Elites have an opportunity to rediscover mainstream

The result of Saturday’s voice referendum shows how far the wealthiest and most powerful in society are out of touch with the views and expectations of most Australians. The disconnect is plain to see in the map of votes, which shows majority support for the referendum existed only in small areas of our main cities closest to the coast. Politically, these predominantly are the same areas where the major parties have been fighting for relevance against the progressive forces of the Greens and teal politicians. But, as the referendum result shows, these seats do not represent middle Australia, where the political contest must be fought and won.

Claims the referendum was lost because of a campaign of “Trumpian misinformation”, as made by Uluru Statement architect Megan Davis, are wrong and serve only to confirm the disconnect. The similarity exists only to the extent Donald Trump won popular support in the US because he was able to identify the views and struggles of ordinary Americans who felt abandoned by the political class. The challenge for politicians from all sides in Australia is to ensure the same level of disenchantment with politics is not allowed to take hold here. The referendum must be a wake-up call that the mainstream views of outer urban and regional people cannot be bullied or bought to conform with the preferences of progressive elites. The result confirms the initial reading of Malcolm Turnbull, who as prime minister rejected the voice proposal. His objections were to the model proposed but also a view born from hard-won experience in the 1999 republic referendum campaign that it would not succeed if put to voters.

Anthony Albanese made a big mistake not accepting the advice of those who said compromise was needed because the campaign would not succeed without bipartisan support. Business groups and major companies have shown themselves to be similarly out of touch. This is not unexpected. It is reasonable to assume those leading the large number of companies that pledged funds and support to the Yes campaign live, work and circulate in the privileged areas that voted to support the referendum.

Writing on Tuesday, Judith Sloan says the way corporations have acted in the voice referendum raises important issues. These include whether directors of listed companies should use shareholder funds to contribute to essentially political campaigns. Should shareholders be asked their views directly and should there be full transparency about the sums of money donated and where the money is directed?

The view put by American economist Milton Friedman, that companies should be solely in the game of maximising profits, is persuasive. But the opportunity cost of the voice campaign for shareholders has been a reluctance by business leaders to engage politically in areas that may be less appealing to social progressives but really matter for their companies, shareholders and workers. These include the government’s ill-considered changes to industrial relations laws and lack of ambition on tax reform and productivity growth.

What is also clear, however, is that it would be wrong to suggest there is no role for business, community organisations and all of government in the difficult task of improving outcomes for the most disadvantaged, including those living in remote Indigenous communities. Paul Ramsay Foundation chairman Michael Traill is correct to say it is now more important than ever for policymakers to work with communities and to listen at the local level to make sure we don’t go backwards but only redouble our efforts to close the gap and ensure all Australians have equal opportunity to thrive. Equality of opportunity and personal responsibility are key ingredients that will not be well served by grievance.

The point of difference in the referendum debate has not been one of good or ill-will towards Indigenous Australians. It has been a more fundamental disagreement over the model chosen to achieve a widely desired outcome. The Prime Minister rightly has accepted the referendum result and declared his ongoing commitment to the issue. Few can disagree with the view of No campaign leader Jacinta Nampijinpa Price that there can be no return to the status quo. Her call to the Albanese government for a bipartisan effort aimed at “bringing Indigenous Australians into the fabric of this nation” is a message that would resonate across the mainstream that rejected the voice. It deserves the full support of government as well as the progressive activist class who badly misjudged the feelings of the nation and must not draw the wrong conclusions from defeat.