If we had to learn one thing from the 61 per cent of voters who voted "no" in this referendum it is that no referendum, no matter how reasonable or meritorious the issue, will succeed in the face of opposition from state governments and political parties and, more importantly, any contrary view from the federal opposition.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Those voting "no" on this occasion can be grouped under several headings. Some, for example, were motivated by the claims that "yes" would be divisive.
Others were persuaded by racism (yes, there are racists in Australia) or by the fear of serial litigation about the scope of the Voice. And we should note that misinformation and disinformation played an important, though not crucial, role.
Anyone needing evidence on misleading information need only review statements made by the opposition spokesperson for Indigenous matters, senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who failed Aboriginal voters, notwithstanding her title and electorate.
But the major reason for "no" rests with those who did not have the time or the inclination to understand the merits of the arguments and had no personal grounds to vote "yes" or "no".
They thus felt it was safer to follow those in authoritative positions who opposed change.
This is not said as a criticism. Any future government daring to suggest any referendum must take heed that a hefty proportion of the electorate does not have the capacity to study, and have no commitment to, what to them are arcane subjects.
If this view is accepted, we can better understand why the ACT electorates and those across Australia with similar demographics voted "yes" in the Voice referendum (and in the lost republic referendum in 1999). Voters in these electorates have more time and capacity to look beyond the day's troubles.
They have had on average more formal education in or employment in areas which touch on government affairs. It is not that these voters belong to the disparaged elite.
It seems that the Prime Minister relied on the early strength of the Yes vote, believing that it would be sustained during the referendum process. And Albanese would have expected that the leader of the opposition, Peter Dutton, when he finally opposed the referendum, would be made irrelevant by the success of the referendum.
READ MORE:
But all available evidence - Albanese's words and actions - shows that the Prime Minister was mainly motivated by the perceived goodness of the cause, not by the political benefit flowing from a successful outcome. Albanese was quite willing to share the expected victory spoils with Dutton.
The Prime Minister's subsequent explanation for proceeding with the referendum rings true: he did what he promised to do before the general federal election, and he put to the people precisely what Australia's Indigenous peope asked to be advanced. For this there can be no blame.
Dutton appears to be the sole winner, even without his unfairly aggrandising victory by saying the referendum ought never have been conducted, and that it was Albanese's model that was defeated. But Dutton's win looks as tainted as Australia's victory in the 1981 one-day cricket match when the Chappell brothers decided to bowl the last ball underarm thus denying New Zealand any chance of a win.
Dutton opposed the referendum for political reasons. To hold that victory, he now needs to do what the Coalition failed to do on this occasion and to do what it has never done: listen to our Aboriginal and Torres Strait communities and treat them seriously.
- Tony Harris is a former state auditor-general and senior Commonwealth officer.
