The Voice to Parliament referendum: Unravelling controversy and misinformation

Australia can build a more equitable and inclusive society, moving beyond the divisive conservative tactics that have marked this chapter in its political history.

Australia is currently at a crossroads with the impending Voice to Parliament referendum, a crucial moment in the nation’s democratic journey. With the writs for this referendum already issued, the legal formalities are in place following the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s announcement of the referendum date a few weeks ago. However, despite not receiving the usual media frenzy and attention associated with general elections in the country, the issues surrounding it have ignited a storm of controversy and misinformation pushed through by “No” campaigners – including the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton – in their quest to deny a positive initiative for First Nations and an attempt to inflict political damage on the Labor government.

The referendum process, in practice, closely mirrors that of a general election, with voters expected to participate in a similar manner. However, the real crux of the matter lies in the unfolding campaign, which has followed a contentious turn, ever since Dutton decided to engage maliciously in this campaign, use it as a political opportunity, rather than an opportunity to unite the country in a historic moment, and decide that he wouldn’t support it and, therefore, campaign against it.

In recent weeks, the spotlight has shifted to the dissemination of misinformation originating from the “No” campaign, a misinformation campaign which has raised significant concerns about the integrity of the democratic process in Australia.

The “No” campaign has – among other nefarious activities – resorted to using phone banking centres that are actively calling random voters and spreading a web of falsehoods about the potential consequences if the Voice to Parliament referendum were to succeed. These misleading claims have taken various forms, including suggestions that the referendum’s success would lead to the abolition of Australia Day, Anzac Day, demands for compensation and reparations to First Nations people, the possibility of “backyards being stolen”, and a push for a Treaty, even though no such plan is on the agenda. Strikingly, much of this misinformation has found resonance with some members of the community, illustrating the complexity of public sentiment on Indigenous issues. Notably, many of the talking points employed by the “No” campaign have found their way into the rhetoric of Liberal Party politicians, adding political weight to the campaign of misinformation.

Constitutionally, the Voice to Parliament needs to have flexibility in the way that it is interpreted by both Parliament, and the High Court – if it is to ever reach that stage – so it can provide legal solutions in the future, without being constrained by interpretations from the past: otherwise, we’d need to hold a referendum every time a circumstance changes, or be rushing to the High Court to interpret whatever the actions of Parliament might be, when it’s up to the Parliament to decide.

The legal intentions of the Voice to Parliament are clear and indubitable, as outlined by the Solicitor–General Stephen Donaghue in his advice to the Prime Minister in April. But the “No” campaign has ignored this advice and sown the seeds of fear and apprehension, suggesting a de facto veto role over [ insert fear campaign of choice here ], and claiming that the entire legal and parliamentary system will collapse. Only the absence of a “the end is nigh” placard campaign has saved the “No” campaign from complete ridicule but, even then, a receptive audience is always at hand for even the most disingenuous strategy.

The Voice to Parliament is simple: a mechanism to provide an Indigenous perspective on decision-making – but even still, leaving it up to the government of the day to decide whether to accept that perspective or not. It couldn’t be any clearer, but the evolving narrative from the “No” campaign suggests that its influence could extend far beyond Indigenous issues, impacting the lives of all Australians. In recent weeks, the fear-mongering campaign against the Voice to Parliament has intensified, coinciding with the approaching referendum date of 14 October. Outlandish and ludicrous claims are now being propagated with increasing frequency, making it difficult to predict where this campaign of misinformation will ultimately lead.

What is behind this increasingly maniacal, lunatic and ridiculous campaign, one that is scraping the absolute bottom of the credibility barrel, laced with a healthy dose of racism and ignorance? It is evident that the “No” campaign is experiencing a sense of panic and urgency. Despite opinion polls suggesting the “Yes” vote is falling in public support, is the situation more precarious for the “No” side than it appears to be?

