15 October 2023

ACT only jurisdiction to return resounding Yes vote as official counting continues

| Claire Fenwicke
Join the conversation
Dorothy Tangney and Enid Lyons decorated with Vote Yes pins

Statues of the first women to federal parliament, Dorothy Tangney and Enid Lyons, were decorated with ‘Yes’ badges. Photo: Michelle Kroll.

The ACT is the only jurisdiction in the country that has voted Yes to enshrining an Indigenous Voice to Parliament in the referendum.

While counting is still underway, and it could take a few more days for the Australian Electoral Commission to release an official result, enough has been tallied to show that Australia has rejected Indigenous constitutional recognition.

Chief Minister Andrew Barr made no secret that he wanted the Territory to return the highest Yes vote in the country.

He issued a statement saying Australians have had their say and that had to be respected.

“I hope that Canberrans who are saddened by the national result can take some heart that our community strongly voted Yes,” Mr Barr said.

“The ACT has proved once again that we are the most inclusive and progressive jurisdiction in Australia.

“We are the progressive heart of the nation.”

He acknowledged a “vast majority” of referendums in the past have failed, but took heart that the debate in the Territory was “largely conducted without anger and hate”.

“This result should not stop us on our journey towards Reconciliation, including the important work under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap,” Mr Barr said.

“In the months and years ahead, there will be a period of reflection. It is essential that there is national healing. This may take some time.”

The Canberra Liberals MLAs were able to make their own decisions on how to vote, with leader Elizabeth Lee hoping for a Yes outcome.

She said the outcome was a “very disappointing result” for many.

“Thank you Canberra for voting ‘yes’,” Ms Lee said.

“Governments at all levels must continue to take action to improve the lives of our First Nations people.

“This is not the end but a reminder that we must do better.”

In the ACT, 316,837 people are enrolled to vote, with 258,009 votes counted as of 8 am (Sunday, 15 October).

The Yes vote stands at 60.84 per cent in the Territory, with 39.16 per cent voting No.

READ ALSO Letter from the Editor: It’s time to leave the fear and anger behind. History is calling us

Counts are ongoing across the rest of the country, including across the Capital Region.

As of 8 am, the votes in the Capital region electorates stand at:

  • Hume: 26.13 per cent Yes, 73.87 per cent No, with 69 out of 71 polling places counted
  • Eden-Monaro: 39.84 per cent Yes, 60.52 per cent No, with 84 out of 89 polling places counted
  • Gilmore: 38.16 per cent Yes, 61.84 per cent No, with 63 out of 68 polling places counted

The national vote stands at 39.75 per cent for Yes and 60.25 per cent for No.

While zero out of six states have a majority for the Yes vote.

For the referendum to pass, the proposed alteration must be approved by both a national majority of voters and a majority of voters in a majority of the states (at least four out of the six states).

This is known as a double majority, which is needed for any referendum to pass.

This means votes from both the ACT and Northern Territory only count towards the overall national vote.

Votes from Norfolk Island residents are included as part of the ACT electorate of Bean.

READ ALSO They might not look like much, but here’s why Canberrans want these old huts rebuilt

Friday (13 October) was the biggest single day of pre-polling in Australia’s history with just over one million votes cast.

Overall about 6.13 million people input their ballots at an early voting centre, making this referendum pre-poll the largest in Australia’s history.

For comparison, 5.6 million votes were cast at early for the 2022 federal election.

Meanwhile about 2.1 million people applied for a postal vote, compared to 2.7 million at the 2022 federal election, while 135,000 people voted via an AEC mobile polling team and 47,000 people voted at a polling place overseas.

In total, early voting (postal and in-person) adds up to 8.41 million, meaning about 9.2 million people needed to cast their votes on Saturday (14 October).

Join the conversation

All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments

Good result. Australians clearly decided it wasn’t wise, fair or equal to promote one race in the constitution over another.

The referendum was very divisive, it divided the conspiracy theorists, narrow minded, bigoted and ignorant from the rest of us.

David Cummins4:03 pm 16 Oct 23

Goes to show just how out of touch and arrogant many Canberrans are. Affluent feel-good virtue-signalers paid for by the taxpayers of Australia with little or no knowledge (or care) of what life is like for remote and disadvantaged aboriginal communities. And, I might add, little by way of real solutions,
It is nothing to be proud of or to gloat about.

