The final week of the Voice campaign: what will the result say about us?

Reconciliation will continue and political leaders should prioritise a vision that transcends petty politics and truly reflects the aspirations of the Australian people.

The Voice to Parliament referendum is a crucial moment in Australian history, with voting now open until 6pm on 14 October, when the polling booths close. The referendum is significant as it seeks to address the long-standing issue of Indigenous representation and recognition within the Australian political landscape. However, as is often the case in referendums, it has been marred by a familiar pattern of fear, division and misinformation, primarily from the “no” campaign and the Liberal Party. This tactic of sowing fear and confusion is not unique to this referendum but has been a recurring theme in Australian politics, where the fear-mongering and misinformation campaigns are designed to manipulate public opinion and create uncertainty, making it challenging for voters to make informed decisions and governments wishing to implement positive social change.

Recent opinion polls suggest a slight swing back towards the “yes” vote in this late stage, though the “no” campaign still leads and is likely to defeat the proposal. However, the real votes cast in the referendum will ultimately determine the outcome, and there is much ground to cover before the final votes are counted on 14 October. The referendum’s simplicity – just the one question with just a “yes” or “no” choice – might suggest a straightforward process, but the political landscape is far from simple.

The combination of political opportunism, a right-wing nihilist Liberal Party, with its leader perceived as having little to offer – but acting as though he has nothing to lose – has created a volatile mix. This mix has contributed to the divisive nature of the campaign and has left many Australians disillusioned with the entire process. Both campaigns, the “yes” and the “no,” have been criticised for their shortcomings, making it difficult for voters to discern the relevance and truth amidst the noise. But whose fault is this?

One alarming trend in this referendum is the spread of lies from the “no” campaign being repeated as facts. When challenged, those propagating these falsehoods dismiss credible sources as “fake news”, or suggesting that there are sinister and ulterior motivations, or the government and Indigenous people have “something to hide”. This erosion of trust in reliable information sources further complicates the decision-making process for voters.

Despite the challenges and divisions, it is our hope that common sense and empathy will prevail, and Australians will make an informed decision that reflects the nation’s commitment to justice and Reconciliation.

Support and challenges in the Voice to Parliament referendum

While the Voice to Parliament referendum has faced its fair share of challenges and misinformation, there have also been notable expressions of support from various quarters, shedding light on the complexities and nuances surrounding this crucial issue.

One encouraging development is the growing number of individuals and public figures voicing their support for the “yes” campaign. Nathan Cleary, the captain of the premiership-winning Penrith Panthers and a prominent figure in the rugby league sports community, posted a video advocating for a “yes” vote, emphasising the importance of Indigenous voices and representation. Such endorsements from respected figures can have a significant influence on public opinion and contribute to raising awareness about the referendum’s significance.

However, despite these positive endorsements, the “no” campaign, backed by the Liberal Party and other conservative forces, continues to promote fear, division, and confusion and their divisive rhetoric threatens to undermine the national discourse on Indigenous representation and recognition. It is essential to critically examine some of the arguments put forth by the “no” campaign and their implications.

One key moment in this debate was the exchange between Liberal Party federal MP Dan Tehan and “yes” campaigner and Indigenous lawyer, Noel Pearson, on the ABC’s Q+A program. Tehan’s argument seemed to revolve around the idea that power already exists within the Senate, and the government’s numbers in the Senate determine its actions.

However, Pearson pointed out that the heart of the issue is not the power within the Senate but the constitutional provision itself. He emphasised that the referendum aims to grant the parliament the explicit power to make laws concerning Indigenous matters, a power currently absent in the constitution.

Pearson’s response highlighted a critical distinction between constitutional power and legislative power. While the referendum deals with constitutional change, the details of legislation and its implementation would be the responsibility of the parliament – as it has always been – but an issue that was totally overlooked by Tehan. This clarification is vital to understanding the scope and impact of the referendum: Tehan is a member of parliament but was happy to show to the public, his ignorance of the political system he is supposedly a part of.

The “no” campaign has not limited itself to substantive arguments alone. It has also resorted to basic diversions include calls for more audits of funding for Indigenous programs and the propagation of various conspiracies, tactics which primarily serve to distract from the central issue and create confusion among voters.

Moreover, the controversy surrounding the colour purple, used by the “yes” campaign, adds another layer of complexity to the discourse. The Australian Electoral Commission’s objection to the colour purple due to its resemblance to their own branding colour has sparked allegations of cheating and trickery from News Corporation news outlets, providing further distractions from genuine debate on Indigenous representation.

In this charged atmosphere, it is crucial to remember the core issue at hand – the need for Indigenous recognition and representation within the Australian political landscape. The debate should focus on the merits and implications of the proposed constitutional change rather than becoming mired in distractions and misinformation.

Indigenous recognition and the big diversion

The referendum has seen the use of divisive tactics and misinformation by political leaders, particularly from the “no” campaign. One notable example is leader of the opposition Peter Dutton’s suggestion that Indigenous recognition could be made but should come with the caveat of recognising migrants as well, a proposition that has nothing to do with the Voice to Parliament, and no one is asking for.

