After all, one was in a national election and the other was to alter the Australian Constitution.
Labour in New Zealand was rejected in a vote for change. Labor, across the Tasman, pushed for change so indigenous people would be recognised in the constitution.
Despite about 60% of voters ticking "No", Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government remains firmly in control and relatively popular. Although the referendum failure is his biggest setback since taking office in May last year it is far from fatal.
To many in New Zealand, against a background of Te Tiriti o Waitangi — however it is interpreted 183 years later — the Voice plans should not have been radical or scary. The constitution would have been altered to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people through the creation of an indigenous advisory body, the Voice to Parliament.
The referendum's passing was doomed once the Liberal opposition, which played a part in initial Voice planning, decided to oppose it. Constitutional changes in Australia always raise cautious concerns. Few referenda have passed, and none without bipartisan support.
There was also much scope for misunderstanding and misinformation, for politics and uncertainty. No doubt, for some, underlying racism played a role, although it is simplistic to dismiss the "No" vote with such characterisation.
A small portion of the Left also saw the Voice as inadequate. Nonetheless, most "progressives" identified with the Voice as a cause. It became another case of the inner-city, the educated and the well-off rallying behind an issue.
The highest support came from Green-voting inner-city Melbourne. Australian Capital Territory was the only state or territory to have a "Yes" majority. The outer cities and rural areas were, overall, heavily "No".
In line with support for former US president Donald Trump or Brexit, resentment at the professional, media and managerial "elites" surfaced.
Foolishly, "No" voters at one point were called dinosaurs. They reacted by wearing the label with pride.
Celebrities backing "Yes" either backfired or failed to gain traction. Like their United States and New Zealand counterparts, Australians do not like being told by high-profile people what to think.
The New Zealand election was also a knockback for progressive causes and attitudes. Despite the Greens and Te Pāti Māori advances, their combined tally with Labour fell to about 40%.
The total for National, Act and New Zealand First was about 54.5%.
Interestingly, these voting proportions are not too dissimilar to the Voice split in Australia.
Although Act is liberal on some social issues, all three see fewer roles for distinct Māori state initiatives, like the Māori Health Authority, and "race separatism", the "us and them". All would place less emphasis on Te Tiriti, with Act New Zealand going as far as to call for a referendum on its principles — a dangerously divisive proposal.
The aftermath of Covid, the Auckland lockdowns, high-profile crime and, of course, the "cost of living" have all contributed to the rejection of Labour, so stark in the provinces and Auckland.
As notably illustrated in West Auckland, Labour lost traditional support to National. This was despite the attempts of Prime Minister Chris Hipkins to position himself economically and socially towards the centre. He waited until towards the end of the campaign to address the "race-baiting" politics of National, Act and New Zealand First and to stand up emphatically for Māori policy measures and co-governance.
Given the result of the referenda for Māori district council wards (when they were allowed), the opposition to Three Waters co-governance, and the support for Act and New Zealand First, advances for Te Tiriti could be well in advance of majority thinking. These are issues which would have cost Labour support. The Voice vote and the losses on the left in New Zealand both represent setbacks for "progressive" ideals.