Did anyone else experience the facebook bias? For every post about the voice, all the no aligned comments were hidden by the ‘Most relevant” filter.
So there might be a 100 or some interesting comments but only 2 displayed that were pro voice.

Despite this and the false fact checking glad we got the progressive result that we were after. We actually need to provide material substance over tokenism.

The ACT being out of touch is not a false conclusion. Happy to toss around what the root cause of that blind following of left wing nonsense might be, but the fact that it is the case, is self evident. Very curious what evidence there is that voting yes is indicative of being ‘better educated’ exactly? Especially given that voting yes for something that had zero detail is in and of itself reflective of ignorance, not education. Except of course if you actually bothered to read all 26 pages and get a handle on what the actual agenda is here – but not sure how many genderfluid uni students, cowering behind their man buns from the sun monster bother with inconvenient facts. Doesn’t seem to be their sphere of interest.

The education level in electorates was correlated with the % of Yes vote.

But it’s clearly not as simply as some people are making out, there are lots of variables impacting it.

Income level is also highly correlated with the Yes vote and education in general. Higher incomes were more supportive of Yes.

And age is a big factor too. As university education has become far more prevalent in recent decades, younger people are far more likely to have a higher level of education. Younger cohorts were always more heavily supportive of Yes regardless of other factors, which skews the data.

The thing is, all these factors are just-so stories unless they are interpreted as proxies for what most people are really interested in: where does power lie?

That’s the point of the class analysis. Social stratification is, directly, about social power. But “class” also, as an added extra, means the *culture within the social strata*, the ideas that circulate within one stratum and not the other. Class can’t be observed directly, because “power” is an abstract quality. So we use proxies. You could throw up a map of university education by electorate, or of wealth by electorate (I doubt ‘youth’ would show up as a distinctly spatial variable, but I might be wrong): and probably education/wealth would be highly correlated with each other across space, *and* correlated with the referendum results.

So I don’t think we need to shy away from grasping the nettle, which is analysis of referendum results by class analysis: the power to control society *plus* the ideology of that control, i.e. what ideas drive the rulers’ decisions. Just diverting to “educational levels” is pretty beige, when you can use it as a proxy for power and explain much more.

Amazing result when you consider the total saturation YES propaganda and the swarms of vote YES people all over the place with very few NO people representatives to be seen and the vast amount of money poured into the YES campaign. Did we ever miss a bullet! Victory for common sense and caution over virtue signaling.

Yeah, I really think the YES crowd have a distinct lack of understanding of the Australian psyche. When the average Aussie sees rich politicians, rich sports people, rich celebrities, multi-billion dollar corporations, sporting organisations etc, the so called “elites” of society all coming out and talking down to them and either heavily implying or outright calling them racist if they don’t vote how they are told, it is definitely not going to make them want to vote YES, in fact it is FAR more likely to make them want to metaphorically give them the middle finger.

Electorates near universities voted yes because ‘Yes’ was associated with younger voters and better educated voters. Several electorates produced stronger yes votes than any in the ACT. The result showed Canberra is the SAME as the rest of Australia, as Chewy 14 pointed out. Almost all these comments jumped to a (false) conclusion because they did not consider the demographic aspect.

You’re highlighting a subsidiary factor to stand as the main factor. The most striking feature of the results distribution was the high concentrations of “yes” in the inner city electorates, and the wealthy city-state of Canberra. (Of course not everyone is wealthy etc). While there were Yes votes elsewhere, they were in the minority right across Australia except in the wealthiest urban enclaves. So it’s a pretty clear correlation.

Your demographics: 1) In our post industrial economy, wealth is also highly associated with university credentials. And uni degrees are concentrated with wealth in “Teal” areas. (Yes others have uni degrees too etc). 2) Young people are more captured by ruling elite doctrine (it’s taught in schools), so tended not to question the “cool” decision to vote Yes.

But no matter, woke kids were outvoted everywhere except in the wealthy upper class city enclaves. The referendum results fell along a stark class divide, unusual to be exposed so plainly.

Clearly many dominantly “no” electorates still have ruling class / aspirational upper class elements (every town has its class structure), that would explain why ruling class “yes” ideology still had minority support in those seats. But in most electorates except inner city, the ruling classes are not numerically dominant. Class is after all a kind of pyramid: a privileged few in the knowledge economy at the top, pontificating to the vulgar masses below.

