Nearly six months have passed since Prime Minister Anthony Albanese suggested a draft referendum question for a so-called Indigenous voice to parliament. His strategy to persuade Australians to vote for the proposal is reflected in the lyrics of an eighties hit by English pop band Bananarama. Sing along, everyone: “But don’t it make you feel good”.
In other words, dispense with the details and vote with your heart. You will be astonished, as was I, to learn that the Albananarama strategy is poorly suited to effecting constitutional change. As a survey commissioned by Nine Newspapers revealed this week, support for the referendum proposal has dropped from 53 to 47 per cent in just three months. Only 13 per cent said they could confidently explain what the voice is and how it would work.
That is no surprise, given Albanese and Indigenous Australians minister Linda Burney have consistently prevaricated when asked about the model. Mind you, neither can be accused of abrogation when it comes to nobbling the no campaign. For example, donations to the yes campaign, unlike those to the opposing camp, will be tax deductible. Unlike the republic referendum, no public moneys will be allocated to the no campaign.
Why? Because it is in the interest of activists to suppress rigorous scrutiny of the case for the voice. Take for instance Professor Marcia Langton, who, along with Professor Tom Calma, co-authored the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process. “Let me … warn that if a ‘no’ case is formalised, funded by the government, and included in the question to be put to a referendum, constitutional recognition of Indigenous people will almost certainly fail,’’ she told the annual Lowitja O’Donoghue Oration in 2015.
This is a blatant case of denying voters their right to be fully informed. But writing in The Saturday Paper earlier this month, Langton had the audacity to accuse the no camp of waging a “hateful culture war” of “cynicism and redneck opportunism” based on “misinformation”.
Voice advocates will retort that the government is not funding, at least not directly, the yes campaign either. But this is not equivalence. After all, Albanese is providing taxpayer money for a so-called “public education campaign” on the referendum.
But the no campaigners can take comfort in Napoleon’s dictum that it is wise not to interrupt one’s enemy when he is making a mistake. If the PM’s hapless media performances of late are an indication of how he will press the case for the referendum, the government would be better off holding it tomorrow, regardless of the latest poll. Its chances will only diminish further every time Albanese fronts a microphone.
Appearing on Sky News last week, he could not give a straight answer to host Chris Kenny as to whether the government would still legislate for a voice should the referendum proposal fail. This, from the man who promised his government would be “open, transparent, and accountable”. Compounding his mistake, he insisted to 2GB’s Ben Fordham that constitutional entrenchment of the model would not lead to activist litigation. “The Calma-Langton report makes it very clear that they do not want the body to be justiciable,” he said.
As anyone with even a remote understanding of constitutional interpretation knows, this is a novice’s argument. This government has not even endorsed that report, nor did it commission it. In terms of authority, one might as well produce to the High Court the local bus timetable or the complete works of Enid Blyton.
Albanese should have sought advice from Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue KC prior to announcing the proposed draft referendum question. But he admitted he had bypassed the government’s chief counsel, telling Fordham “I consulted serious, serious jurists around Australia”. There’s the rub, you see. Not just serious jurists, but serious serious ones. That terminology is another reminder the adults are back in charge, as Albanese declared following his election win. Incidentally, that is called opinion shopping. Were you too surprised to discover in that same interview that the constitution – our supreme law – is, according to the PM, merely a summary of “principles”?
As for Burney, her contributions are equally uninformative. Like Albanese’s incessant references to his humble upbringing, she has a tendency to self-pity. Seemingly every appearance by this minister is prefaced by her lamenting she was not counted as part of the Australian population for the first 10 years of her life. Yes, that was a wrong that should never have happened, but what has that got to do with this referendum?
Referring to the public order crisis in Central Australia, Burney told ABC radio this week: “If the voice of the parliament had been established previously … we wouldn’t be where we are in terms of Alice Springs at the moment”. That insistence is sheer delusion.
A few months ago I spotted Burney by chance at a Chinese restaurant. It gave rise to a hypothetical conversation – what if a waiter explained the menu to Burney in the manner she responds to questions about the voice model?
Waiter: Good evening and welcome. I’ll be taking your order.
Burney: Thank you. Could I please have the prawn dumplings to begin with, followed by the Mongolian lamb and…
Waiter: Sorry to interrupt, but we have revised our ordering process. This is our new menu. (Hands leatherbound folder to Burney)
Burney: (Opens folder, revealing only a single page) There must be a mistake. Where are the dishes?
Waiter: Look under the heading.
Burney: The heading says ‘food’. There’s nothing listed underneath.
Waiter: It’s what we call a principle-based menu. I’ll put you down for food for one, shall I?
Burney: I’m sorry, but is this a joke?
Waiter: I can assure you this new menu will be to your liking. The food will be delicious. It will nourish. It will enrich. It will bring diners together.
Burney: Look, this doesn’t have to be a complex question. What dishes are you offering?
Waiter: You don’t like the new menu?
Burney: How can I like it when I know nothing about it?
Waiter: Of course you will like it. The food is delicious. It nourishes. It enriches. It will bring diners together.
Burney: So you keep saying. But how do I know what I’d be getting?
Waiter: There is a wealth of information available on Chinese cuisine, which you can read for yourself. I suggest you start with ‘Classic Chinese Dishes’ by T. Calma & M. Langton.
Burney: This restaurant endorses that book?
Waiter: No.
Burney: But nonetheless this restaurant serves the dishes contained in that book?
Waiter: I didn’t say that.
Burney: Then what is the point of reading it?
Waiter: It will help you understand that the food we serve is delicious. It will nourish. It will enrich. It will bring -
Burney: Will you stop saying that! If you can’t answer simple questions, then forget it. You’re not getting my business.
Waiter: I urge you not to be divisive. After all, the Asian owners of this restaurant have generously extended their hand and asked you to walk with them on this journey. You don’t want to be associated with the xenophobes, do you?
Burney: That’s preposterous! And by the way, you don’t even list prices on the menu. What’s this going to cost me?
Waiter: It’s not our policy to reveal our prices upfront. But don’t worry, you’ll find out - eventually!
More Coverage
IOC finally finds a spine to protect women’s sport
Now that Thomas Bach is rapidly losing his grip on the IOC, gender ideology will soon be usurped by biological reality.
Why sack Konstas in Sri Lanka? You wouldn’t run Winx in the Melbourne Cup
Cricketers are getting used to the selectors’ policy of horses for courses. It’s about time fans did too.