and loosely tying them to a voluntary voting system. In fact, there is a real risk that voluntary voting might encourage the type of abstention driven by a strong dislike for politicians.</p> <p>Enfranchising hundreds and thousands of additional voters would also inevitably raise the issues of ensuring proper enrolment and that young voters are well informed to vote. It would need to be accompanied by a major boost to <a href="https://theconversation.com/schools-are-not-adequately-preparing-young-australians-to-participate-in-our-democracy-88131">civics education</a> in Australian secondary schools.</p> <p>All in all, while compulsory voting is the best system for lowering the voting age, we’d have to be careful not to undermine the system as it stands. Instead, it is important to tie it to efforts to inform younger voters and reduce the age-related barriers in a (compulsory) electoral process.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208095/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/intifar-chowdhury-741153">Intifar Chowdhury</a>, Youth Researcher, Centre for Social Research and Methods, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a></em></p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/should-the-voting-age-in-australia-be-lowered-to-16-208095">original article</a>.</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Fat Bear Winner: ‘747’ lays b-ruin to rivals despite fishy voting

<p>After eating lots of tasty fish in preparation for the northern hemisphere’s winter, Brown bear 747 has been crowned the winner of the annual Fat Bear Week.</p> <p>The initiative, run by the US National Parks Service and multimedia organisation <em>explore</em>, gives the public a chance to vote for the biggest brown bear in Alaska’s Katmai National Park.</p> <p>Over one week, people cast their votes for eight nominated bears that have been gorging on river salmon in the lead up to their hibernation.</p> <p>After a summer of catching and eating fish – usually salmon – in the Brooks River, the bears reach peak size in early to mid-October.</p> <p>Shortly, they’ll go into a five-to-eight-month slumber, emerging after the coldest part of the Alaskan winter.</p> <p>The initiative shines a light on the behaviours and survival methods of the species which resides across northern hemisphere continents towards the Arctic Circle.</p> <p>Although brown bears are now extinct in much of central and southern Europe, some still persist in Romania and the Balkan states, and they remain across Russia, Alaska, Canada, the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau.</p> <p>It is also an important indicator species for other wildlife due to their wide habitat range, and play important ecological roles as seed dispersers, and lower-level species managers through predation.</p> <p><strong>Get stuffed! Cheating claims in lead up to Fat Bear final</strong></p> <p>Prior to the grand final between 747 and brown bear 901, a shocking case of voting fraud left organisers decidedly grizzly.</p> <p>A spam attack of votes during the semi-finals threatened to derail 747’s quest for a second Fat Bear crown.</p> <p>Fortunately, organisers were hot onto the bogus bruin ballots.</p> <div class="newsletter-box"> <div id="wpcf7-f6-p218507-o1" class="wpcf7" dir="ltr" lang="en-US" role="form"> <form class="wpcf7-form mailchimp-ext-0.5.62 spai-bg-prepared init" action="/nature/fat-bear-voting-winner/#wpcf7-f6-p218507-o1" method="post" novalidate="novalidate" data-status="init"> <p style="display: none !important;"><span class="wpcf7-form-control-wrap referer-page"><input class="wpcf7-form-control wpcf7-text referer-page" name="referer-page" type="hidden" value="https://cosmosmagazine.com/" data-value="https://cosmosmagazine.com/" aria-invalid="false" /></span></p> <p><!-- Chimpmail extension by Renzo Johnson --></form> </div> </div> <p>“Like bears stuff their face with fish, your ballot box, too, has been stuffed,” Katmai organisers said on Monday.</p> <p>“It appears someone has decided to spam the Fat Bear Week poll, but fortunately it is easy for us to tell which votes are fraudulent. We have discarded the fake votes.”</p> <p>Publicly voted animal awareness competitions are notoriously prone to phony voting.</p> <p>The Guardian Australia Bird of the Year competition infamously saw a case of dodgy democracy in 2019 when a case of automated voting was detected by the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2019/nov/11/voter-detected-in-guardians-australian-bird-of-the-year-poll" target="_blank" rel="noopener">avian electoral commission.</a></p> <p><em>Cosmos’</em> own Australian Mammal of the Year competition <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/amoty/too-much-love-for-the-mammals/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">was this year hit</a> by a bout of egregious electioneering when hundreds of spam votes were cast for some animals vying for the crown.</p> <p>Fortunately, as with Fat Bear Week, spotting and omitting a bad ballot is a straightforward task of, usually, spotting unusual voting patterns.</p> <p><em><img src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/2022/10/fat-bear-2022-1.jpg" alt="" width="1200" height="675" /></em></p> <p><em>2022 Fat Bear Week winner ‘747’ hunts for a tasty fish. Image: Courtesy L. Law via Katmai National Park.</em></p> <p><strong>747 does it again</strong></p> <p>Brown bear 747 – aptly named after a jumbo jet – claimed victory with 68,105 votes to rival 901’s 56,875.</p> <p>It was 747’s second premiership, having previously claimed the title in 2020. ‘480 Otis’ holds the record of four titles – exactly half the number of Fat Bear Weeks held.</p> <p>“Though he may be blissfully unaware of his two titles, the gains are real,” say the Fat Bear Week organisers.</p> <p>“In the bear world, fat is fit and these chunky contenders have been working tirelessly to pack on the pounds necessary for survival.”</p> <p>A record 1.027 million votes were cast in the 2022 edition of the event.</p> <p><!-- Start of tracking content syndication. Please do not remove this section as it allows us to keep track of republished articles --></p> <p><img id="cosmos-post-tracker" style="opacity: 0; height: 1px!important; width: 1px!important; border: 0!important; position: absolute!important; z-index: -1!important;" src="https://syndication.cosmosmagazine.com/?id=218507&amp;title=Fat+Bear+Winner%3A+%26%238216%3B747%26%238217%3B+lays+b-ruin+to+rivals+despite+fishy+voting" width="1" height="1" /></p> <p><!-- End of tracking content syndication --></p> <div id="contributors"> <p><em><a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/fat-bear-voting-winner/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">This article</a> was originally published on <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cosmos Magazine</a> and was written by Cosmos. </em></p> <p><em>Image: Courtesy L. Law via Katmai National Park.</em></p> </div>