Also, in talking about class, this is not your granddad’s concept of class. You won’t hear it on the ABC, but there’s been a replacement of the old Melboune Club brigade with the hip graduate class, who don’t vote John Howard anymore, they vote Adam Bandt or Teal. That’s the new ruling class, asociated with a whole new ideology, and increasingly dominant in executive govt and corporate management.

The main point though, lest it be lost, I’ll repeat again: the referendum results demonstrated a very high correlation between social class (as indicated by geographical location/ spatial wealth patterns) and voting choice.

HiddenDragon9:33 pm 15 Oct 23

Looking at this result, and other signs of Canberra serving as a reliable contrarian indicator of opinion in the rest of the country, a government in search of more effective and appealing policy and program ideas could be forgiven for day-dreaming about the prospect of relocating PM&C, Treasury and Finance (and maybe a few others) to the outer suburbs of the state capitals.

Interesting that although over 60% of Canberrans voted yes, all but one of the comments so far seem to be from no voters. That’s 9 to 1.

Could it be that No voters are more interested in shouting their opinion than listening to another’s Voice?

Barr having himself on thinking this is yet another mark of the ACT’s “progress”, but he doesn’t have that much to crow about so anything will do. The rest of Australia are sensible thinkers, down to earth, hard workers and practical, they have little time for “Ken Behrens” whom they consider detached and uninterested in real Australia.

Balance needed4:43 pm 15 Oct 23

Now that the ACT has voted in favour of the Voice in a landslide, and almost all sides of ACT politics supported it, what is stopping the ACT from emulating South Australia and immediately legislating for a Voice to the ACT Legislative Assembly and Executive? Actions speak a lot louder than words.

The ACT already has an elected Indigenuous consultative body.


Given you don’t know we have one, nor that it was only voted on by 267 people. (16 or so candiates and 8 positions). You get more votes cast in a school election.

What is the value of it? Didn’t the act voice not get asked for their voice when going and supporting the yes campaign? what was the ACT voice’s position. No one knows.

Hardly surprising with the public servants being totally out of touch with the rest of the country. This referendum was flawed since it began but clearly all the warm and fuzzy non specific propaganda and constant contradictions didn’t sway those with no real understanding of life in the outback. Best go and have a soy milk decaf latte in the artisan bakery.

Cathy George3:06 pm 15 Oct 23

Why didn’t the Labor Party look at the Canadian solution “the full clause of the Constitution Act reads:35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples are hereby recognized and affirmed. (2) in this Act, Aboriginal Peoples of Canada include the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada” If only the question read — Should Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples be recognized In the Constitution–I would have voted YES.
“Another key example of delegated self-government is Canada’s Nunavut Parliament of Inuit people. This parliament has powers covering the administration justice, education and local taxation”. In the Australian proposal no details were provided on how members of the Voice would be chosen or how it would operate and for that reasons I voted NO . I am not a racist–I have been to the TSI and 5 Aboriginal Communities for several days and nights–not like our PM who drops in for a cuppa.

Gregg Heldon6:38 am 16 Oct 23

My thoughts, reasoning and actions exactly.

The ACT voted similarly to other city areas such as inner Melbourne/Sydney and Newcastle.

We simply don’t have any true regional or rural areas like the other states do.

Our super progressive electorate of Canberra was the 4th highest in the nation.

ACT just made the case to move the fed further away from canberra. Illegal drugs and now going against the vote.
Clearly this was a poll based on income. Those that earn enough not to care voted for the platitude.
Everyone else decided that $400 million and cheating was too much to pay.

“We are the progressive heart of the nation.”
Thank heavens the other 60% used their heads.

Yes canberra academic ideas have total control of the aboriginal agenda. Theirpolicy have been a massive failure and all the really do is lock in another generation to the cycle. The crow on about a voice , but won’t listen to the aboriginals on the ground that want a tougher approach. 400million wasted , the could have built several good boarding schools and provide the kids with a safe play to learn and sleep . I doubt any Ken berans will admit they on the wrong side of history

The laws of successful change were ignored with a terribly predictable result. You have to take people with you, which means early consultation, explanation and discussion, well before you pose the challenging questions & expectations. You have to anticipate the fears of people and provide answers that are real solutions to any problems, not just try to sell your concept without first consulting others and considering their needs.

