The Voice
The Yes/No pamphlet – a blank sheet for expression of fear, lies and division
In 1988 the Hawke government ran a suite of four referendums for constitutional change: four-year fixed parliamentary terms; “fair and democratic elections throughout Australia”; recognition of local government in the Constitution; and a set of basic human rights. These are hardly contentious issues; in fact the second and fourth proposals would simply bring Australia into line with most other robust democracies. (Details are in a Parliamentary Library paper History of Australian Referendums.)
Initially there was strong public support for the proposals: the Hawke government wouldn’t have run them if it had not tested the water.
It is hard to see any of them conflicting with the stated principles of the Liberal Party, but as Frank Bongiorno explains in an ANU Reporter article on the history of referendums, published earlier this year, the Liberal Party’s strongman, Peter Reith, mobilized opposition with great success. The Liberal Party’s arguments in the “No” pamphlet were outrageous: fair elections would “deprive state parliaments of the right to tailor their electoral laws to their own needs”; the proposal for constitutionally enshrined human rights “threatens rights and freedoms all Australians have now” (go figure the logic).
The campaign led by Reith wasn’t about the issues. Rather it was about an opportunity to see the Hawke government fail. Nor were the arguments about the issues: they were appeals to fear – fear of change, a confected fear that the government, in not providing details, had some evil intent.
A third of a century later, the Liberal Party (or at least a hard-right core of its remnants in the federal Parliament) is back to its old ways.
The AEC has published the Yes/No cases, and the “No” case starts with an appeal to ignorance: “If you don’t know, vote no”, before outlining imagined risks, and the twaddle on “detail”, as if the Constitution should be a document about administrative procedures rather than principles of government. It goes on to quote constitutional expert Greg Craven so far out of context that it completely misrepresents his views. And there is the statement by Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price asserting that the Voice “will divide us by race”. Really – an appeal to the idea of “race”, a concept discredited scientifically 150 years ago? Indigenous Australians aren’t a “race”: they are the people who have been here for 60 000 years before the land was occupied/colonized/invaded by the British.
In fact the “No” case is so lightweight that it makes no mention of misgivings some reasonable people may have against the Voice (misgivings that are easily outweighed by the logic and morality of the “Yes” case). That’s presumably because the “No” campaigners don’t want to engage with the electorate on that level, because once people start thinking in terms of logic and morality they might see the hollowness and deceit of the “No” case.
Also it would be hard for the “No” case to invoke logic or a credible message, when some “No” campaigners are asserting that the Voice would be only tokenistic and ineffectual, while others claim that it would be too powerful and would contribute to inflation and higher taxes. SBS News has a description of the “No” campaigners, including their links to extreme political movements, from far-right populists spreading stories about “left” and “woke” conspiracies through to a group calling itself “The Blak sovereign movement”.
As law professor George Williams explains on the ABC in a discussion on the pamphlet, the writers of the “No” case for the pamphlet aren’t presenting a coherent argument. They have set out to persuade, using any means possible, rather than to describe. As Bartholomew Stanford of Charles Darwin University writes in The Conversation, the pamphlet is a relic from an earlier time when paper was about the only medium going: The campaign pamphlets for the Voice don’t offer new perspectives. Do they still serve a purpose?.
Luke Beck, professor of constitutional law at Monash University, in a Conversation contribution – Why is it legal to tell lies during the Voice referendum campaign? – explains that “it is perfectly legal to spread misinformation and disinformation and tell outright lies about the proposed constitutional amendment, just as it is legal to tell lies during federal election campaigns”.
He explains that the Parliament Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has recommended that Australia adopt truth-in-political-advertising laws, as have been in force in South Australia since 1985, but the Commonwealth has not, as yet, acted on its recommendation. All we have is an AEC “disinformation register”that sets the record right on lies about the referendum process, but it is silent on lies perpetrated in the campaign. We may come to regret that Albanese didn’t defer the referendum until truth-in-political-advertising laws were in place, and that he yielded to Dutton’s demand for a pamphlet. Faustian deals rarely pay off.
