27 May 2025

Hubris over Voice referendum gave Coalition false hope for federal election

| Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
68
Australian flag, Australian Aboriginal Flag, Torres Strait Islander flag.

The Coalition read far too much into the nation’s rejection of the Voice referendum and what it would mean for the federal election. Photo: Michelle Kroll.

On 30 January 2024, Region published an article quoting a Canberra-based political data analyst saying the Coalition should not be reading too much into its win in the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum the year before.

Research from Data on Demand showed that a thorough study of all available polling results from shortly after the October 2023 referendum and every week for a few months revealed the Voice outcome was more specific than some political pundits had been suggesting.

Data on Demand managing director and head of research Justin Lazic said at the time that conservative voters and politicians would be foolish to draw anything wider from the referendum’s result than the answer to that poll’s question.

He said the immediate media coverage about the perceived impact the Voice had on voting intentions should be more readily compared to the coverage of Anthony Albanese’s gaffe on day one of the 2022 election campaign (when he stumbled over the unemployment figure and the official cash rate – because he didn’t know them).

It caused a brief shock, but nothing to disturb the long-run trend.

The Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum result didn’t mean Australia was flocking to the conservative side of politics, according to this one political analyst.

“All of this data is based on post-referendum analysis, and this indicates to me that the referendum result does not directly translate to voting intentions,” Mr Lazic said in January last year.

“The Voice result was about exactly that and nothing more.”

That analysis and those comments were made more than a year before the last federal election held this month (3 May).

The consensus at the time, however, was otherwise.

The Coalition had momentum that would build all the way to the Lodge in 2025, was the catchcry of conservative politicians and voters alike.

As the election proved, Mr Lazic was correct (as was Region in publishing the line), while other ‘wise heads’ turned out to be flat wrong.

That point was reinforced in Monday night’s 4 Corners program that dissected the Coalition’s worst ever election loss, which was also the first election to claim an Opposition Leader’s own seat.

READ ALSO Husic is using his new backbench role to great effect

Commentary from Liberal and National party insiders, past ministers and shadow ministers, explored how the Coalition’s push to the right under Peter Dutton resulted in an electoral wipeout.

“We alienated women. We offended public servants. We offended multicultural communities. We insulted people who live in the inner cities,” former Liberal minister George Brandis said.

“It was almost as if we were running out of new people to offend.

“I think people who say that it was just because of a bad campaign, that we got the worst result we’ve ever got and ignore the orientation of the party and the image of itself that it projected to the community over some years, are kidding themselves.”

Mr Brandis also talked of the Coalition leadership speaking to an “echo chamber” of far-right conservatives (don’t you just love Brandis’ use of the language?)

Liberal frontbencher Andrew Hastie contributed, among other things, that the Coalition went into the campaign with a misplaced overconfidence due to the Voice result.

The party wrongly thought most of those who had voted against the Voice would now also vote against Labor.

READ ALSO Nationals’ dummy spit hands Labor an even sweeter victory

“People saw that he [Albanese] was prepared to go hard for an idea even if he was going to fail,” Mr Hastie said.

“And I think you can’t quantify that, but … certainly, I think it reflected that people thought he had some convictions.

“He put a referendum, he lost and moved on. But at least people, I think in the end, saw that he was willing to follow through on it.”

Former federal Liberal MP and former NSW president of the party, Jason Falinski, said the Coalition hadn’t hit rock bottom when asked by 4 Corners.

But he added this little gem: “There’s further for us to go, but that’s necessary. I think we’ve put off a lot of arguments for a long time, and it’s time to have it out.”

That’s playing out right now as the Liberals and Nationals continue their on-again, off-again soap opera over how far right they should position themselves, what policies should be retained or dumped, and if they even want to be in a coalition at all.

It seems that in the end, it wasn’t just Mr Albanese who took a whack from the Voice referendum.

The Coalition’s hubris over it caught up with it, too.

Free Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? We package the most-read Canberra stories and send them to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.
Loading
By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Join the conversation

68
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

There’s another fascinating aspect to Albo’s election win.

It’s the first time in 32 years that a Labor government has been re-elected in its own right.

What about the 2010 election?

@megsy
Despite the fact that Penfold’s statistic is meaningless, megsy, he is correct … the 2010 election resulted in a minority Labor government.

HiddenDragon9:48 pm 27 May 25

Voice-related hubris was almost certainly a large factor in the result on 3 May, but if anything, the bigger mistake made by the Coalition in the recent election was to emulate Labor’s failed approach over the Voice.

