Content warning: This article contains references to traumatic events that may be distressing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers

The University of Queensland (UQ) acknowledges the Traditional Owners and their custodianship of the lands on which UQ operates. We pay our respects to their Ancestors and their descendants, who continue cultural and spiritual connections to Country. We recognise their valuable contributions to Australian and global society.

New research has found links between historical frontier violence and the “no” vote in the Voice referendum.

The data showed there were 4 percentage points less support for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament in electoral divisions where historical massacres of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were recorded compared to divisions where they weren’t. This relationship increased with the number of massacre events and people killed.

According to the multi-disciplinary research team – comprising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous experts in economics, history, community research, psychology, and IT from The University of Queensland (UQ), The University of Melbourne, Australian National University, and the University of Newcastle – the early findings suggest that unresolved fractures in many communities related to past traumatic events limited support for the Voice.

Having identified these links, Lead Chief Investigator Associate Professor Julie Moschion from the UQ School of Economics said the researchers believed truth-telling was an important pathway for healing, building trust, and creating opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Truth-telling is the act of acknowledging historical truths to allow relationship-building, political transformation, or reconstitution of political relations in divided societies.

“Currently, 80.5 per cent of Australians support formal truth-telling processes. However, for positive change to happen, truth-telling cannot be just a reflection of what others did many years ago – it needs to include a link to the present and a view to the future to make amends.

“Our findings document that the friction that exists today at a community level relates to what has happened to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities 100 years ago, and it affects us all.

“Facing the realities of past and present wrongs is a necessary first step towards a shared understanding of Australia’s colonial history and its contemporary impacts.”

These early findings are part of the researchers’ broader ARC-funded project, which aims to explore, document and promote the legacy of historical frontier violence on the life trajectories of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia today.

Votes and historical frontier violence: a data-driven look at historical legacy

Australia’s legacy of historical frontier violence includes more than 400 massacre events across the country, which resulted in the deaths of more than 10,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples between 1788 and 1930.

Using data from more than 15 million counted referendum votes from the Australian Electoral Commission, as well as historical massacre data from historians led by the late Emerita Professor Lyndall Ryan, the researchers compared the rate of “no” votes across electoral divisions with different levels of historical massacres. (See Figure 1 below for a graphical representation of the data.)

They used multivariate regression to adjust for differences in the “no” vote related to state and region, size of the electoral divisions, and informal and non-ordinary votes, which may also be related to the location of historical violence. Multivariate regression allowed the researchers to ensure that the relationship they saw between the “no” vote and historical massacres didn't simply pick up differences between states or regions that were unrelated to massacres but coincidentally happened in the same locations.

^Sources:

• ^{Colonial Frontier Massacres in Australia 1788-1930}
• ^{Referendum 2023 results, Australian Electoral Commission}

^{Figure 1 notes: The data has been plotted on physical boundaries of Australia. The electoral divisions that extend beyond the physical boundaries are represented in the background.}

After these adjustments, the researchers found that in electoral divisions where 7 or more massacres have been recorded, the “no” vote was up to 7.6 percentage points higher than in electoral divisions where there were no massacres. (See Figure 2.)

Compared to the national 60% “no” vote, these are significant voting differences, close in magnitude to the largest state difference between Queensland (highest) and Victoria (lowest). This difference amounts to 11 percentage points after adjustments are made.

However, although these voting differences were significant, the researchers said they weren’t enough to have changed the electoral outcome by themselves, given the extent of the “no” vote in electoral divisions where no massacres were recorded.

^{Figure 2 notes: ***Statistically significant at 99% level; **Statistically significant at 95% level; *Statistically significant at 90% level. Estimates are generated from regression models of 15,895,231 individual votes against measures of historical massacres at the electoral division level, with controls for state, region, number of voters at the polling place and indicators for informal and non-ordinary (postal, pre-polling, provisional, absent) votes. Separate regression models are estimated for the number of recorded massacres and recorded number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people killed.}

Beyond the rural-city divide: a nationwide phenomenon

Some commentators may view these patterns as more evidence of political splintering along the rural (where more massacres occurred) and city (where fewer massacres occurred) divide, unrelated to the legacy of past violence on attitudes today.

However, in every state where there are electoral divisions both with and without recorded massacres at a specific level of remoteness (rural, provincial or outer metropolitan), the researchers saw consistently higher “no” votes in electoral divisions where massacres were recorded compared to where they weren’t. (See Figure 3.)

For example, in rural Queensland, the team observed a 5 percentage points higher “no” vote in divisions where massacres were recorded (71% versus 66%) and an 11 percentage points higher “no” vote in provincial Victoria.

^{Figure 3 note: we exclude states and territories in each regional classification where we cannot observe electoral divisions where there were and were not historical massacres.}

Embracing truth for national healing

“We don't act independently of our country's history, our local histories, or our family histories,” Associate Professor Moschion said.

“These links between the past, our current behaviours, and the flow-on effects are often unconscious. Knowing and understanding how these histories affect us is an essential step to healing and reducing divisions between communities.

“At the local level, it’s important to open conversations between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous community members. All Australians can engage in this process.

“These conversations start with acknowledging local shared history, the local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, and the current experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.”

Wuthathi and Maluyigal Nations woman and Head of ANU’s National Centre for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Wellbeing Research, Fiona Cornforth, echoed Associate Professor Moschion’s thoughts.

For Jiman and Bundjalung elder Professor Judy Atkinson, the findings also cemented her lived experience and observations.

“These results are fascinating and important: in my 40 years’ experience with communities, I have personally found that places with documented massacres have specifically different behaviours,” she said.

Formal truth-telling models, such as the Yoorrook Justice Commission in Victoria, are being developed around the country.

Associate Professor Moschion said all levels of government and policymakers had important roles to play in facilitating truth-telling.

“Nationally, by supporting the building of a shared understanding of Australia’s colonial history and its contemporary impacts.

“Locally, by engaging in honest conversations with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, progressively building trust and addressing the root causes of intergenerational trauma.”

Contact the team

• Associate Professor Julie Moschion, The University of Queensland (Lead Chief Investigator)
• Associate Professor Michelle Evans, The University of Melbourne (Chief Investigator)
• Associate Professor Cain Polidano, The University of Melbourne (Chief Investigator)
• Professor Judy Atkinson, Southern Cross University (Expert Consultant)
• Dr Angela Chen, The University of Melbourne
• Fiona Cornforth, Australian National University (Steering Committee)
• Dr Ash Francisco, The University of Melbourne
• Professor Boyd Hunter, Australian National University (Chief Investigator)
• Yashu Kalera, The University of Melbourne
• Gavin Morris, Yipirinya School, (Steering Committee)
• Dr Bill Pascoe, The University of Melbourne
• The late Professor Lyndall Ryan, University of Newcastle (Chief Investigator)
• Dr Rajeev Samarage, The University of Melbourne (Chief Investigator)
• Debra Swan, Grandmothers Against Removal (Steering Committee)
• Leonie Malezer Williamson, Healing Foundation (Steering Committee)
• Dr Haikun Zhan, University of Auckland