Yes campaign ‘snookered’, says Noel Pearson in call for major campaign shift

Leading Voice architect Noel Pearson is pushing for a fundamental shift in how the Voice to parliament referendum is being presented, warning the Yes movement lacks a clear message and has been snookered by deceptive arguments of its opponents.

In a significant intervention months out from a tightly contested referendum, the academic and activist also said there was an urgent need to elevate the goal of recognising Indigenous Australians in the Constitution above the creation of the Voice advisory body.

Noel Pearson delivers a speech calling for constitutional change at the National Museum of Australia in 2021.Credit: Dominic Lorrimer

Much of the debate about the referendum has centred on the proposed Voice, but Pearson declared the Yes campaign must shift its attention to explaining the need to recognise First Nations people in Australia’s founding document and moving towards reconciliation, which he feared would be doomed in the long term if the referendum failed.

“I think that message has got to be even more prominent than the Voice. The Voice is just the means; the core of the reform is recognition,” he said in an interview, “and our argument is that the Voice is the best means.”

“Give our people a Voice to the parliament, to the government, and you will give us the best means of recognition. But the main point here is that we achieve recognition. That was the original motivation. When John Howard kicked the ball off in 2007, it was about recognition.”

Pearson said highlighting recognition would be a “fundamental refocus that brings clarity to our campaign and our cause”.

“It’s a lack of clarity that is obviously working against us,” he said. “That is something we have to get over.”

Expressing optimism that the Yes campaign could overcome what he described as inevitable messiness caused by months of political debate, Pearson admitted his movement’s messaging had been cluttered.

“I think that’s a challenge we face at this stage of the campaign: we don’t have a clear message.”

Pearson, who is a director of the Yes23 organisation, also acknowledged he had erred in engaging in multiple verbal stoushes this year, saying the movement’s most valuable asset was its unifying essence and “people like me need to realise we can’t be drawn by our opponents into obscuring that promise.”

“I think that’s a mistake I personally made … some of the fights and the frustrations about that and so on. Our strongest suit is unity for the country.”

The Senate will begin debating the bill to set up the referendum this week. After this final stage of the political process – which has coincided with a substantial drop in public polling support for the Voice – Pearson and the Yes movement hope to sharpen its communication and build its on-the-ground infrastructure.

Pearson’s preferred campaign approach could cause discomfort in sections of the Yes camp. Voice-supporting Labor cabinet ministers last month told this masthead that downplaying the Voice could play into the No campaign’s hands after Yes23’s first major advertisement emphasised constitutional recognition and only referenced the Voice in a hashtag at the end of the video. Leading No campaigner, Country Liberal Party senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, attacked the ad as “deceptive”.

Australians will be asked at a referendum between October and December whether they support a Voice advisory body being established “in recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia”.

Jacinta Price and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.Credit: AAP

Pearson, the Cape York Institute leader, said focusing on recognition – support for which has traditionally been strong across the political spectrum – would help the Yes campaign to overcome the rhetorical challenges it faced fighting its opponents, whom Pearson said had “snookered” Voice backers.

By painting Yes figures as divisive and driven by race-based interests, Pearson said, his allies were wary of engaging in debates on these topics lest they went some way to proving the original charge.

“[They] accuse the Yes campaign of going out and saying, you know, you’re racist if you don’t vote for this, even though they can’t point to any instance of it,” he said.

“In fact, there’s hardly any Yes voices compared to them and it has just resulted in the fact that they’re completely free to talk about racism and the Yes campaign is completely snookered from calling it out.”

In a boost to Voice supporters, the Yes campaign will announce on Monday that more than 500 community organisations – including environmental groups, faith and multicultural organisations, land councils, businesses, universities, sporting clubs and unions – had pledged support for the Voice.

Addressing the lack of recognition of Indigenous people in the Constitution was the overriding purpose of this year’s referendum, Pearson argued, adding that once the referendum bill was signed off by parliament, “the clarity of our proposition will be allowed to shine through.”

“This isn’t ever going away. Do we do it in 2050, maybe? Or do we do it in 2100? So yes, recognition is the most core and fundamental argument. But it’s a core and fundamental argument because it is what is wrong with the country; it is the key thing that is wrong with Australia.

“The onus will fall on us to have a very clear message for the Australian people after this legislation passes the Senate. No more excuse after that. After that, we will need a very clear message to the Australian people about what this is all about and why it is important for all Australians.

“The coherence of the campaign is going to be extremely important. Over the next six months, we need discipline, and we need a single message coming from the Yes side of the campaign. We’re now at a stage where we’re ready.”

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.