The Voice referendum: what will be WA's say?

With the referendum looming, questions over what the change to our Constitution will potentially mean still linger in the broader community.

This confusion is not too dissimilar to the anxiety that still surrounds the ACH legislation, nearly two weeks after the laws have come into effect.

No doubt, it will be this lack of clarity on what powers the Voice has over the broader community that could encourage many of WA's voters to err on the side of caution on polling day.

As a result of the ACH legislative reforms, it could be argued the WA public is now all too aware of the very real implications such a change to Australia's Constitution could have, not only on their everyday activities, but on their livelihoods.

On the Federal government's website, it states that the Voice would be "an independent and permanent advisory body that would give advice to the Australian Parliament and government on matters that affect the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples".

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have called for members of the Voice to be chosen by First Nations peoples based on the wishes of local communities.

However a recent poll taken in June by Farm Weekly's parent company Australian Community Media (ACM) through the organisation's research arm Chi Squared, asking how 10,131 people (mostly ACM readers but also others including metropolitan non-readers) will vote in the upcoming referendum, showed just 38 per cent support the Voice, while 55pc will back the No vote and a further 7pc were undecided.

Among respondents in the regions, the No vote grew to 57pc cent while the Yes vote shrank to 35pc.

Last week another national media poll also returned its first majority support for the No vote, with 47pc indicating they would not support the referendum, and 43pc indicating they would.

New South Wales and Victoria were the only two States that returned majority Yes votes, while the majority of No votes were recorded in WA, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania.

The latest results signalled a decline in Yes voters, as a previous national media poll from June 4, had support for the Voice at 46pc, with 43pc opposed and 11pc undecided.

In order for the referendum to be successful a 'double majority' must vote Yes to the proposed change to the Constitution.

A double majority means more than 50pc of the national population and a majority in at least four out of the six States must vote yes.

While acknowledging that "something needs to be done" to address the issues being confronted by Australia's indigenous population, well-known WA York farmer Tony Seabrook has offered his personal view, saying he strongly opposed to the Voice because he does not believe it will achieve what people think it will.

"I have seen far too many of these virtue signalling, lip service exercises by government," Mr Seabrook said

"I think the voice will be exactly that.

"Some might say this is racism but it is far from that.

"It is based on a firm belief that we need to be far better in addressing the issues confronting those of the indigenous population that are disadvantaged."

Mr Seabrook encouraged WA's farmers to be "implacable" in their opposition to the Voice, saying it would empower a tiny percentage of the population in a way that no other group was being empowered.

"The moderates will sell this and think they are going to control it and the radicals will grab hold of it and run with it once it's in place," Mr Seabrook said.

READ MORE:

In light of recent polls indicating the majority of voters are not in favour of the Yes vote, Mr Seabrook said he was outraged that big corporations that had roots in the rural community had followed in the footsteps of mining giants by donating millions towards the Yes campaign.

"That's shareholders money they are spending... how dare they use their companies to influence and promote a view that now seems to be held by less than 50pc of the population," Mr Seabrook said.

"Why would they, or should they, want to be part of this divisive debate?"

These sentiments were echoed by fellow well-known farm leader Trevor Whittington who also shared his personal views.

"There seems to be a collective view from the corporate elites that they can put in - not their own personal money, but shareholder's money behind the Yes vote," Mr Whittington said.

He said these organisations had deep links to regional WA, but seemed to have been captured by the progressive agenda and had somehow forgotten where they come from.

Mr Whittington said he had "no doubt" the recent uproar around the ACH act had the potential to swing many WA voters toward the No vote and could be one of the critical issues that influenced people's decisions.

He said vast amounts of bureaucratic time would be wasted by the Voice, as he expected the group would demand meetings, briefings and documents before they set out their "views and demands on everything from the live export trade to carbon farming taxes".

"One could ask how they could possibly have a position on live exports and the answer is anything to do with the land and their beliefs can be translated to any policy," Mr Whittington said.

"Think of issues around the use of ag chemicals, GM crops, irrigation water from rivers and aquafers or the burning of stubble and its impact on the soil - the Voice may well need to be consulted.

"They will be a key decision maker that the farming and mining industry will need to factor into the political equation.

"They will be in a vastly more powerful position than the 500-plus peak lobbying bodies in Canberra that all struggle to gain the attention of the government."

While Mr Seabrook, who is the president of the Pastoralists and Graziers' Association (PGA) of WA said the group would not be taking a formal position on the Voice, Mr Whittington, who is the WAFarmers chief executive, said there was still a possibility of his group taking a stance, one way or the other.

"It might come up at our General Section meeting, but we haven't had any motions come up on the Voice from our various zones as yet, and they typically set our agenda," Mr Whittington said.

In Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney's controversial speech at The National Press Club last week, which received both acclaim and disdain from the Australian public, she said the simple answer to why the Voice was needed is because "the gap isn't closing fast enough".

Citing new data last month which showed just four out of 19 closing the gap targets are on track, she said for too long governments have made policies for indigenous Australians, not with Indigenous Australians.

"We need the Voice to change that," Ms Burney said.

Stating that the proposed change is constitutionally sound and legally safe, she provided two reasons for the Voice needing to be in the Constitution rather than just legislated.

"One: A Voice or representative body cannot be truly independent or give frank advice if the government of the day can abolish it with a stroke of the pen," Ms Burney said.

"Two: It's what First Nations people requested in the Uluru Statement from the Heart."

Ms Burney said by making the change to the Constitution it also meant the Voice would not be distracted by three-year election cycles.

"It will plan for the next generation, not the next term," she said.

"It will be focussed on making a better future for the next generation.

"The time to make a generational difference is now."