After first hearing about the Voice and the related agenda on election night in 2022, the majority of voters (i.e. those who don’t dwell exclusively on planet ABC/SBS/Guardian) were treated with glib condescension during the Voice campaign. The basic message boiled down to “don’t ask questions, just trust us and vote for the Voice – because only deplorables could fail to see the virtue and wisdom of it”.

Without the heavy-handed moral overtones, the Coalition’s 2025 election campaign was largely a mirror image of that approach – “don’t ask about the costs and practicalities of nuclear power, or the impacts of cutting tens of thousands of public sector jobs, or how we could uniquely win an exemption from the Trump tariffs, or what we would do differently about defence – just vote for us because we’re better at that stuff”.

It might have made sense to dwellers on planet Sky After Dark/Fox, but clearly not to a majority of voters.

As if to suggest that federal politics is a zero sum game of ping-pong hubris and looking backwards, Labor seems to believe that the nation needs another term of debt-funded populist progressivism when the times we are in clearly demand much more guts and honesty.

More of the same might win the next election or two, but would come to be bitterly regretted as a monumentally wasted opportunity – like a Labor re-run of the Fraser government.

Labor delivered two budget surpluses which is two more more than the last LNP government but do tell us more about “debt-funded populist progressivism”….I love fantasy stories.

Capital Retro4:22 pm 28 May 25

Labor left the “off balance sheet” stuff out of the equation, Seano.
I know you will do an extensive search and report back that the “all of the above is wrong” but that’s what you are paid for, isn’t it?

The Voice Referendum could have been a launching pad for the coalition going into the 2025 election. That’s because a lot of people who normally vote Labor listened to the arguments against the Voice, and were thus more open to listening to the LNP than normal. While “if you don’t know, vote no” was a catchy slogan, I think the message that it would be fundamentally unfair to enshrine an ethnically based voice to parliament in the constitution was the argument that truly defeated the referendum.

The referendum had to be followed up with strong messaging on what was going wrong in the economy and with housing supply, and linking that to errors of the Albanese government. Then that had to be followed up with sensible policies that could plausibly improve the situation.

While lots of people knew they weren’t happy early in the year, as evidenced by the polling numbers that had the coalition in front, I don’t think the LNP did enough to convince people that Labor was the problem, or even a big part of it. Then that was followed up by policies that were off target and a campaign that emphasised second order issues rather than getting to the crux of the issue. The LNP needed to channel Clinton’s “it’s the economy, stupid” and they did not.

“The Voice Referendum could have been a launching pad for the coalition going into the 2025 election. “….lol what election did you just watch Peter Dutton lose?

The mistake the far right keep making with the voice in thinking that it was a huge win in the culture wars was that it was DOA the moment it wasn’t put up as a bipartisan proposition…the “Yes” campaign was poorly run and the “No” scare campaign was a free hit but it did not matter it had no chance from the get go.

And the idea that Dutton only had to go hard on economic messaging when all the issues you mention weren’t addressed during the previous LNP government, many of them got worse and most can remember Dutton’s performance as the worst Health Minister in 35 years is amusing.

You must have missed the bit where I said it COULD have been, if followed up properly, which it was not. Anyone who thinks I’m far right hasn’t been paying attention to what I write in this forum, and if they have and they still think that, it suggests they’re way off on the far left and don’t know where the middle actually lies.

No I got it, it was nonsense.

The mistake people keep making about the referendum result is to forget that a big part of the no campaign was the “If you don’t know, vote no” strategy. While this was a clever ruse if you wanted to doom a referendum, it is a big leap to assume that people were anti Labor; anti caring about Indigenous issues or pro Dutton. Many people voted no because they simply didn’t understand what the referendum was about or they didn’t have an opinion. This is a failing of the yes campaign for not explaining it better, but it does not mean the majority of people wanted Dutton’s view of the world.

Well said.

Everything I’ve seen from the right and particularly repeated ad nauseam on they Trumpian Skynews is that the Coalition didn’t go hard enough on culture wars….it’s my understanding a lot of which is pushed by the Abbott/Credlin wing of the Liberal party. It’s a view that completely mistakes Skynews/Newscorps impact, the Australian electoral system and Australians in general.

It’s a mistake I hope they continue to make (and they seemingly are determined to do so) because none of them are fit to be anywhere near power.