This tactic, typically used by former prime minister Scott Morrison, attempts to sound inclusive while simultaneously downplaying the significance of recognising Indigenous Australians, in a form of ‘sympathy and concern trolling’ to seem genuine in his concern but acting with great disingenuity. It also creates a false division by implying that acknowledging one group somehow diminishes the importance of acknowledging others.

Moreover, Dutton’s claim that Alan Joyce, the former CEO of Qantas, had the power to veto the referendum question is a blatant falsehood. This assertion not only spreads misinformation but also raises questions about how such a scenario would even be possible: where is the proof for such act, and why wasn’t it asked for by the media? It highlights the role of the mainstream media in amplifying false claims without critical analysis. Journalists have a responsibility to fact-check and critically evaluate statements made by political leaders before reporting them.

The low standards of journalism in Australia have allowed political leaders to make unfounded claims that are then uncritically reported and further magnified. This lack of scrutiny has been a significant problem in the referendum campaign, as it allows misinformation to circulate and distort the public discourse.

In contrast to these divisive tactics and misinformation, the Uluru Statement from the Heart presents a genuine and concise call for Reconciliation. While some may attempt to muddy the waters with distractions and falsehoods, the Uluru Statement remains a clear and succinct one-page statement representing the aspirations of Indigenous Australians for recognition and self-determination on the matters which directly relate to them.

Reflections and the path forward

In this final week of campaigning for the Voice to Parliament referendum, there is a sense of trepidation not only about the outcome but how vicious the “no” campaign will become in the final days. Throughout this campaign, it has been hard not to draw parallels with the Republic referendum of 1999, which also faced its share of fear and confusion. There are striking similarities, but also key differences that shed light on the current state of affairs.

In his 1998 election victory speech, John Howard promised a referendum on the republic but, as someone who is a staunch monarchist, he did his best to sabotage the process and there was a failure within the electorate to seize the opportunity when it arose. In his 2022 election victory speech, Anthony Albanese also promised a referendum, advocating for a Voice to Parliament, the difference being that Albanese was a believer his proposal: Howard was a cynic who despised the idea of a republic but offered it as a scrap to the moderates within the Liberal Party and enabled him to walk on boths side of the left and right camps of the party.

One pivotal moment during the 1999 Republic referendum was the rejection of the direct-election of the president, despite popular support of around 80 per cent for it. Similarly, with the Voice to Parliament, there have been suggestions that a two-step process – first legislating the Voice to Parliament and then proposing a referendum in five-to-ten years to alter the Constitution, might have been more effective.

However, it’s crucial to recognise that the Liberal Party’s obstructionist approach, regardless of the proposal, hampers progress: if the Labor government proposed Indigenous recognition in the Constitution, the Liberal Party would have opposed that, despite what they are saying now. If the Voice to Parliament was legislated, they would work to denigrate that as well, and unleash the current opponents, Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine, to add their high level of misinformation and negativity: this is the Liberal Party of Peter Dutton – “no” to everything proposed by a Labor government.

Dutton’s attempt to create doubt around the referendum’s process and continuous false claims demonstrates a lack of vision and a tendency toward small-minded tactics. Such approaches may yield short-term political gains – a likely defeat of the referendum – but fail to inspire confidence in the long-term, which, in politics, always has to the be an election victory. The evidence in every opinion poll since May 2022 suggests that the Liberal Party is not getting any closer in being able to win the next federal election, due in 2025.

Ultimately, the outcome of the referendum won’t be known until the polling booths close at 6pm on 14 October, but the fate of Peter Dutton’s political career is uncertain. However, regardless of the result, the real issue at hand is the future of Australia as a nation committed to justice, Reconciliation, and Indigenous representation. A “yes” vote is a step towards healing historical injustices and forging a more inclusive future: a “no” vote risks perpetuating division and alienation and offers a template for how future elections and referenda will be played out.

In the end, the Voice to Parliament referendum is not just about political meanderings or electoral victories; it is about shaping the future of a nation and its commitment to recognising the rights and aspirations of Indigenous Australians. Dutton and his conservative bedfellows are a minor irritant and will end being an insubstantial footnote in Australia’s political history: like all the irritants who have preceded him in federal politics, it’s all he deserves.

Truth, Treaty, Reconciliation will continue, regardless of whether the referendum is lost: Dutton has decided he’s not a part of this process, but at least he won’t be in public life long enough to express his regret for not supporting the Voice to Parliament because he ‘didn’t grasp the significance of the moment’, as he explained in 2022 for walking out of the 2008 Apology to the Stolen Generations.

As citizens, it is our collective responsibility to make an informed choice, one that reflects our values and the kind of society we want to build. Regardless of the outcome, the journey towards Reconciliation and justice must and will continue, and political leaders should prioritise a vision that transcends petty politics and truly reflects the aspirations of the Australian people.