Family & Pets

Placeholder Content Image

Mona Lisa voted the greatest artwork of all time

<p dir="ltr">The <em>Mona Lisa</em> has been voted the greatest artwork of all time in an extensive poll of British art enthusiasts. </p> <p dir="ltr">The survey found that the majority of Brits still consider the classics to be the greatest works of art, and that two thirds consider themselves “art lovers”. </p> <p dir="ltr">Leonardo da Vinci's masterpiece has been hailed the country's favourite piece of art, with 34 percent of Brits voting it number one.</p> <p dir="ltr">The <em>Mona Lisa</em> is widely regarded as the most iconic artwork, with millions travelling to the Louvre each year to see her elusive smile. </p> <p dir="ltr">Vincent Van Gough's <em>Sunflowers</em> was not far behind in second place, with the painting getting 32 percent of the vote.</p> <p dir="ltr">Painted in Arles, in the south of France, in 1888 and 1889, the series consists of five large canvases with sunflowers in a vase.</p> <p dir="ltr">Painted in Arles in the south of France in 1888 and 1889, the series consists of five large canvases with sunflowers in a vase, with it being said that the sunflower paintings had a special significance for Van Gogh, communicating gratitude.</p> <p dir="ltr">Third on the list of the most admired works of art was the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.</p> <p dir="ltr">With six million visitors flocking to the Vatican every year to gaze at its beauty, the ceiling was painted in fresco by Michelangelo between 1508 and 1512, and is considered a cornerstone work of High Renaissance art.</p> <p dir="ltr">Other great works on the list included Antony Gormley's <em>The Angel of the North</em>, <em>Balloon Girl</em> by Banksy, Edward Munch’s <em>The Scream</em>, and <em>The Kiss</em> by Gustav Klimt. </p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p> <p> </p>

Art

Placeholder Content Image

Australian Life photography finalists announced

<p dir="ltr">From capturing the devastating impact of this year’s floods to celebrating Australia’s numerous cultures, the 28 photographers who have made this year’s finalists list for the <a href="https://www.artandabout.com.au/australian-life-photography-competition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Australian Life</a> photography competition have met and exceeded the brief.</p> <p dir="ltr">The annual competition, run by the City of Sydney, calls on casual, amateur and professional photographers to capture the stories, people and scenes that make up the personality of Australia.</p> <p dir="ltr">Finalists are in the running for two awards: a $10,000 Grand Prize awarded to the most outstanding work in the exhibition as decided by a panel of judges, and The People’s Choice Award, which offers an Olympus professional pack valued at over $5,000 to the photographer who receives the most votes from the public.</p> <p dir="ltr">Public voting will be open until 5pm on September 13 through the City of Sydney’s <a href="https://news.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/photos/australian-life-photography-competition-finalists-2022?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic_social&utm_content=post&utm_campaign=aus-life22&fbclid=IwAR1aHNAa-se4izUakcxCyEkV8MC3nCJYlqOu7TkinaXCygc2rm-vh4Ar8aQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener">website</a>.</p> <p dir="ltr">The carefully chosen finalists will be on show in an outdoor gallery at Sydney’s Hyde Park from September 15 until October 9, with the winners of the awards to be announced when the exhibition opens.</p> <p><span id="docs-internal-guid-7407dfbd-7fff-4420-b1ab-2a9a7275b302"></span></p> <p dir="ltr">To help you decide on your favourite, we’ve compiled all of the finalists below.</p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Images: Matthew Abbott / Bob McKendry / Elise Derwin</em></p>