I understood the referendum. I also understood the ‘yes’ argument, which was divorced from the wording of the referendum. I voted ‘no’ because shoehorning an advisory committee into the constitution is simply bad governance. There were easier ways to get the same outcomes that the ‘yes’ side were arguing for.
So, the current election ‘scare element’ of Labor wanting to legislate the Voice had no effect on me. That would have been a better approach in the first place, instead of the referendum. To put this comment in context, I am not a Labor voter.

DJA, its good you formed an opinion on it. I’m not saying everyone who voted no did so out of lack of information. I’m saying there was a proportion of voters who either didn’t understand the issues or who didn’t care. The No camp knew they existed which is why they went hard on the “If you don’t know, vote no” message – knowing, because of the way our referendums work, that would be enough to derail the process. It was actually a clever strategy. However, the Liberal strategists made the mistake of forgetting how hard that message was pushed in the referendum and then assumed that everyone who voted no was ready to jump on their bandwagon on everything. That was the mistake.

“I voted ‘no’ because shoehorning an advisory committee into the constitution is simply bad governance.”…no it’s not. Because….”There were easier ways to get the same outcomes that the ‘yes’ side were arguing for.”…is nonsense. Without the independence from party political process the cannot be independent and fearless advice.

Apparently you didn’t really understand the proposal.

Seano, I put it to you that it’s you who didn’t understand the long term impacts of the proposal, and your relentless refusal to acknowledge there were valid reasons for voting against it is revealing. According to your world view, 60% of the populace must be either inherently nasty or fundamentally IQ challenged.

What a load of strawman garbage. I didn’t say or imply any of that. But an unsurprising tactic of someone who elsewhere claims not to be far right wing….as culture warriors so often do.

There were no long term impacts other than a standing advisory committee on indigenous issues elected by indigenous communities. That’s it.

@Seano: how to tell everyone that you don’t understand governments and governance without actually say you don’t understand governments and governance!

It’s quiet hilarious reading the conservative take on politics of people like Penfold & then the views of Labor acolytes like Seano on these pages.
Both sides are in right & left echo chambers.

It’s wonderful reading all the advice from left leaning commentators about the causes of the Coalition election debacle.

Rather than really clever analysis about nuclear, net zero, the voice, hubris and so on have a look at the polls. The Coalition were ahead in the 2PP and had a primary vote around 40% when the election was called. Election winning numbers on the back of nuclear, the voice and the incompetence of the Albanese government.

By election day this had shrunk to 32%. Due to a shocking campaign by Dutton, a strong campaign by Albo and a bunch of pure lies including mediscare, $600 billion nuclear porkies and keeping Bowen in a cupboard.

Labor achieved 34% of the vote, hardly a strong or popular performance. Hubris is what we’re already seeing from Labor and 2028 might bring all sorts of surprises.

Chris Johnson10:45 am 27 May 25

Andrew Hastie a left leaning commentator? Hmmm.

@Penfold
“Labor achieved 34% of the vote, hardly a strong or popular performance.”
PMSL … you talk about the Liberals 40% 2PP standing, in polling in the lead up to the election, and then revert to Labor’s actual primary vote of 34% – which I might add compared very favourably to the Liberal’s 20%.

That 34-20% primary vote comparison, translated to 58-42% on 2PP, or the very real 93 to 43 HoR seats. Despite your attempted spin, that IS a “strong or popular performance”.

Hi Chris – no you’d never call Hastie a left winger, but in what context do you ask ? From what I can tell his post-election comments so far have included suggesting to dump net zero – a no brainer in my view. He’s also discussed failing to counter Labor’s “Trumpian attacks”, saying it was a “bad campaign” and noting the “under-the-radar savage personal attacks” on Dutton.

The Coalition won’t win anything trying to be Labor lite, they need differentiation which they failed poorly on. Get back to basics – fiscal repair, debt reduction, get the energy market under control, focus on national security.

It’s been an eye opener reading the expert opinions of the Fairfax crowd and the ABC, who never held Labor to account for their shocking policies and even worse delivery, yet are now experts on telling the Coalition what their mistakes were.

What a bizarre post JS. If you go back and read the post it discussed the 40% Coalition primary vote which at the time translated to 52-48 2PP.

The final election number was 54.7 to 45.3 2PP. How you’d ever describe getting barely a third of the national vote as a strong performance is beyond me. It was Labor’s third worst performance in its history.

