Megan Davis, Australians have spoken. Respect their verdict

Megan Davis, Australians have spoken. Respect their verdict.

The first-year anniversary of the voice referendum is upon us, and it would not hurt to begin this week’s column on a positive note. Accordingly, I would like to acknowledge and pay my respects to the framers of our constitution.

I pay tribute to their wisdom and foresight and thank them for their wonderful gift. I also acknowledge our constitution is the supreme instrument of sovereignty in this country. In addition, I extend my respects to the founding fathers’ descendants, past, present and emerging.

Our country is not only a longstanding democracy. It is also one of the most stable nations in the world. And it is no mere coincidence the constitution which ensured this is one that cannot be amended at whim.

If you propose to change it, you must bring the country with you. If you fail to do so, you have two choices. You can state for the record that Australians have spoken and that you respect their verdict. That is the sensible and dignified option, particularly if your case for change was so unconvincing you failed even to carry a single state.

Alternatively, you can screech incessantly and insist that sinister forces conspired to nobble your campaign. To do so, even spontaneously, is both unedifying and embarrassing. Imagine how much more ridiculous you would appear if you still persisted with this behaviour a year down the track.

Uluru Dialogue co-chair Pat Anderson with Professor Megan Davis. Picture NCA NewsWire / Aaron Francis

That brings me to Professor Megan Davis, Referendum Working Group member, Cobble Cobble woman, and University of NSW pro-vice chancellor. As reported last week, she has called for misinformation legislation to protect future referendums from the “Trumpian” lies she claims thwarted the voice campaign.

“We want freedom of speech, but we need to balance that with upholding principles of democracy and democratic rights,” she told a UNSW audience.

I understand perfectly well, Megan Davis. There is no better way of upholding principles of democracy and democratic rights than by deplatforming and muzzling those you personally deem to have spread misinformation. I would go even further and say it would be misinformation to claim your proposal is undemocratic. In no way does it curtail or infringe the rights of those who agree with everything you say.

Davis’s argument is not an academic rationale, but that of an activist. What passes for logic is a flawed syllogism. First premise: The only thing that can prevent a noble and justified referendum proposal from succeeding is Trumpian misinformation.

Second premise: The voice was a noble and justified proposal that did not succeed. Conclusion: The voice campaign failed due to Trumpian misinformation.

If you think I am exaggerating, consider a few examples of what Davis posted on her X account during the referendum campaign. She rubbished the claim the voice was “divisive”, saying it was a “Trumpian tactic” employed by the No campaign.

So too was political commentator Michelle Grattan’s “gloves off” metaphor that characterised the robust exchanges between Shadow Indigenous Australians minister Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Referendum Working Group member Marcia Langton. “This ‘both sides’ reductionism is Trumpian,” protested Davis.

Liberal senator Matt O’Sullivan had also disseminated “Noalition misinformation”, said Davis. His sin? He observed the Albanese government had not endorsed a model of the voice.

Likewise national security think-tank Australia Defence Association incurred Davis’s reprimand. It had pointed out even left-wing academics had said the wording of the referendum question raised concerns about justiciability. “Don’t spread misinformation,” responded Davis curtly.

You get the picture. “The entire ‘No’ case is based on misinformation,” Davis proclaimed. Her robotic responses vindicate constitutional scholar and Referendum Working Group member Greg Craven.

“Large swathes of the Yes campaign were obsessed with the idea of misinformation and disinformation,” he wrote last week. They “would characterise any contrary argument as misinformation or disinformation,” thus building the case that those responsible “should be effectively banned from the referendum.”

It say a lot about Davis’s skills as an advocate, or lack thereof. To see her let loose in a courtroom would be a cringeworthy spectacle. Judge: “Ms Davis, what are your grounds for appeal?” Davis: “Your Honour, everything the other side said is Trumpian disinformation.” Judge: “What is your basis for that claim?” Davis: “Your Honour, that is exactly what Trump would say!”

Writing in Guardian Australia last week regarding the referendum, Davis was oblivious to spreading a little misinformation of her own. This concerned the argument the electorate’s rejection of the proposal extended to treaties and welcome to country ceremonies.

“The republic movement lost at referendum to an even greater degree than the voice but there is no public discourse as to its evisceration from Australian aspirations for future structural change,” she said.

This is nonsense, and I am not just referring to the turgid prose. Like the voice, the republic referendum was resoundingly defeated, but it fared better. Around 45.13 per cent of Australians voted for a republic as opposed to the 39.94 per cent who voted for the voice.

This is not Davis’s only own goal. She claimed she had come across the beginnings of a misinformation campaign against the voice in November 2022 and that she had lobbied the Albanese government to legislate against it.

“I’ve had a lot of contact from Queenslander mob … who are saying the Queensland Electoral Commission put out all of these ads about misinformation so that Queenslanders can distinguish between what is fact and what is not,” she said. “We’d asked for that”.

In other words, Queenslanders, thanks to Davis’s lobbying, were far better equipped to distinguish between fact and fiction in deciding how to vote. But this puts a big hole in Davis’s conspiracy theory. Queensland, of all the states and territories, recorded the biggest percentage of No voters in the referendum.

Notably, Davis relies entirely on isolated and anecdotal accounts of misinformation to justify her calls to introduce sweeping legislation. Given the absence of any credible empirical studies to corroborate her demands, her agenda is one of punitive revisionism.

That said, I do not think Davis should be silenced, as she would her critics. We should welcome the opportunity to expose the shallowness of her arguments. Trumpian disinformation, you say? The word you are looking for is ‘projection’, professor.