Family & Pets

Placeholder Content Image

Voting? Here’s how to make sure yours counts this election

<p dir="ltr">After an endless stream of campaigning, gaffes and debates, election day is upon us – and it’s time for Australians to cast their votes for the next government.</p> <p dir="ltr">Unless you’re one of the 4,617,905 or 1,644,061 Australians who have voted at a pre-poll centre or by postal vote as of May 20, you’ll likely be lining up at your local polling place (or the nearest one to you if you’re out of area), buying a democracy sausage, and casting your vote.</p> <p dir="ltr">Though it might be tedious to navigate the crowd of party supporters outside, answer the same three questions and fill in the ‘tablecloth’ (Senate) ballot paper once you’re inside, it’s all part of having our voices heard (all while avoiding the $50 fine for not voting).</p> <p dir="ltr">Having personally worked during the last two federal elections (and preparing to work in this one), here’s what you need to know and some tips for making sure your vote counts this time around.</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>What happens after you vote</strong></p> <p dir="ltr">Once it hits 6pm, polling booths close and the paperwork begins, with staff then sorting and counting the ballot papers, collating results, and calling in these results to be displayed on the AEC website.</p> <p><span id="docs-internal-guid-2ed0b468-7fff-66dc-f736-45497d315bbb"></span></p> <p dir="ltr">If it’s getting close to 6pm and you haven’t voted yet, you still can. If you’re in the queue to vote once 6pm hits, a staff member will stand at the end of the line and everyone ahead of them will be allowed to vote before the polling booth closes.</p> <p dir="ltr"><img src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/2022/05/election-day1.jpg" alt="" width="1280" height="720" /></p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: AEC</em></p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>How to make your House of Representatives vote count</strong></p> <p dir="ltr">This small, green ballot paper lists all the candidates that want to represent your local electoral division in the House of Representatives, and there are a few ways to ensure your vote is considered formal and counted towards the candidate of your choice.</p> <p dir="ltr">For the <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_Vote/Voting_HOR.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">House of Representatives</a>, you’ll need to number every box, with number one in the box next to your first preference, number two next to your second preference, and so on.</p> <p dir="ltr">Staff are trained to err in the favour of voters when deciding if a vote is formal or informal, so if you make a mistake on your ballot - or even change your mind about how to number your preferences - make sure your numbering of candidates is clear (or ask for a new one).</p> <p dir="ltr">Your vote will be considered informal if:</p> <ul> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> <p dir="ltr" role="presentation">It’s blank or unmarked</p> </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> <p dir="ltr" role="presentation">Numbers are repeated</p> </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> <p dir="ltr" role="presentation">You use ticks or crosses</p> </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> <p dir="ltr" role="presentation">There is anything written on it that identifies who you are</p> </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> <p dir="ltr" role="presentation">It’s missing your first preference or any other numbers from the sequence</p> </li> </ul> <p dir="ltr">It’s important to note that you can ask for a new ballot from the person who originally gave you the ballot papers, and that you can ask for help to complete the vote.</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>What about the Senate?</strong></p> <p dir="ltr">The white ballot paper - sometimes fondly referred to as the “tablecloth” - is the same no matter where you are in your state or territory. </p> <p dir="ltr">The Senate ballot is split into two sections, giving you the choice to vote above the line or below the line. You can either vote for parties or groups, listed above the line, or for individual candidates listed below the line.</p> <p dir="ltr">To <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_Vote/Voting_Senate.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">vote formally</a>, you’ll need to either number at least six boxes above the line or at least 12 below the line in order of your preference.</p> <p dir="ltr">If you have numbered boxes both above and below the line, your below-the-line preferences will be the ones that are counted.</p> <p dir="ltr">As with the House of Representatives ballot, if you make a mistake you can ask for a fresh ballot, and you can ask for help completing the ballot if you need it.</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>What if I have Covid and I’m in isolation?</strong></p> <p dir="ltr">If you have tested positive for COVID-19 and will still be in isolation on election day, that doesn’t mean you can’t still vote.</p> <p dir="ltr">The AEC has made it so that Covid-positive voters can vote over the phone, as long as they register online, make a declaration and provide evidence of a positive RAT or PCR test result.</p> <p dir="ltr">To find out more about voting by phone and registering, head <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/election/covid19-affected.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>. </p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>I’m not in my division on the day - can I still vote?</strong></p> <p dir="ltr">Short answer: yes. Longer answer: yes, and you’ll need to complete a declaration vote. This will require you to make a declaration that you are entitled to vote. Once you’ve voted, your ballots will be sealed in an envelope with your details and sent to your local electoral division to be counted.</p> <p dir="ltr">However, if you’re not in your home state on election day, you won’t be able to vote at just any polling place. If you do attend a local polling place, the staff member in charge will direct you to your closest interstate voting centre, which you can also find <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/election/voting.htm#start" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>.</p> <p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-51263298-7fff-8ff7-6c5f-4eefcba0b2a5"></span></p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: AEC</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

"Bloody hopeless": Ben Fordham blasts last minute voting changes

<p>Radio host Ben Fordham has slammed the "hopeless" Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) for their last minute changes to voting if you are Covid positive. </p> <p>The AEC's original system involved telephone voting for people who had contracted Covid after 6pm on Tuesday, while individuals who tested positive before this time being able to register for a postal vote, which had to be applied for by 6pm on Wednesday. </p> <p>This system meant that anyone who tested positive before Tuesday and had missed the postal vote deadline would not be able to vote in the federal election. </p> <p>Ben Fordham blasted the system, as he heard from a listener who said they were told not to vote, cop the $55 fine, and then dispute the fine. </p> <p>"But Ben, we want to vote!" said the caller.</p> <p>Fordham says denying people the right to vote is “undemocratic” and "everyone must have their say."</p> <p>"Do they understand that when someone tests positive, their first thought isn't jumping on the AEC website? If you tested positive before 6pm on Tuesday, you may have had a few other things on your mind," he said.</p> <p>"Someone must fix it, and fix it today."</p> <p>Following Fordham's slating, the AEC said it had approved a brief recommending the government change the regulation so people who got positive tests between Saturday and Tuesday can also phone vote.</p> <p>“This morning I have signed a brief recommending for the eligibility for the service be expanded.” AEC electoral commissioner Tom Rogers said. </p> <p>“We have analysed the service’s take-up so far, our staffing levels and forecasts for use, and are in urgent discussions with Government about the concerns expressed by members of the public,” he said.</p> <p>Speaking with <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/aec-confirms-australians-with-covid-can-vote/13890772" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ABC Radio Breakfast</a>, Mr Rogers clarified the new rules for all Australians with Covid after the matter has been resolved with the government. </p> <p>The AEC confirmed that all people who are Covid positive are able to vote over the phone, with people urged to register their positive tests <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/election/covid19-affected.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">online</a> as soon as possible.</p> <p>Mr Rogers has urged all people voting over the phone to be patient with AEC officers, saying this is an "emergency provision" as "nothing is without risk", and telephone voters should expect "long queues over the phone". </p> <p>He also encouraged people who have enrolled for telephone voting not to wait until the last minute to cast their vote.</p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images / Instagram</em></p>

News

Placeholder Content Image

Readers respond: If you were prime minister, what would your first rule be?