“The Coalition were ahead in the 2PP and had a primary vote around 40% when the election was called.”…they had no primary vote when the election was called that’s not how it works…you keep making this bizarre claim.

It’s laughable to suggest that the polling was right and the mood only shifted during the election because Labor were a bit mean….but you and Tony Abbott and Peta Credlin keep believing that…the failure to address the coalition’s failures will keep this version of the coalition out of office for a long time to come.

Chris Johnson1:21 pm 27 May 25

In the context of the article you’re commenting on. Andrew Hastie is quoted suggesting the Coalition went into the campaign with a misplaced overconfidence due to the Voice result. Your immediate response was to say the article was left wing commentary.

Fair enough Chris, though my comment was about left leaning commentary more broadly.

As watching the 4 Corners would be like having a tooth extraction without anaesthetic i didn’t pay much attention to it but fair enough, add it to the list of reasons the Coalition lost.

But perhaps now that Labor have received a cherished second term we’ll see and read some more balanced and objective analysis from many media commentators.

“But perhaps now that Labor have received a cherished second term we’ll see and read some more balanced and objective analysis from many media commentators.”

Principal Skinner: “…Am I so out of touch? No. It’s the children who are wrong.”

@Penfold
LOL … you really are clutching at straws now, Penfold.

Yes, it may have been Labor’s third lowest primary vote %ge in its history. Given the Coalition primary vote was even worse, it just proves the voting trend away from the major parties. However, that trend, didn’t translate into actual seats won – at last AEC count 94 (Labor) to 43 (Coalition).

No matter how you ‘slice the cake’, Labor has delivered an electoral drubbing to the Coalition, on whatever measure you care to present.

Check it out on the official AEC site (https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDefault-31496.htm) and then come back and tell us where it was not a strong performance by Labor in comparison to the Coalition.

JS – presumably you’re retracting your wild numbers of earlier. They were odd.

Labor clearly performed better that the Coalition, their best ever relative performance. But achieving barely 1/3rd of the national vote is not anything sensible Labor strategists will be gloating about. Just their one-eyed supporters clearly.

Whilst primary votes are important and all parties would be keen to raise theirs as Labor did at the recent election, it’s not a first past the post system and no one votes as if it is. It may be a Skynews talking point to save face for the Coalition but it’s puerile nonsense to suggest primary vote is significant indicator of what the electorate does or doesn’t want. It’s certainly not a suggestion that was valid when ScoMo won government and it’s not valid now. The Australia people got their preferred government as they always do.

As for gloating, the only gloating I’ve seen were coalition boosters before the election posting scornfully about the coming Dutton government and literally waving Albo goodbye. Oh and Jane Hume on an election panel also boasting about the coming Dutton government at the start of election night before denying the obvious as the disaster unfolded for the Liberal party.

@Penfold
Yes – I did get the final 2PP numbers wrong, as did you. On 2PP according to latest count on AEC Tally Room (I provided the link above), it’s 55.03% – ALP to 44.97% – Coalition.

In a preferential voting election, two-thirds of voters didn’t give their first preference to ALP. So what?

On preferences, Labor won 62.66% (94) of total available seats (150), which is:
1. An increased majority, with a gain of 17 seats on 2022 outcome;
2. The highest number of seats held by Labor in its history; and
3. Second in the percentage of total Labor seats held in a parliament – the first place holder, being John Curtin’s 1943 victory of 49 seats out of 74 (66.22%).

So, while you are entitled to your, some would say foolishly misguided, opinion, I don’t believe sensible Labor strategists will see the campaign as anything but an overwhelming success and a ‘job well done’.

Oh, for the record, as an independent voter, I’m still gloating over David Pocock almost doubling his primary vote, and clearly out-polling Labor and Katy Gallagher, in the ACT Senate race.

Independent voter JS ? I had to look up that term you used – PMSL – but that would seem appropriate to that comment. Based on your commentary a strong left-leaning bias would be more accurate, especially as you voted for Pocock.

We seem to be running into another mathematics issue. 2/3rds of voters did not want a Labor government. That doesn’t bode well for the future for them. Remember when Rudd won in 2007, it was going to be 10 years of Labor. Then but for the misrepresentation of Oakshott and Windsor in not supporting their conservative electorates, Abbott would have been PM in 2010.

