PM to blame for setback of Indigenous ambition

Make no mistake, the voice to parliament could have succeeded had things been done differently.

Peter Dutton’s opposition to the voice is an example of why the Liberal Party still has an important role to play in the Australian body politic. Not jumping on a bandwagon too early when the illusion of popularity presented itself. Nor turning a blind eye to failures of process and design when Labor attempted to bludgeon its way to success, only to discover “the vibe” doesn’t cut it when Australians are asked to tinker with their Constitution via a campaign of moral posturing. Told they are racist if they don’t declare unwavering support; that the rest of the world will look down on us if we vote no.

While activists frustrated at the Coalition’s opposition to the referendum will disagree with this assessment, they are blinded by their passion. Blind to the ill-conceived way the change was approached.

The farcical nature of the campaign started with Anthony Albanese’s appearance alongside Shaquille O’Neal, declaring the former US basketball great would do a series of social media videos promoting the voice. At the time the ABC called it “a real coup for the Yes campaign” and a “potentially viral masterpiece”. Exactly what someone not from this country with no connection to it, who has rarely been here and knows very little about Australia, had to offer a campaign on Indigenous rights was hard to understand.

Indigenous Australians minister Linda Burney said Shaq’s involvement was part of a process of building a “broad consensus”. He didn’t end up doing any voice videos, but Australians have been treated to the endless airing of gambling ads he recorded.

Make no mistake, the voice could have succeeded had things been done differently. Had it been legislated first, as the likes of Bill Shorten, Murray Gleeson and Marcia Langton all initially suggested. Giving people time to see how it would practically operate before being enshrined forever. Had it been crafted as a voice to parliament, not to the executive, as former race commissioner Mick Gooda suggested as a compromise, before he was slapped down by Noel Pearson as a “bedwetter”.

Details matter, which is why it was so damaging when the PM admitted despite passionately championing the Uluru Statement calling for a voice, he hadn’t read a single word of the 18 pages of Indigenous submissions that accompanied the one-page statement, documents publicly available since 2017. It was voice architect Professor Megan Davies, no less, who exclaimed all Australians should take time to do what the PM didn’t and read beyond the one-pager.

While it is easy to criticise Albanese for rushing to failure by pressing for the referendum, there was no better exemplar of what a thankless job being a politician can be than the way some voice activists turned on him on Saturday night. Uluru Dialogues campaigner Sally Scales described the PM’s speech accepting the public’s verdict as “insulting and pathetic”. Whatever you think of the PM’s decision to champion an uncompromising version of the Uluru Statement, attacking him for accepting the outcome was callow. Uluru Youth Dialogue chair Allira Davis also attacked Albanese, before claiming the result highlighted Indigenous Australians “are not part of Australian democracy”. How ridiculous.

While disappointment in defeat is understandable, the voice failed because the mainstream challenged why constitutionally enshrining a voice for one cohort of the community was appropriate. It was the inverse of why two-thirds of Australians voted for same-sex marriage a few years ago and why more than 90 per cent of Australians supported the 1967 constitutional change to give Indigenous people equal rights.

Modern Liberals have failed the mainstream on everything from climate change mitigation to achieving gender balance. I could add a host of other letdowns, many of which explain the totemic problems the traditional party of conservatism still faces. But on the voice, ultimately, it reflected the views of the overwhelming majority of Australians. After voters had the chance to watch the campaign, assess the materials and make a judgment. Elites like to think mainstream stupidity explains why the referendum went down. Patronisingly declaring Aussies were duped by No campaign misinformation. In fact, the offensive posturing of elites condemning the masses as collectively dumb is an accidental reflection on their own intellectual shortcomings. A failure to understand the wisdom of the crowd: a theory that explains why large groups usually deliver better decision-making. The essence of democracy and pluralism. The reason voting rights aren’t limited by property ownership, class or education.

Vernon Bogdanor, Professor of Government at King’s College, said “the task of the wise, Isaiah Berlin once told me, is to undo the damage done by the good”. I don’t doubt Albanese thought he was doing good championing the voice the way he did. However, the approach taken set it up to fail and has put back reconciliation. That reality is on his shoulders and Yes proponents, not a No campaign that took issue with what was put forward, securing the backing of the overwhelming majority.

Such a one-sided result isn’t a reflection of a divided nation either, as activists continue to claim. You don’t see 61 per cent landslides at federal elections. If Saturday’s referendum result was divisive, so is every election.

Nothing better highlighted how out of touch the press gallery and the decision-makers in Canberra are from the mainstream than the stark contrast in the ACT results from the states and the Northern Territory.

The courage of the stance Dutton took becomes obvious when breaking down votes within states. Anyone claiming he took the easy road opposing the referendum forgets where the polls started and how the results played out in individual electorates. Much of the No vote registered in Labor heartland seats Liberals can’t hope to ever win, yet Dutton still played the important role of handbrake on an ill-conceived constitutional change Labor MPs supported against the will of their communities: an interesting development for anyone studying theories of trustee and delegate representation.

Teal seats reflected the ACT results, not results across the rest of the country. Dutton’s stance will therefore make it that much harder to win back these once blue-ribbon electorates. It would have been easier for him to support the voice despite deep reservations, in a bid to undo his bad decision to oppose the 2007 apology. Or to avoid the destabilising spectacle of his shadow Indigenous affairs spokesman, Julian Lesser, resigning in protest, which at the time was described by some journalists as a blow to Dutton’s leadership. In fact, it brought Jacinta Nampijinpa Price to the fore, dispelling the notion the Indigenous community was united in favour of the voice.

Peter van Onselen is a professor of politics and public policy at the University of Western Australia and Griffith University.