<p dir="ltr">Millions of Aussies will be heading to the polling booth on May 21st to vote for either the same government or a new one.</p> <p dir="ltr">There is also a possibility of a hung parliament with many Aussies furious with the two major parties. </p> <p dir="ltr">So the balance of power could be held by the Greens or Independent candidates. </p> <p dir="ltr">However, with the election just around the corner, we asked you to tell us what your first rule would be if you became prime minister.</p> <p dir="ltr">Dianne received the comment with the most likes calling for a cut in all wages for politicians by up to 25 per cent.</p> <p dir="ltr">She said this cut is not limited to certain politicians but goes to all at local, state and federal levels. </p> <p dir="ltr">Dianne went a step further but also called for their pensions to be cut by at least 50 per cent and that politicians must serve at least two full terms to be eligible and that they should pay all their own expenses unless they are for government events. </p> <p dir="ltr">Grahame responded to Dianne’s comment and said that politicians should in fact not receive a pension until they reach the pension age “just like the rest of us”.</p> <p dir="ltr">The second most supported comment came from Donna who called for the abolishment of pension entitlements and make politicians self-funded retirees.</p> <p dir="ltr">She explained that by doing this, politicians will face the same pension entitlements as all other Australians. </p> <p dir="ltr">Fellow Aussie Carol supports the scrapping of perks for all politicians, having to be means tested to receive their pension like everyone else.</p> <p dir="ltr">“They are after all employees of the Australian people,” she said. </p> <p dir="ltr">Edith responded to Carol’s perk comment saying politicians have to stop with increasing their pay while not doing anything to support the rest of the country.</p> <p dir="ltr">She also said politicians should use their own cars, pay for their own fuel and have their daily spending rate cut. </p> <p dir="ltr">Another topic that received a lot of traction came from Carmen who called for pensioners to be brought above the poverty line.</p> <p dir="ltr">“Everyone cries about the minimum wage, forgetting that pensioners are below it! I would raise the pension to affordable living so the elderly don't have to suffer In many ways for being poor!”</p> <p dir="ltr">On the other side, Robyn said she would ensure that all politicians would actually be qualified in the position they are given. </p> <p dir="ltr">“Finances should have an economic degree, medical should be a doctor.”</p> <p dir="ltr">“Agree it has always believed this should be a prerequisite,” Dorrell replied. </p> <p dir="ltr">Australians will head to the polls on May 21.</p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: Getty</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

US Senate to vote on abortion rights bill – but what would it mean to codify Roe into law?

