If voice fails, diplomatic verdict on PM will be swift

People march in Melbourne to show their support for the Indigenous voice to parliament referendum.

Will a No vote in the referendum diminish Australia’s international standing? Tom Switzer was right when he recently pointed out that few overseas observers watch our politics closely enough to have developed informed views.

Most foreign governments will have no position on the referendum outcome, rightly seeing it as a matter for Australians.

In a few cases countries that seek to do us harm may try to exploit the outcome for their own purposes. The Russian consulate in Sydney is giving diplomatic protection to a rabble-rouser apparently wanting to spruik the No case. Vladimir Putin would not have spent a moment thinking about the referendum, but his Australian supporters might think anything that can be done to sully our domestic politics might weaken a government that backs Ukraine.

Would Canberra’s response to the Russian Sydney consulate been as muted had Simeon Boikov – the so-called “Aussie Cossack”– been advocating the Yes case? No one needs friends like that.

In China, media reactions to the referendum will be bland and calibrated to the Communist Party’s broader objectives. What Beijing wants from Anthony Albanese’s planned visit is quiescent Australian behaviour.

Judging from his many public statements, the Prime Minister will pay homage to Gough Whitlam’s visit 50 years ago, and he will claim bilateral relations are “stabilised” compared to Scott Morrison’s time. There is no expressed broader strategic purpose to the visit.

There are political risks for Albanese. Looking too cosy with his Communist Party hosts will not play well in Australia. On the other hand, pushing too hard for trade or human rights objectives might trigger a public dressing down from Beijing’s leadership, which forcefully says every problem in the bilateral relationship is Australia’s fault.

As for the voice referendum, China’s leaders will have no view on the merits of the Yes or No cases, seeing the outcome purely in terms of power politics.

If the referendum is defeated, Beijing will conclude Albanese is politically diminished; perhaps that means China can extract more concessions from Albanese in return for the appearance of a successful visit. If the Yes case wins, then Beijing will want to establish relations with the voice. Just as China courts the leaders of tiny Pacific Island states, Australian state premiers and even local councils, the voice too will be the target of a PRC charm offensive.

When Beijing saw it was getting nowhere urging the federal government to “sign up” to the Belt and Road Initiative, it turned with some success to more biddable state premiers. Likewise, in Solomon Islands, provincial leaders have been fated in attempts to secure a Chinese strategic presence.

Anthony Albanese joins the South Sydney Rabbitohs NRL team which has shown its support for the Yes vote in the referendum. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Jeremy Piper

This is Beijing’s playbook. If the voice is enacted, the Chinese will reach out to it within weeks. Then look out for that first funded trip to Beijing for voice representatives.

More broadly, the diplomatic community will want to know how to engage with the voice. Is that to be done through DFAT’s First Nations ambassador who heads the Office of First Nations Engagement? Who is responsible for shaping that policy agenda?

Diplomats in Canberra watch our domestic politics extremely closely. They analyse the opinion polls and, on that basis, will already be cabling their headquarters saying the referendum will likely be defeated.

Diplomats may have personal preferences for the referendum outcome but their professional focus is on what this will mean for Albanese’s personal standing and the government’s political fortunes.

If the referendum fails, the diplomatic cable traffic will critique Albanese’s management of the process. Why did the referendum become such a prime ministerial preoccupation? Why did Albanese fail to deliver a more bipartisan approach and develop some details on how the voice would work?

Why did Albanese persist for so long with a referendum strategy that for months seemed destined to fail? What does this mean for his leadership prospects?

An unexpected win for the referendum Yes case would change the diplomatic analysis, but there will be no pause to celebrate a “good” or a “bad” result. Our friends and allies – and our enemies too – are interested in the coherence of government and the direction of our political focus.

Outside the PM’s personal political fortunes, a No win is a signal of Australian political continuity. That means fewer issues for friends and allies to address.

A win for the Yes case is different. With a voice established, foreign governments and businesses will want to know what it means, for example, for foreign direct investment. Will the voice expect to make representations or be consulted on the location of the planned east coast nuclear submarine base? On the location of a nuclear waste facility? How about on a larger US military presence in northern Australia?

The Australian recently reported that Defence training ranges in South Australia will be used for testing new missiles. Defence already engages with Indigenous communities on military activities. Would a voice supplant these engagements or add another layer of consultation and planning?

These are big strategic questions and it’s inevitable some people will want the voice to take a position. The volume of issues that might involve the voice is immense, much more than 24 elected or nominated voice members can manage without a bureaucratic system around them.

If that’s what Australians vote for, so be it. Our international partners will want to know the details about how it will work. The answer to that question is that we don’t know.

For no clear reason Albanese took the position that wanting to understand how the voice would operate was somehow inappropriate, an offence to the vibe of the thing. In the event of a Yes win Australia’s international credibility will be tested by our ability to show how this mechanism functions. No one is ready for that moment.