A fully constructed solution by a small proportion of the population who understand the issues from their own perspectives does not mean others with different perspectives will see things as they do. The nature of the problems must be fully identified and understood by all stakeholders or they’ll reject the change. In organisational change, this is called identifying the ‘burning platform’ that needs to be extinguished. Truth telling must come first.

People need to be clear on the nature of the problems, their causes and the potential solutions as well as the reasons that those options are worth considering, the benefits they’ll bring and the costs that will be prevented by opting for them.

Another thing that wasn’t mentioned was the vote in the Northern Territory. The area of Australia that has the highest percentage of aboriginal people to their total population. If the YES crowd is to believed and this is highly popular with native people, this should lead to a higher YES vote than in other areas right?

Last I checked the NT votes 38% YES and 62% no. Combine this with the only statistically relevant polling of the attitudes of indigenous people which was released in the week before the referendum which showed 58% support.

It really makes you think when they can barely convince half of the aboriginal people that it’s a good idea and the largest population center, overwhelmingly voted NO…

Counting from the booths of the remote communities in the NT showed that in almost every case there was a majority vote for Yes, according to Antony Green.

I’d be pretty certain that the aboriginal people in those remote communities would have been bullied, corralled and shunted into supporting the YES cause by the activists – I doubt if even any of the arguments from the No campaign would have even allowed to be presented in those areas. Pretty certain about that – even if Green’s statement is true!

“He acknowledged a “vast majority” of referendums in the past have failed, but took heart that the debate in the Territory was “largely conducted without anger and hate”.

Wow, if he actually believes that, he should step outside his echo chamber occasionally and talk to people on the street as there has been nothing about this debate that has remained civil from the moment the topic was proposed.

“enough has been tallied to show that Australia has rejected Indigenous constitutional recognition.”

Nope, not at all. If the YES campaign was simply asking for constitutional recognition then it would have sailed through with bipartisan support and you know it.

What WAS rejected was what they were hiding behind the innocuous title of “constitutional recognition”. What they really wanted which was a special activist group guaranteed by the constitution, who’s sole purpose for existing is the advocacy of one race only, inserted into the middle of the political process.

They knew that if they fronted with that they would be handed an absolute crushing defeat (much worse than the one they got) so they tried to hide it behind something inoffensive and thought the Australian people would be stupid enough to just buy their highly dishonest proposition on face value and not ask any questions.

Thankfully they were wrong.

William Newby1:30 pm 15 Oct 23

Shows just how out of step we all are with the rest of Australia. Nothing to crowe about here. The postcodes that did strongly support yes were the wealthy upper class, not the middle class working poor that much of an Australia now is, and would ultimately have to pay for all these themes.
Albanese squandered this once in a generation opportunity by putting forward a poorly designed idea that was grossly lacking in detail. Those that did vote yes obviously have greater blind faith in the Labor party and in our ability to deliver on big policies.
Me, I’m always skeptical of anything big mingling companies, big banks, and big airlines try and force us to support.
Qantas in particular; why would a company that is in court for mistreating it’s staff, is also in court for mistreating it’s customers, and is also before the senate for manipulating and blocking a competitive market.. do anything just for the social good of it? I have no trust in any of these large businesses, and they have no place in manipulating our democracy (or at least attempting to!).

Of course, the left have been the party of the so called “elites” for a very long time now. Look at voting maps, their voters aren’t your average struggling “battler” they ARE the inner city, very well paid, latte sipping, virtue signalling crowd.

For anyone who denies this, look at who came out to show their support: Rich politicians, Rich sports stars, Rich celebrities, multi billion dollar companies, sporting federations etc.

The left stopped being the political party of the average person a LONG time ago. People just hadn’t caught up until now but I think the hateful, condescending and insulting way they have conducted themselves during this giant mess may open more than a few eyes as to what the modern left actually is.

Actually, we’re very much in step with the 40% of Australians who voted ‘yes’! The postcodes who voted yes were the best educated populations, which might be why they understood that the Constitution contains little detail and is purposely stated in broad terms without detail to enable flexibility for decision-making by the Parliament as Australian communities and the world changes.

This site needs a Like button. I totally agree with everything you said.