<p><em>The U.S. Senate is <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/05/11/1097980529/senate-to-vote-on-a-bill-that-codifies-abortion-protections-but-it-will-likely-f">expected to vote on May 11, 2022</a>, on a bill that would enshrine the right to an abortion into law.</em></p> <p><em>The Democrats’ bill, the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text">Women’s Health Protection Act</a>, isn’t expected to pass – a previous attempt was blocked by the Senate. But it reflects attempts by abortion rights advocates to find alternative ways to protect a woman’s right to the procedure following the publication of a <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473">leaked draft opinion</a> from Justice Samuel Alito indicating that a majority on the Supreme Court intend to overturn Roe v. Wade.</em></p> <p><em>But is enshrining abortion rights via legislation feasible? And why has it not been done before? The Conversation put these questions and others to <a href="https://www.bu.edu/law/profile/linda-c-mcclain/">Linda C. McClain</a>, an expert on civil rights law and feminist legal theory at Boston University School of Law.</em></p> <p><strong>What does it mean to ‘codify’ Roe v. Wade?</strong></p> <p>In simple terms, to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/codify#:%7E:text=To%20codify%20means%20to%20arrange,by%20subject%2C%20into%20a%20code.">codify something</a> means to enshrine a right or a rule into a formal systematic code. It could be done through an act of Congress in the form of a federal law. Similarly, state legislatures can codify rights by enacting laws. To codify Roe for all Americans, Congress would need to pass a law that would provide the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/03/us/what-is-roe-v-wade.html">same protections that Roe</a> did – so a law that states that women have a right to abortion without excessive government restrictions. It would be binding for all states.</p> <p>But here’s the twist: Despite some politicians saying that they want to “codify Roe,” Congress isn’t looking to enshrine Roe in law. That’s because <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18">Roe v. Wade</a> hasn’t been in place since 1992. The Supreme Court’s <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744">Planned Parenthood. v. Casey</a> ruling affirmed it, but also modified it in significant ways.</p> <p>In Casey, the court upheld Roe’s holding that a woman has the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy up to the point of fetal viability and that states could restrict abortion after that point, subject to exceptions to protect the life or health of the pregnant woman. But the Casey court concluded that Roe too severely limited state regulation prior to fetal viability and held that states could impose restrictions on abortion throughout pregnancy to protect potential life as well as to protect maternal health – including during the first trimester.</p> <p>Casey also introduced the “<a href="https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/WWH-Undue-Burden-Report-07262018-Edit.pdf">undue burden” test</a>, which prevented states from imposing restrictions that had the purpose or effect of placing unnecessary barriers on women seeking to end a pregnancy prior to viability of the fetus.</p> <p><strong>What is the Women’s Health Protection Act?</strong></p> <p>Current efforts to pass federal legislation protecting the right to abortion center on the proposed <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text">Women’s Health Protection Act</a>, introduced in Congress by Rep. Judy Chu and sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Richard Blumenthal in 2021. It was passed in the House, but was <a href="https://time.com/6152473/abortion-roe-v-wade-democrats/">blocked in the Senate</a>. Democrats put the bill forward for a procedural vote again after Alito’s draft opinion was made public. Supporters of the bill are still expected to fall short of the votes they need. Rather, the vote is being used, in the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/05/10/1097820801/senate-democrats-plan-a-vote-on-abortion-rights-but-its-unlikely-to-pass">words of Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar</a>, “to show where everyone stands” on the issue.</p> <p>The legislation would build on the undue burden principle in Casey by seeking to prevent states from imposing unfair restrictions on abortion providers, such as insisting a <a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/vbnqw4/abortion-clinics-are-closing-because-their-doorways-arent-big-enough">clinic’s doorway is wide enough</a> for surgical gurneys to pass through, or that <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/targeted-regulation-abortion-providers">abortion practitioners need to have admitting privileges</a> at nearby hospitals.</p> <p>The Women’s Health Protection Act uses the language of the Casey ruling in saying that these so-called TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws place an “undue burden” on people seeking an abortion. It also appeals to Casey’s recognition that “the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.”</p> <p><strong>Has the right to abortion ever been guaranteed by federal legislation?</strong></p> <p>You have to remember that Roe was very controversial from the outset. At the time of the ruling in 1973, most states had restrictive abortion laws. Up to the late 1960s, a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1973/01/28/archives/gallup-poll-finds-public-divided-on-abortions-in-first-3-months.html">majority of Americans opposed abortion</a>. A poll at the time of Roe found the public evenly split over legalization.</p> <p>To pass legislation you have to go through the democratic process. But if the democratic process is hostile to what you are hoping to push through, you are going to run into difficulties.</p> <p>Under the U.S. system, certain liberties are seen as so fundamental that protecting them should not be left to the whims of changing democratic majorities. Consider something like interracial marriage. Before the Supreme Court ruled in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395">Loving v. Virginia State</a> that banning interracial marriages was unconstitutional, a number of states still banned such unions.</p> <p>Why couldn’t they pass a law in Congress protecting the right to marry? It would have been difficult because at the time, the <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx">majority of people were against</a> the idea of interracial marriage.</p> <p>When you don’t have sufficient public support for something – particularly if it is unpopular or affects a non-majority group – appealing to the Constitution seems to be the better way to protect a right.</p> <p>That doesn’t mean you can’t also protect that right through a statute, just that it is harder. Also, there is no guarantee that legislation passed by any one Congress isn’t then repealed by lawmakers later on.</p> <p><strong>So generally, rights have more enduring protection if the Supreme Court rules on them?</strong></p> <p>The <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx">Supreme Court has the final word</a> on what is and isn’t protected by the Constitution. In the past, it has been seen as sufficient to protect a constitutional right to get a ruling from the justices recognizing that right.</p> <p>But this leaked opinion also points out that one limit of that protection is that the Supreme Court may overrule its own precedents.</p> <p>Historically, it is unusual for the Supreme Court to take a right away. Yes, they said the <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/163us537">Plessy v. Ferguson ruling</a> – which set up the legal basis for separate-but-equal – was wrong, and overruled it in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/347us483">Brown v. Board of Education</a>. But Brown recognized rights; it didn’t take rights away.</p> <p>If Alito’s draft ruling is to be the final word, the Supreme Court will be taking away a right that has been in place since 1973. For what I believe is the first time since the end of the Lochner era, the Supreme Court would be overriding precedent to take away a constitutional right from Americans. While Justice Alito notes that, in 1937, the Court overruled “an entire line” of cases protecting “an individual liberty right against federal health and welfare legislation,” that “right” to economic liberty and freedom of contract was as much one of businesses as much as for individuals. The Court has not overruled of the long line of cases (in which Roe and Casey fit) protecting “liberty” in making significant decisions about intimacy, sexuality, family, marriage, and reproduction.</p> <p>Moreover, the leaked opinion is dismissive of the idea that women have to rely on constitutional protection. “Women are not without electoral or political power,” <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/read-justice-alito-initial-abortion-opinion-overturn-roe-v-wade-pdf-00029504">Alito writes</a>, adding: “The percentage of women who register to vote and cast ballots is consistently higher than the percentage of men who do so.”</p> <p>But this ignores the fact that women <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/roe-v-wade-overturned-supreme-court-abortion-draft-alitos-legal-analys-rcna27205">rarely make up close to half</a> of the members of most state legislative bodies.</p> <p><strong>So are the promises to get Congress to protect abortion rights realistic?</strong></p> <p>Republicans in the Senate successfully blocked the proposed Women’s Health Protection Act. And unless things change dramatically in Congress, there isn’t much chance of the bill becoming law.</p> <p>There has been talk of trying to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-abortion-move-sparks-calls-ending-senates-filibuster-2022-05-04/">end the filibuster rule</a>, which requires 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation. But even then, the 50 votes that would be needed might not be there.</p> <p>What we don’t know is how this Supreme Court leak will affect the calculus. Maybe some Republican senators will see that the writing is on the wall and vote with Democrats. Republican senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski <a href="https://www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom/senators-collins-and-murkowski-introduce-bill-to-codify-supreme-court-decisions-on-reproductive-rights_roe-v-wade-and-planned-parenthood-v-casey">introduced legislation</a> earlier this year that would codify Roe in law, but isn’t as expansive as the Women’s Health Protection Act. Senator Collins has <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/05/sen-collins-voices-opposition-legislation-that-would-create-statutory-right-abortion/">recently indicated</a> that she will not support the Act out of concern for religious liberty of anti-abortion health providers.</p> <p>And then we have the midterm elections in November, which might shake up who’s in Congress. If the Democrats lose the House or fail to pick up seats in the Senate, the chances of pushing through any legislation protecting abortion rights would appear very slim. Democrats will be hoping that the Supreme Court ruling will mobilize pro-abortion rights voters.</p> <p><strong>What is going on at a state level?</strong></p> <p>Liberal states like Massachusetts have <a href="https://www.boston.com/news/policy/2020/12/29/massachusetts-senate-override-abortion-access/">passed laws that codify Roe v. Wade</a>. Now that the Supreme Court’s apparent intentions are known, expect similar moves elsewhere. Massachusetts and other states are looking to go a step further by <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/05/01/1095813226/connecticut-abortion-bill-roe-v-wade">protecting residents who help out-of-state women</a> seeking abortion. Such laws would seemingly counter moves by states like Missouri, which is seeking to <a href="https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-03-11/editorial-missouri-might-make-it-illegal-to-help-a-woman-get-an-abortion-elsewhere-thats-ridiculous">push through legislation that would criminalize helping women</a> who go out of state for abortions.</p> <p><strong>Wouldn’t any federal law just be challenged at the Supreme Court?</strong></p> <p>Should Congress be able to pass a law enshrining the right to abortion for all Americans, then surely some conservative states will seek to overturn the law, saying that the federal government is exceeding its authority.</p> <p>If it were to go up to the Supreme Court, then conservative justices would presumably look unfavorably on any attempt to limit individual states’ rights when it comes to abortion. Similarly, any attempt to put in place a federal law that would restrict abortion for all would seemingly conflict with the Supreme Court’s position that it should be left to the states to decide.</p> <p><em>This is an updated version of an article <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-would-it-mean-to-codify-roe-into-law-and-is-there-any-chance-of-that-happening-182406">originally published on May 5, 2022</a>.</em><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/182908/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /></p> <p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/linda-c-mcclain-1343287">Linda C. McClain</a>, Professor of Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/boston-university-898">Boston University</a></em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/us-senate-to-vote-on-abortion-rights-bill-but-what-would-it-mean-to-codify-roe-into-law-182908">original article</a>.</em></p> <p><em>Image: Getty Images</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Body language expert dissects third leaders' debate