The “Yes” case is struggling against hysterical negativity in the Murdoch media, and against the ABC’s misguided notion of “balance”. It is almost de rigueur for the ABC to find an indigenous Australian opposed to the Voice, even though it is supported by a vast majority of indigenous voters. It doesn’t matter that Labor, the Greens, several members of the Liberal Party, former Liberal Party parliamentary leaders and state premiers, and most large religious organizations support the Voice. The ABC treats the issue as if there is a logical and moral balance between two sides.
ABC journalists should know that a constitutional amendment must be written in general terms, and that no one can make categorical statements about the consequences of the referendum passing or failing. Those considerations haven’t constrained Andy Park on ABC Drive, from aggressively interviewing Malarndirri McCarthy, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians, asking her to specify “how much money will it save” if the Voice is established. The ABC has a duty to ask proponents to clarify their views, and to challenge them when their statements misalign with logic or evidence, but it should not be lending legitimacy to the “No” case’s deceitful campaign about “details”.
If the “Yes” case fails, Dutton and the core of hard right Liberal and National Party members may enjoy only a pyrrhic victory. Speaking on the ABC – Why referendums succeed or fail – referendum expert Matt Qvortrup of Coventry University UK, visiting at ANU, explains the politics of hard-right opposition to constitutional change. Such opposition may work in putting down a Labor government proposal, but history shows that it confers no benefit at elections, and that it reinforces the image among thinking voters that the Coalition has nothing to offer the Australian community other than the deceit and negativity of hard-right populist politics.
Qvortrup’s analysis confirms that in joining with the “No” campaign rabble, Dutton has forgone an opportunity to redeem the Liberal Party, to present it as a credible and responsible contender for government. He could have joined the “Yes” campaign, and shaped its presentation. Or if he had misgivings about the Voice, he could have expressed them rationally, without endorsing the “No” campaign’s scare tactics and deceit about “details”.
(Qvortrup’s 20-minute conversation has many insights into referendums and plebiscites, which are becoming more in use the world over. He is editor of Referendums around the world: the continued growth of direct democracy.)
The “Yes” campaign is supported by people from all sides of politics
Peter Dutton would like us to believe that the Liberal Party is backing the “No” campaign, and much of the media has gone along with that deceit.
But the Liberal Party is not a homogenous movement meekly lined up behind Dutton, and there is far more to the party than its federal parliamentary remnants. Some Liberal politicians who support the Voice and who come easily to mind are:
Bridget Archer – federal Member for Bass
Mike Baird – former New South Wales Premier
Kate Carnell– former ACT Chief Minister, convenor of Liberals for Yes
James Griffin – state member for Manly
Gary Humphries – former senator
Eliabeth Lee – ACT Opposition Leader
Jeremy Rockliff – Tasmanian Premier
Then there are those who have quit Coalition parties over the Voice, such as Ken Wyatt, former Minister for Indigenous Australians, and Andrew Gee, federal Member for Calare, who left the National Party over its stance.
And there are independent members of Parliament whose values may have aligned with those of the party led by John Gorton, John Hewson, and Malcolm Turnbull, but not with the Liberal Party shaped by Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton, and not with a party that has allowed many of its policies to be dictated by the National Party.
One of the more prominent Liberal supporters of the Voice is Julian Lesser, who stepped down from his position as Shadow Attorney-General and Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs. On Monday he gave a speech in Wagga, in support of the Voice campaign, in which he cleared away misconceptions, stressed the contribution the Voice could make towards closing the gap, and addressed the arguments people have put against constitutional change. The theme of his speech is that this is not about partisan politics.
He also gave an explanation of his ideas on the ABC: Voice referendum: Liberal MP calls out “untrue” arguments. He seeks to see a “higher standard of debate”, a recognition that this proposal comes from the indigenous people of Australia, and an end to ad hominem slights against indigenous advocates for the Voice. In plain language he describes the legal case for the Voice. (13 minutes)