Reflections on the referendum
If how one responds to adversity, rather than triumph, is the true test of character, the reaction of many of the champions of the Yes case in the recent referendum on indigenous issues is telling. The responses ranged from a retreat from public discourse to attempts to lay the blame at the foot of the No proponents. The two major avenues of attack were that the vote failed because of so-called misinformation; and that the majority of non-tertiary educated people didn’t understand the proposition before them. Each claim is patently ridiculous. For a campaign that refused to provide any detail of how the Voice would actually work, and disagreement as to whether the multi-pages of detailed documentation were or were not a part of the Uluṟu Statement from the Heart, it is disingenuous now to contend that a particular constitutional interpretation was misinformation.
The suggestion that the majority of Australians without a degree were less able to discern the consequences of the proposal is condescending. Research over a long period of time has shown differences in the values of (the majority) of those who have attended university in more recent decades and those who have not. It is not the possession of a degree that is significant; it is the underling values and world views of the majority in each category. Suggestions that the majority of Australians were less intelligent, such as Waleed Aly’s inference that they hadn’t grasped an ‘abstract, complicated concept’ miss the mark. Likewise, John Black’s contention that ‘the haves voted to share their wealth, the have-nots wanted someone to notice them’ mischaracterises the divide. Sure, there were some for whom this explanation suffices, but it fails to explain the vast majority who voted No.
Attending pre-polling for many hours, and spending most of polling day on a booth was revealing. I was in the heart of Yes territory; a suburb in a relatively safe Labor seat that is rapidly yuppifying. The older working and lower middle-class population is being substituted by young professionals as 1950s and 60s housing is being replaced by new townhouses. They arrived at the booth in their BMWs, Mercedes and SUVs, or on foot with a young child in a stroller and a latte in hand. Many were public service workers, others the younger managers and information workers in the many corporates supporting the Voice. While the majority of people didn’t take a brochure from either the Yes or No camps, I was particularly struck by the disdain of many of the Yes voters. They seemed offended that someone could possibly suggest voting No. These are the new political Gnostics, the (mostly) inner city inhabitants who know better than the rest of the population and are shocked that the majority of Australians could not grasp their morally superior understanding. Theirs is a milieu of utopian dreams.
Two months before polling day, the scholars Bob Birrell and Katherine Betts discussed the declining Yes vote. They concluded: ‘In our view the main explanation for the fall-off in the Yes vote is that the voice is seen by many voters (especially those who are non-graduates) as a challenge to their nationalist values. From their perspective a strong and united nation is important as a protector of their economic interests. To them the voice represents a potential breakdown in that unity.’
While not exhaustive, this analysis is closer to the truth than the simplistic tertiary educated vs non-tertiary educated explanations which betray the same hubristic attitude that the majority of Australians rejected. As Birrell and Betts wrote: ‘The progressive elite has reacted to the slip in the voice vote by pressing the moral intensity of their cause, with the implication that a No vote is shameful, even racist. Shaming is not working because, at the core of non-graduates’ nationalistic values, is the presumption that all Australians are equal regardless of the community they identify with. For them it is voice advocates who are racists, because they are advocating for separate political representation and sovereignty for one racially distinct group, the Indigenous community.’
The referendum has exposed a deep faultline in Australia between the vocal, relatively wealthy, managerial and globally-oriented minority and the majority who value nationhood, citizenship, and the bonds of faith and tradition, family and community. This faultline has been disguised in parliamentary elections for a number of reasons, including the preferential voting system.
Which brings me to the Prime Minister’s reaction to the vote. Greg Craven’s eviscerating analysis of the Yes campaign in The Australianis salutary reading for any future proponent of constitutional change. His analysis is highly critical of the prime minister’s decision to conduct a partisan campaign. ‘The . . . problem was an absolute dismissal of bipartisanship, especially by the Prime Minister, but also by other Yes protagonists. At one level, bipartisanship simply was unnecessary when there was only one answer. But it went further. It was clear that, especially in the case of Albanese, a partisan referendum was the desired scenario. This would give him an unprecedented victory, placing him in the progressive pantheon. His conservative enemies, especially Peter Dutton, would be crushed. It simply is not true to say Dutton was solely responsible for a partisan referendum. He was never consulted, as opposed to being told what was happening. The PM’s offers to consider changes to words or content were not real. Dutton was meant to oppose. Eventually, as a matter of politics, he did. But before that, there was an opportunity to at least persuade him towards only modest contradiction, with conscience votes and moderate arguments. This possibility was spurned.’
A factional warrior since his youth, Albanese seriously risks not being able to transition successfully to the premiership he occupies. His comments, both during and since the campaign, betray a person continually spoiling for a fight, and unable to seek the consensus required of a national leader. His speech after the referendum hardly acknowledged the majority of Australians who voted No and praised the Yes supporters. The Prime Minister appears a captive of the progressive minority who have replaced the old working class as Labor’s new constituency. By contrast Peter Dutton reached out to the Yes voters.
As I wrote last week, the referendum will not be the determining factor in the next election. But the party which best crafts policies that recognise and uphold the values of the vast majority of Australians will be better placed to succeed.
First published in the Spectator Australia.