<p dir="ltr">The third and final leaders’ debate is finally over just a few days out from the Federal Election.</p> <p dir="ltr">A body language expert has weighed in on Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese’s performance during the debate that was aired on Channel 7 on Wednesday night.</p> <p dir="ltr">Connection and body language expert Katia Loisel pointed out the very obvious “agitation” coming from the leaders. </p> <p dir="ltr">“As the final debate opened, both leaders displayed signs of discomfort and nervousness,” she told <a href="https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/body-language-expert-weighs-in-on-third-leaders-debate/news-story/5a5196f3314ffc994ca28d57d4dac97a" target="_blank" rel="noopener">news.com.au</a>.</p> <p dir="ltr">“Despite an open, wide leg stance, Albanese’s ducked head and turtling of the neck, restless legs, and hands clasped in front, fingers interlaced fingers indicated vulnerability and emotional discomfort.</p> <p dir="ltr">“In contrast Morrison appeared more confident, his hands resting lightly on the podium, an asymmetric dominance smile dancing on his lips. Whilst his body language says, ‘I’ve got this,’ a fleeting attempt to lubricate his mouth suggests that he was feeling far from confident.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Katia noted that both leaders would occasionally use the lectern, as a non-verbal clutch, to grasp on when making a point </p> <p dir="ltr">She explained that Morrison was clutching the lectern and would then use single hand gestures before resorting to clasping his hands which indicated the discomfort and nerves.</p> <p dir="ltr">Albanese was occasionally shifting his weight from one foot to another before interlacing his fingers in front of his body to ease up the stress.</p> <p dir="ltr">When it came to exerting dominance, Ms Loisel said that came later on in the debate with Morrison “jaw jutting, finger pointing and dominance smile”.</p> <p dir="ltr">On the other hand, Albanese showed “increased frustration, agitation and dominance display”.</p> <p dir="ltr">The Federal Election will be held on Saturday May 21.</p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: Twitter</em></p>

News

Placeholder Content Image

Past policies have created barriers to voting in remote First Nations communities