The Rumpus is spot on. Totally out of touch with the rest of Australia and we are the home of the machinery of Federal (and ACT) Govt. It is no wonder the Gap fails to close any time soon. Just do your job and creatively, go to outlying places and collaborate. Not enough has been said about this but we do NOT need Reconciliation. We had little to do with the past, so give that one up too. Get over it. Those that want to get on will do so, and those that can’t be bothered will always be left behind.

Rob McGuigan12:53 pm 15 Oct 23

Yep true a resounding Yes vote in the ACT, but more than countered by a resounding NO vote everywhere else. And I stress ” everywhere else.” That was Albanese’s problem that he took far too much notice of the always left of centre Canberra bubble and other city-centric electorates. If Albanese had bothered to travel to the regions and actually listened those electorates concerns he may have acted differently, but I doubt it.

I have friends working in both federal and local government and they have been bombarded with YES propaganda since day one in the workplace. Not a single piece of content be it e-mails, messages or having the background set on their desktop has advocated for the other side of the debate.

You have to wonder what kind of effect that had on the vote?

pink little birdie10:19 am 16 Oct 23

I think your friends and family are probably lying. Every federal public service department is required to be political neutral and not campaign for either side.

Actually, it was on RiotAct maybe 3 weeks ago or so, there was a decision, I think it was Cwlth but maybe ACT govt, that people didn’t need to hide their political leanings in govt offices, as long as that doesn’t spill over into client service.

Then there’s the social dynamic: in elite-dominated circles (including aspirational, class-conscious, management and professional environments), “no” was de-facto designated as a racist position. So you’re not going to espouse your “no” points in the office, unless you want receive a lot of personal attack.

Unpleasant I know, but the whole affair was marred by elitists and their dogmatic followers not hesitating to bully, ostracise and undermine anyone not in their camp. You can deny it if you need to stay in your bubble, but that’s not a lie.

Too many public servants hanging around the café, waiting for their soy latte

This is a good time to reflect on larger implications of the clear-cut results.

Over four decades or more, the “progressive left” have had a monopoly over the indigenous policy space. They have become a kind of priesthood whose pronouncements come from supposed transcendental truth (Grievance Studies 101, it’s called).

Yet, over the reign of this divine priesthood, the “gap” has widened ever further. In short, they’ve spectacularly botched it. Clearly their “divine” knowledge is a crock. But do you think the priestly caste have the humility for introspection about their dogma? Of course not! Their schtick is, as their ship sinks, to blame all their failures on “racism”. They more they fail, the more they scream racism: “It’s racism wot dunnit, it’s the rotten lower classes. Not us, we’re *always* right.”

I mention class, because there’s now evidence, from the referendum results, that this is clearly a social class phenomenon. The only places “yes” got up, i.e. the fashionable dogma of the priesthood, were the wealthy inner-urban capital city seats, and Canberra. Exactly where the priesthood lives. Exactly the wealthiest enclaves of Australian society. The “progressive left” priesthood is a ruling class elite, there’s now no doubt about it.

And when the priesthood and their acolytes rubbish everyone who is sceptical of their claims as “racist”, “”bigoted”, ignorant”, “brainwashed”, “reprehensible” and so on, we now have no doubt, this is the social class behaviour of “punching down”, of class-based contempt dressed up as noblesse-oblige concern for the oppressed. Because, the priesthood says, if you’re not with us, you’re a fascist misinformation-addled conspiracy theorist who hates the oppressed. That’s the cultural capital the ruling class used up in their campaign. No rational arguments, just relentless punching down on the lower classes, relentless personal attacks. And now, those of us who don’t believe the priesthood have all felt the sting of the lash, and we’ve learned how to handle it. So “progressive” ruling elites, “progressively” maintaining and consolidating your class privilege, hear this: you’ve called the majority of the country racist ignorant bigots, and we weren’t bullied into submission to you.

So come on, members of the priestly caste and apologists for the priesthood (combined, that’s the majority here in Canberra): reply back that I’m an ignorant bigot talking out of turn, acting above my place in society, evidently insane for challenging the priestly truths. Come on. Because I’ve got *lots* more to say about you.

Bingo Rusty. As I said in an earlier comment; I think this whole mess is going to open up a whole bunch of people’s eyes as to exactly what the modern “progressive” left actually are.

And it only cost $450M+ to get where we started.