The “Yes” has faced its own challenges, including a lack of initial inspiration and strategic missteps, and unable to fully comprehend that once the Liberal–National Coalition made the decision not to support the referendum, that the entire strategy of the campaign would need to be rewired and reconfigured. Or perhaps, they also underestimated how vicious, how racist and how opportunist the Coalition was going to be, once they decided that their opposition was not going to be based on values or an ethical appreciation of what was at stake but, rather, an attack on the Labor government and scoring a political victory against the Prime Minister.

But why would we expect any different from the Liberal Party? They exacerbate racial tensions wherever possible for political gain, whether it’s amplifying the Tampa incident from 2001 and the associated “children overboard” saga; “African gangs” in Melbourne in 2018; walking out of the Apology to the Stolen Generation – as Dutton did in 2008; failing to act on the Bringing Them Home report from 1997.  

As the referendum date approaches, it is imperative for Australians to critically evaluate the issues at hand, separating fact from fiction. The referendum’s outcome will have far-reaching benefits, and it is essential that voters make informed decisions based on accurate information and a genuine understanding of the Voice to Parliament proposal. But it’s hard to do, when the bad-faith actors within the Coalition – almost all of them –have no interest in achieving positive outcomes, and only have the sole intention of scoring political points.

The desperation of the “No” campaign: Lies, misinformation and the politics of polarisation

What is striking about this campaign of misinformation is the persistence with which it is propagated. When confronted with accusations of pushing falsehoods, the “No” campaign does not retreat but instead seizes the opportunity to amplify its misinformation further. Such behaviour deviates significantly from the norms of rational discourse and suggests that the stakes for the Liberal Party are extraordinarily high, and it appears that the party genuinely believes that its political survival hinges on defeating the Voice to Parliament. This belief, however, raises an unsettling question: If the cause they champion is so strong, why resort to a campaign grounded in lies, fabrications, and misinformation?

The answer: it’s got nothing to do with the issue in question and is a political strategy imported directly from the United States, particularly from the playbook of the Republican Party. This strategy, which prioritises obstruction and disinformation over substantive policy discussions, has roots dating back to figures like President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, former Speaker of the House of Representative, Newt Gingrich in the 1990s, and further refined in recent years by politicians such as US Senate leader, Mitch McConnell. The essence of this approach is simple: Say “no” to everything, regardless of its merits, spread falsehoods, and mislead the public. And it doesn’t matter what the prize is for winning; it’s all about the winning.

However, what makes this strategy concerning is its detachment from the real-world consequences of political decisions. For these reactionary conservatives, winning is the end in itself, irrespective of the harm caused by their policies. It becomes a victory in an ethereal sense, disconnected from the tangible impact on people’s lives and this approach invariably leads to poor governance, where politicians who excel in opposition find themselves ill-equipped to govern effectively once they assume power. Figures like Tony Abbott in Australia and Donald Trump in the United States, who championed disruptive agendas and divisive rhetoric, struggled to achieve meaningful accomplishments during their tenures in office.

Now, Peter Dutton and the Liberal Party in Australia are following a similar playbook, employing tactics that prioritise lies and misinformation over constructive policy proposals. It’s all about the winning!

The consequences of such a strategy are clear: If Australia did have the misfortune of Dutton ever becoming Prime Minister, his government would likely find itself adrift, lacking the ability to address the real challenges facing the nation. When a political platform relies on falsehoods to survive, the public quickly discerns the lack of substance behind it, as exemplified by Scott Morrison’s loss at the 2022 federal election, where the lies were so plentiful, it was difficult to notice the truth, on those rare occasions when it did arise.

A more prudent strategy for the Liberal Party on the Voice to Parliament would have been to approach the referendum as an issue transcending political divides. They could have pledged support for the Voice to Parliament while vowing to improve and refine its implementation. Instead, their obstinacy and relentless campaign of misinformation have solidified the perception that they stand against progress and Reconciliation. If the referendum is to fail, they would be remembered as the obstructionists who prevented Australia from taking a meaningful step toward true Reconciliation, inclusivity and understanding.