<p>The rate of voter participation in federal elections by people living in remote Indigenous communities has been <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2010.01552.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lower than the national average</a> since First Nations people were granted the right to vote in 1962. In recent years, the rate has been in <a href="http://doi.org/10.22459/DAER.05.2012;%20http://doi.org/10.25911/5df209771dd57" target="_blank" rel="noopener">decline</a>. Rates are lowest in the Northern Territory.</p> <p>The low rate of participation among First Nations people living in remote communities could affect the lower house election results in the Northern Territory seat of Lingiari. Warren Snowden has stepped down after 20 years holding the seat.</p> <p><strong>Determining rates of voter participation</strong></p> <p>Measuring the number of First Nations people (or any particular demographic group) who vote in federal elections is challenging. Electoral rolls do not include information about cultural identity. Census figures, which could be used as a basis for comparison against voter turnout rates, are imprecise.</p> <p>Data from the 2005 NT Assembly general election <a href="http://doi.org/10.22459/DAER.05.2012;%20https:/press.anu.edu.au/publications/directions-australian-electoral-reform" target="_blank" rel="noopener">show</a> voting rates were 20% lower in electorates with the highest Indigenous populations.</p> <p>In his study of the 2019 federal election, Australian National University researcher <a href="http://doi.org/10.25911/5df209771dd57" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Will Sanders</a> found</p> <blockquote> <p>perhaps only half of eligible Aboriginal citizens […] may be utilising their right to vote.</p> </blockquote> <p>Reports from the Northern Territory’s most recent Assembly election also found <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-21/poor-indigenous-voter-turnout-at-nt-election/12580688" target="_blank" rel="noopener">record low</a><a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-15/coronavirus-impacting-on-remote-voter-turnout-nt-election/12559066">turnout</a> across Indigenous communities.</p> <p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2010.01552.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Research</a> <a href="http://doi.org/10.25911/5df209771dd57" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shows</a> rates of informal votes are also higher in remote Indigenous communities.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">NLC accuses the Australian Electoral Commission of 'failing' Aboriginal voters [Matt Garrick, ABC]<br />Northern Territory land council has accused the AEC of failing Aboriginal people by not engaging more bush voters to have their say at the federal election.<a href="https://t.co/fCKRluGaoD">https://t.co/fCKRluGaoD</a> <a href="https://t.co/J3a04DyJJB">pic.twitter.com/J3a04DyJJB</a></p> <p>— First Nations Tgraph (@FNTelegraph) <a href="https://twitter.com/FNTelegraph/status/1514025685521952770?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 12, 2022</a></p></blockquote> <p><strong>Barriers to First Nations people voting</strong></p> <p>Decisions made at the federal level over the last three decades appear to have provided significant obstacles to voting in some First Nations communities.</p> <p>First is the 1996 abolition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Election Education and Information Service.</p> <p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2010.01552.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Two</a> <a href="http://doi.org/10.22459/DAER.05.2012;%20https:/press.anu.edu.au/publications/directions-australian-electoral-reform" target="_blank" rel="noopener">studies</a> point to this abolition as a potential reason for a decline in voting rates in remote Indigenous communities since the mid-nineties.</p> <p>Established in 1979, this service existed specifically to increase voter registration rates among First Nations people. This was done by, for example, providing voter education and election materials in Indigenous languages.</p> <p>The second decision was the 2005 abolition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.</p> <p>First Nations people participated in five of the Commission’s elections administered by the same Australian Electoral Commission responsible for federal elections. Although voting was voluntary, <a href="https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41511/3/2003_DP252.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">analysis</a> shows participation was higher in northern and central Australia than in southern Australia.</p> <p>The third relevant policy change was the passage of the 2006 Electoral Integrity Bill. This introduced more stringent rules for the identification required to vote, making it more difficult for people in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2010.01552.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener">at least one remote community</a> to register to vote.</p> <p>The Morrison government’s unsuccessful 2021 proposal to introduce even tougher <a href="https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7488468/govt-accused-of-trumpist-move-to-suppress-voting/?cs=14264" target="_blank" rel="noopener">voter identification laws</a> would likely <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/27/proposed-voter-id-laws-real-threat-to-rights-of-indigenous-australians-and-people-without-homes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">exacerbate this problem</a>.</p> <p>The fourth policy decision was a 2012 change to the Commonwealth Electoral Act, known as the “Federal Direct Enrolment and Update”.</p> <p>This enabled the Australian Electoral Commission to register eligible Australians to vote based on information available through several government agencies. These include Centrelink/the Department of Human Services, the Australian Taxation Office, and the National Exchange of Vehicle and Driver Information Service.</p> <p>But the Electoral Commission has <a href="http://doi.org/10.25911/5df209771dd57" target="_blank" rel="noopener">chosen not to use this mechanism for enrolment in parts of Australia</a> where mail is sent to a single community address (“mail exclusion areas”).</p> <p>This means people living in many remote communities are not automatically added to the electoral roll, unlike most of the rest of Australia.</p> <p>West Arnhem Regional Council mayor Matthew Ryan and Yalu Aboriginal Corporation chairman Ross Mandi launched an official complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commissioner over this issue in June last year.</p> <p>They <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-19/nt-voters-racial-discrimination-human-rights-commission/100227762" target="_blank" rel="noopener">argued</a> failure to apply the Federal Direct Enrolment and Update in remote communities represents a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act.</p> <p>A <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2010.01552.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener">survey</a> of residents in one remote community on South Australia’s APY lands found a lack of information contributed to low participation in elections.</p> <p>Obstacles included:</p> <ul> <li> <p>a lack of materials available in appropriate languages</p> </li> <li> <p>uncertainty about how to cast a formal vote</p> </li> <li> <p>problems related to literacy, and</p> </li> <li> <p>a lack of appropriate identification necessary to enrol.</p> </li> </ul> <p>In October last year, the Australian Electoral Commission announced new funding for its <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/media/2021/10-28.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Indigenous Electoral Participation program</a> with the aim of increasing enrolment rates; the upcoming election will show if the program is working.</p> <p><strong>Lingiari</strong></p> <p>Given that voting is compulsory in Australia, non-participation is a concern in any election. But these issues are likely to be particularly relevant in the 2022 federal election, at least in the seat of Lingiari.</p> <p>Lingiari covers all of the Northern Territory outside the greater Darwin/Palmerston area. So it is the one House of Representatives division where Indigenous Australians (many of them living in remote communities) have clear electoral <a href="http://doi.org/10.25911/5df209771dd57" target="_blank" rel="noopener">power</a>.</p> <p>Providing more mobile polling booths could help make voting easier for people in remote Indigenous communities. Currently, these booths can be present for as little as two hours during an entire election period.</p> <p>There is also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2010.01552.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener">evidence</a> Indigenous people are more likely to vote in elections for Indigenous candidates, and for candidates who have visited their community.</p> <p>Warren Snowden has represented the electorate since its creation in 2001, but he is not contesting this election; the seat is up for grabs.</p> <p>Indigenous people will determine who takes Snowden’s place. But how many of them vote may be limited by their ability to enrol, the availability of information in an appropriate language, and access a polling booth.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/181194/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/morgan-harrington-1207111" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Morgan Harrington</a>, Research Fellow, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Australian National University</a></em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/past-policies-have-created-barriers-to-voting-in-remote-first-nations-communities-181194" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>.</em></p> <p><em>Image: The Australian Electoral Commision (<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/auselectoralcom/48720382352/in/album-72157710806573631/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Flickr</a>)</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Pauline Hanson calls PM "weak" while moving to ban vaccine mandates

<p><em>Image: Getty </em></p> <p>Prime Minister Scott Morrison is facing a revolt on the floor of Parliament, with five senators breaking ranks to vote with One Nation in support of Pauline Hanson’s recently proposed anti-vaccination mandate bill.</p> <p>Senator Hanson – who remains unvaccinated – warned Morrison that she would cause “havoc” over his legislative agenda this week, including in relation to new religious freedom laws and reforms to demand voters provide ID when they vote.</p> <p>“The Prime Minister is weak, he says there should be no vaccine mandates – then do something about it,” she said.</p> <p>Shortly after 11 am Monday, NSW Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, Northern Territory Senator Sam McMahon, Queensland’s Matt Canavan and Gerard Rennick and South Australia’s Alex Antic all voted with One Nation.</p> <p>The bill was ultimately defeated five votes to 44 in the Senate. The result only included the votes of Coalition MPs who voted with One Nation, because Senator Hanson and her colleague Malcom Roberts were voting remotely.</p> <p>The vote followed warnings from Senator Hanson that the vaccines were “experimental” and governments had “no right to take away the right to choose.”</p> <p>“This legislation is urgently needed to arrest and reverse the pandemic of discrimination that has been unleashed on the Australian people,” she said.</p> <p>“People have a right to choose whether they want to have this vaccination or not. What is the country coming to? If you allow the premiers to have these powers, what will be next? This could lead to anything.”</p> <p>Speaking in Canberra shortly after the vote, the Prime Minister said MPs had a right to vote with their conscience on the matter.</p> <p>“The liberal Party and the National Party, we do not run it as an autocracy,” he said.</p> <p>“We don’t take people out of our party if we happen to disagree on an issue they feel strongly. The Government opposed the bill and the bill has not been success. We do not agree with the measures that were in the bill, which would indeed threaten funding for our hospitals and schools for states. I respect the fact that individual members will express a view and vote accordingly.”</p>