Hopefully the Coalition do an good review and make some honest, fair dinkum decisions in the next three years. Albo’s been the worst PM in living memory, i’m wondering if hubris and incompetence will do him in in 2028.

@Penfold
What mathematics issue?

Ummm … go back and read my comment, Penfold … I said “… two-thirds of voters didn’t give their first preference to ALP. So what?”

NEWS FLASH: We have a preferential voting system … the voters gave two thirds of the available seats to the Labor government. Please keep up!

As for your little tanty – as previously stated, you are entitled to your opinion

“We seem to be running into another mathematics issue. 2/3rds of voters did not want a Labor government. “

This is not remotely true of any government (Labor or Liberal) in our preferential voting system.

It doesn’t matter how often you repeat the claim it’s still puerile nonsense.

@Penfold
PS Interesting that you deride my “independent voter” status because I voted for Pocock.

It took some time, but I thought I remembered this:
“Penfold 12:19 pm 24 Apr 25
The only independents who act independently are Pocock and Haines.”

Hypocrisy sausage anyone?

JS you seem to think that a preferential system means you can claim 55% 2PP means they all wanted a Labor government. They didn’t. 55% preferred Labor over the Coalition, but they didn’t want Labor.

This is simple logic, to logical people at least. And simple maths.

And thanks for allowing me to have an opinion, you’re too kind.

Lol JS. Independent and left-leaning are not mutually exclusive. Since you need everything explained, Pocock is independent but he’s also very left.

@Penfold
If you understand that independent and left-leaning are not mutually exclusive, why did you have to look up the meaning of “independent voter”? Oh and define “very left”?

@Penfold
“55% preferred Labor over the Coalition, but they didn’t want Labor”
And you know this because? Face it , Penfold, you don’t like the outcome of the election so you are clinging to any straw you can find.

Forget the 32% primary vote. Forget the 55% 2PP vote favouring Labor.

The reality is the electorate, knowing we have a preferential voting system, has democratically decided that they want the Labor Government to have an overwhelming majority of seats, that’s 94 out of 150, in the lower house.

It’s illogical to infer anything else … the maths do not lie.

Capital Retro10:52 am 28 May 25

Yes, only lefties chain themselves to excavators at coal mines and then escape convictions.

JS – i didn’t lookup that term, perhaps read the words again. It’s becoming a bit of a recurring theme.

Btw sorry to split hairs but you seem to be referring to statistics not maths.

As for Pocock, his policies on climate, immigration and inclusion are very much left.

@Penfold
I took your advice, Penfold.
“Penfold 5:42 pm 27 May 25
“Independent voter JS ? I had to look up that term you used ….”
So when exactly does ‘I had to look up that term’ mean “I didn’t look up that term”? Yes, your inability to recall your own words is becoming a recurring theme.

Hey, split hairs as much as you like … but al least do so correctly. Statistics is a branch of maths – as is fractions, like 94/150.

As for Pocock’s progressive views “climate, immigration and inclusion” – they are certainly left, but “very” is subjective … however, as previously stated you are entitled to your opinion. However, your opinion doesn’t negate the fact that he also had an overwhelming victory in the ACT Senate race. Oh … and yes, I am gloating 😁

I guess given your lack of anything cogent to add, we can consider this matter concluded.

If I use Penfold’s logic that 66% did not want the ALP (albeit nearly 55% preferred them to a Lib/NP/LNP/CLP alternative) then by the same process near 80% of the population did not want the Liberals, and 68% did not want any of that Lib/NP/LNP/CLP conglomerate at all. Therefore the ALP were well-deserved winners on all counts.

JS i had to look up “PMSL”.

UM – yes you have the logic correct. Except for ignoring the LNP.

@Penfold
I’ll concede that then … and I see you have acquiesced to the rest of my post. Matter definitely concluded.

Do you read, Penfold? I did not ignore that which I listed twice, and the final results stand: near 80% rejected the Liberal party and 68% wanted anything but that conglomerate, by your process.

Reality is more reasonable, 55:45 to the ALP side vs the conglomerate.

Well UM yes i think i can read. The L in LNP stands for Liberals, so on a hair splitting exercise you misrepresented their vote.

JS – not sure i did that, i’m still trying to determine how 58-42 got posted in any “analysis”.

@Penfold
Typo – just like your 54.7 to 45.3 2PP “analysis” … but you hang on to that mistake of mine, Penfold … it’s the only ‘victory’ you’ve got

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Region Canberra 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.