I actually hoped that we might see some self reflection from the media today. Perhaps some insightful introspection on the real reasons for this vote, what it means and how Indigenuous disadvantage could be truly addressed without the constant victimhood mentality.

But sadly no, reading the left wing media and even most of the supposed moderate media today, they still can’t bring themselves to do it.

Everyone is apparently even more racist than we thought. *facepalm*

Also ironic that a lot of commenters on other sites are blaming “white people”, when the predominantly white, middle/upper class electorates voted Yes. No mention of how areas with large migrant populations voted……

Brian Dunnigan11:48 am 15 Oct 23

This was one of the easiest votes I’ve ever had. As someone who voted YES in the all-white referendum to end Apartheid, voting NO was easy. All through this “campaign” I heard things that made my NO vote easier and easier. Explain your reasoning clearly and try to take everyone with you. Oh, and try not to call them (the voters) racists. That undermines your argument.

The problem is that the entire voice debate became one big political mud fight rather than a sound debate about the benefits, disadvantages and content of the voice.

Agree wholeheartedly! The issues were lost in the politics.

Canberra – out of touch wealthy elites, who thought voting yes would give them morale standing.

The ACT has proven once again how a false economy, sheltered from the real world, populated by slew of ignorant well to do public servants, devoid of an original thought has no clue about the real world. Maybe the place should wake up to itself. Even the people you apparently voted for this on behalf of, didn’t want it. Dial down the moronic, uninformed empathy driven, socialist nonsense.

I don’t get it. Counted BEAN votes from 3 ballot boxes. Our box was about 1,800 NO to 1,500 YES. Same with the other tables. More NO than YES. What gives?

Boxes from the Deep South? (Deliverance plays in the background).


Same pattern in most cities, the further you moved away from the inner city, the worse the Yes vote got.

Interesting. Compare outer ‘burbs Bean (56% yes) and electoral division of Canberra (70% yes). Canberra (electoral division of) is the inner city electorate here. More of the higher level executives, academics, knowledge workers, corporate managers and arts aficionados. And surprise surprise, they vote following their ruling class peers in the state capital inner city seats. This is the best exposee of ruling class behaviour for years. Fantastic.

mongoose38009:45 am 15 Oct 23

Canberrans are wrong thinking we are the most inclusive and progressive jurisdiction because the result for Canberra was YES. Educate yourselves and delve into the results by electorate. Other Capital cities also voted majority YES. Overwhelmingly, It’s the regions that voted NO. The simple fact is we City Slickers in our cosy existance have a different view of the world compared to regional Australia.

I am disappointed but not surprised, given how toxic the debate became. I wonder if the 1967 referendum had been held today, would it have also failed. How did we go so far backwards?

William Newby1:40 pm 15 Oct 23

I did not see any toxic debating going on.
In fact I found it hard to find any real debate at all.
Albo put forward a half baked idea that would have received greater (majority) support had he bothered to map out his vision with adequate detail.

Gregg Heldon6:50 am 16 Oct 23

Megsy, I truly believe that if constitutional recognition was separated from the voice question, constitutional recognition would have gotten about 95% of the vote.

Andrew Sutton8:30 am 15 Oct 23

I’m sure I will get taken to task by fellow Canberrans, but as evidenced by other news sites, we are being lambasted for being out of step with the rest of the country. Maybe we need to get out of our bubble and see how the real world (country) operates. Personally I am over the left wing woke society we have become.

Bye. I (and I suspect many others) live in Canberra _because_ of the bubble. I reject your theory that all the people and places with the opposite world view to me is “the real world”. Also, if you feel that way about Canberra, wouldn’t stepping out of Canberra be stepping into the bubble? haha

Well said! And good on you for expressing your view. We don’t all have to be sheep following the crowd. If we were, there would be no original ideas and let’s face it, there is lots of creativity and innovation in Canberra.

The communities with the highest Indigenous populations in the country resoundingly rejected the Voice to Parliament referendum, despite the Yes campaign consistently referencing outdated polls which suggested overwhelming indigenous support. The highest % No votes were in WA, Qld and NT. Clearly the high Yes vote in the ACT shows just how out of touch Canberra Yes voters are with the rest of Australia and with regional indigenous voters. So the claims of 80% indigenous support were just misinformation, distortions or outright lies on the part of the misguided Yes campaign. This will be remembered as the doomed, devisive and deceptive referendum we did not have to have.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.