The prime minister has described this year’s referendum to create an Indigenous Voice to parliament as a unifying moment for the nation. Unfortunately, the early indications are that it will be anything but. Australia faces the prospect of a bitter and argumentative winter marked not by unity but division – less like the 1967 referendum than the conscription plebiscites of World War I.
It does not have to be that way. The most recent act of public choice – the marriage equality survey of 2017 – proves that the public discussion of a controversial and sensitive issue can take place without rancour. Of course, there were exceptions from the extremes on both sides. But the mainstream campaigns were conducted respectfully.
Marriage equality advocates celebrate the Yes verdict at the Stonewall Hotel on Sydney’s Oxford Street in 2017. Credit:Anna Kucera
The Yes campaign did not malign those who wished to retain the traditional definition of marriage as homophobic. It did not impugn the motives of conservatives; in fact, it largely ignored the No campaign and appealed to the generous instincts of the public. Its overwhelming success shows this was the right approach.
The issues in the Voice referendum are obviously very different. People are being asked to amend the Constitution – something they have always been hesitant to do. Whether the referendum is a moment of unity or division will depend on the way the debate is conducted by both sides.
If the nature of the discussion in recent weeks is any indication, the tone is different from that of the marriage equality debate. Yet both have the same ultimate objective: the better inclusion of a hitherto marginalised group. Unfortunately, so far, much the nastiness – the impugning of motives and the allegation of bad faith – has come from those with the most to lose: the advocates of Yes.
That became apparent when Opposition Leader Peter Dutton asked Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for particulars of how the Voice would operate. The response to his letter was revealing. While Albanese stuck to his line that the details would be worked out by parliament, numerous advocates for the Voice – in newspaper columns, cartoons, letters to the editor, from the bully pulpit of ABC current affairs programs and, of course, throughout the sewer of social media – immediately went on the attack.
Revealingly, none of those who attacked Dutton could point to any of the 15 questions he asked as irrelevant. Understandably, because it is simply not possible for a rational person to dispute that, when considering a complex and novel proposal, more information about how it will work is better than less. The attack was upon Dutton’s motives. Rather than accepting his inquiry as a request for information in a discussion clouded by uncertainty, it was immediately condemned as a devious ruse to defeat the Voice.
To give one example among very many, the chair of Reconciliation Australia, Ken Henry, was anything but conciliatory; his article in this masthead was belligerent and abusive. Dutton was slammed for “negative, wrecking ball tactics … contrived political game-playing for self-serving personal advantage … disingenuous political opportunism … about as crass as it gets”. Henry simply presumed Dutton was acting in bad faith.
Learn from a triumphant Yes campaign: don’t malign wary voters or Voice will fail
6
0
05.02.2023
The prime minister has described this year’s referendum to create an Indigenous Voice to parliament as a unifying moment for the nation. Unfortunately, the early indications are that it will be anything but. Australia faces the prospect of a bitter and argumentative winter marked not by unity but division – less like the 1967 referendum than the conscription plebiscites of World War I.
It does not have to be that way. The most recent act of public choice – the marriage equality survey of 2017 – proves that the public discussion of a controversial and sensitive issue can take place without rancour. Of course, there were exceptions from the extremes on both sides. But the mainstream campaigns were conducted respectfully.
Marriage equality advocates celebrate the Yes verdict at the Stonewall Hotel on........
© The Sydney Morning Herald
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Grant Arthur Gochin
Gideon Levy
Priyamvada Gopal
Poonam Muttreja
Patrick Gathara
Obaid Mir
Zaher Sahloul