In the end, the Liberal Party’s strategy may have put them in a “lose–lose” position, and their reliance on American billionaires and political advisors with questionable intentions has further undermined their credibility. In its current makeup, it is doubtful that the party can contribute constructively to the nation’s future. Their time in government between 2013–22 is instructive, and it would be repeated again in the future, should they ever return to government in their current form: A legacy of division, misinformation, and missed opportunities, leaving the task of repairing the damage to future governments.

The Voice to Parliament referendum and the path forward

The Voice to Parliament referendum in Australia has emerged as a unique and contentious chapter in the nation’s political landscape. It should have been an opportunity to unite the country but, instead, is languishing as an event that has been hijacked and demolished by conservative forces, led by Peter Dutton and the Coalition.

Whether or not the referendum is successful or not, is not the point. It’s evident that race issues are always bubbling under the surface and like a dormant virus, can always be activated when the diseased minds of conservative members of parliament see an opportunity that can be exploited for political gain. Certainly, this is a sign of a dysfunctional Liberal Party but as bad as this situation is, it’s not the most significant problem.

The real problem is this: When the first opinion polls in August 2022 after the Prime Minister released the draft wording of the Voice to Parliament referendum question – way before any campaign details were even released – 35 per cent of those people polled, said they would vote “No” anyway. 35 per cent. This was before the Coalition even considered whether to support the referendum or not, and way before the vile “No” campaign began to activate its strategy of lies and misinformation. This is the real problem; unprompted, 35 per cent of the electorate said they would vote against the Voice to Parliament, even though there were no details available.

It is evident that the “No” campaign was always going to resort to extreme and unreasonable tactics but still, this departure from reasoned debate raises questions about the sincerity of their cause and the motivations behind their campaign. The strategy of pushing misinformation and using divisive tactics is reminiscent of political strategies imported from the United States, where political polarisation has been exacerbated in recent years. The consequences of such an approach can be damaging, as evidenced by the lacklustre records of politicians who prioritise obstruction and disinformation over substantive governance.

Moreover, the “No” campaign’s tactics appear to have outflanked the government, catching them off guard. Could there have been a better way? Probably. All of this is in hindsight but it highlights the need for clear and effective communication strategies from political leaders, especially during critical moments such as referendums.

During the week, Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews provided straightforward and succinct message emphasising the importance of listening, better outcomes, and recognition of the oldest continuous culture. It was clear and serves as a model for political leaders, not just on the Voice to Parliament, but all political communications. Clearer communications from the outset for the Voice to Parliament would have been far better but, perhaps, given the level of racism that mainstream Australia generally reserves for Indigenous Australia, it’s quite possible that even the most perfect of perfect political campaigns would still have arrived at the same point where we are right now.

It’s clear that the Liberal Party is using the Voice to Parliament referendum as a testing ground for its negative messaging and misinformation campaign in readiness for the 2025 federal election. That the Liberal Party exists in its current form is a bad outcome for Australia but, this is who they are, and not much is going to change in the short-term period.

However, it is a profound opportunity for Australia to take a meaningful step toward inclusivity, understanding, and Reconciliation. Indigenous voices have consistently called for the recognition of their unique perspective, and the referendum represents a chance to heed these calls and forge a more equitable future.

The lead-up to the Voice to Parliament referendum in Australia has brought to the fore issues of misinformation, political polarisation, and vile communication strategies in the country’s political landscape.

It didn’t need to be like this. The Liberal Party decided that they wanted to be on the wrong side of history, and that’s for them and their membership to face up to and decide whether they want to remain in the doldrums and exist as an esoteric and out-of-date debating club on par with conservative university politics, or become a meaningful party that can offer the Australian community something far more substantial in the future.

Regardless of the referendum’s outcome, the path forward should involve constructive engagement, listening to Indigenous voices, and fostering a deeper understanding of Australia’s rich cultural diversity. It is through such measures that Australia can build a more equitable and inclusive society, moving beyond the divisive conservative tactics that have marked this chapter in its political history.