News

Placeholder Content Image

Artificial intelligence could sway your dating and voting preferences

<div> <div class="copy"> <p>AI algorithms on our computers and smartphones have quickly become a pervasive part of everyday life, with relatively little attention to their scope, integrity, and how they shape our attitudes and behaviours.</p> <p>Spanish researchers have now shown experimentally that people’s voting and dating preferences can be manipulated depending on the type of persuasion used.</p> <p>“Every day, new headlines appear in which Artificial Intelligence (AI) has overtaken human capacity in new and different domains,” <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249454" target="_blank">write</a> Ujue Agudo and Helena Matute, from the Universidad de Deusto, in the journal <em>PLOS ONE</em>.</p> <p>“This results in recommendation and persuasion algorithms being widely used nowadays, offering people advice on what to read, what to buy, where to eat, or whom to date,” they add.</p> <p>“[P]eople often assume that these AI judgements are objective, efficient and reliable; a phenomenon known as <em>machine bias</em>.”</p> <p>But increasingly, <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6404/751.full" target="_blank">warning bells</a> are sounding about how people could be influenced on vital issues. Agudo and Matute note, for instance, that companies such as Facebook and Google have been <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/18/a-digital-gangster-destroying-democracy-the-damning-verdict-on-facebook" target="_blank">accused </a>of manipulating democratic elections.</p> <p>And while some people may be wary of explicit attempts to sway their judgements, they could be influenced without realising it.</p> <p>“[I]t is not only a question of whether AI could influence people through explicit recommendation and persuasion, but also of whether AI can influence human decisions through more covert persuasion and manipulation techniques,” the researchers write.</p> <p>“Indeed, some studies show that AI can make use of human heuristics and biases in order to manipulate people’s decisions in a subtle way.”</p> <p> A famous <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11421" target="_blank">experiment</a> on voting behaviour in the US, for instance, showed how Facebook messages swayed political opinions, information seeking and votes of more than 61 million people in 2010, a phenomenon they say was demonstrated again in 2012 elections.</p> <p>In another example, <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/33/E4512.full.pdf" target="_blank">manipulating the order </a>of political candidates in search engines or boosting someone’s profile to <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://core.ac.uk/display/132807884" target="_blank">enhance their familiarity </a>and credibility are other covert ploys that can funnel votes to selected candidates.  </p> <p>Worryingly, as Agudo and Matute point out, these strategies tend to go unnoticed, so that people are likely to think they made their own minds up and don’t realise they’ve been played.</p> <p>Yet public research on the impact of these influences is way behind the private sector.</p> <p>“Companies with potential conflicts of interest are conducting private behavioural experiments and accessing the data of millions of people without their informed consent,” they write, “something unthinkable for the academic research community.”</p> <p>While some studies have shown that AI can influence people’s moods, friendships, dates, activities and prices paid online, as well as political preferences, research is scarce, the pair says, and has not disentangled explicit and covert influences.</p> <p>To help address this, they recruited more than 1300 people online for a series of experiments to investigate how explicit and covert AI algorithms influence their choice of fictitious political candidates and potential romantic partners.</p> <p>Results showed that explicit, but not covert, recommendation of candidates swayed people’s votes, while secretly manipulating their familiarity with potential partners influenced who they wanted to date.</p> <p>Although these results held up under various approaches, the researchers note the possibilities are vast. “The number of variables that might be changed, and the number of biases that an algorithm could exploit is immense,” they write.</p> <p>“It is important to note, however, that the speed with which human academic scientists can perform new experiments and collect new data is very slow, as compared to the easiness with which many AI companies and their algorithms are already conducting experiments with millions of human beings on a daily basis through the internet.”</p> <p>Private companies have immense resources and are unfettered in their pursuit of the most effective algorithms, they add. “Therefore, their ability to influence decisions both explicitly and covertly is certainly much higher than shown in the present research.”</p> <p>The pair draws attention to the European Union’s Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI and DARPA’s explainable AI program as examples of initiatives to increase people’s trust of AI. But they assert that won’t address the dearth of information on how algorithms can manipulate people’s decisions.</p> <p>“Therefore, a human-centric approach should not only aim to establish the critical requirements for AI’s trustworthiness,” they write, “but also to minimise the consequences of that trust on human decisions and freedom.</p> <p>“It is of critical importance to educate people against following the advice of algorithms blindly,” they add, as well as public discussion on who should own the masses of data which are used to create persuasive algorithms.</p> <em>Image credits: Shutterstock            <!-- Start of tracking content syndication. Please do not remove this section as it allows us to keep track of republished articles --> <img id="cosmos-post-tracker" style="opacity: 0; height: 1px!important; width: 1px!important; border: 0!important; position: absolute!important; z-index: -1!important;" src="https://syndication.cosmosmagazine.com/?id=148292&amp;title=Artificial+intelligence+could+sway+your+dating+and+voting+preferences" alt="" width="1" height="1" /> <!-- End of tracking content syndication -->          </em></div> <div id="contributors"> <p><em>This article was originally published on <a rel="noopener" href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/artificial-intelligence-could-sway-your-dating-and-voting-preferences/" target="_blank">cosmosmagazine.com</a> and was written by Natalie Parletta.</em></p> </div> </div>

Technology

Our Partners