The cliché about disunity being death in politics sure doesn’t apply to the No campaign. It’s all over the place, and it’s winning.
As the referendum draws nearer and the “debate” grows more fetid, we’re getting a better sense of the spectrum of No arguments. We’ve known the ends of the spectrum for a long while — progressive Nos, who regard a Voice as inadequate, or want a treaty first, or who regard a Voice as simply the legitimisation of the fundamentally monstrous act of colonisation and genocide. And at the other end, the out-and-out racists who basically hate First Peoples, or who are so profoundly indifferent to their experience as to be immorally neglectful beneficiaries of colonisation.
There’s also been, all along, a group for whom the Voice referendum is simply another front in endless culture wars, another opportunity to attack progressives, First Peoples, people of colour, women, LGBTQIA+ people, the “woke”, inner-city people, etc. They’re the ones to be found attacking Welcome to Country ceremonies and Acknowledgements of Indigenous peoples and pretending that Australia Day was always on January 26 and moving it is an act of terrorism. They’re related, but not identical, to foreign influencers and trolls trying to sabotage the Yes campaign (Russians, News Corp, the Daily Mail) by inciting division.
There’s now emerging a neo-assimilationist view, which non-Indigenous figures have been given cover to express by Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who has dismissed the possibility of intergenerational trauma, described colonisation as positive, and argued there’s no need for separate Indigenous policies.
There’s a minority in the non-progressive No camp who at least appear thoughtfully engaged with Indigenous issues. Nyunggai Warren Mundine, for example, opposes the Voice but supports local-level treaties, and even backs moving the date of Invasion Day from January 26.
There are also senior figures such as former Liberal PM Tony Abbott and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton who claim to support Indigenous recognition in the constitution, but only a white man’s recognition, one devoid of any engagement with the people being recognised, sort of “we’ll recognise who our First Peoples are, and the circumstances in which they’re recognised”.
The latter claim that simple Indigenous recognition, without a Voice, would sail through a referendum with strong support — but you can bet your house the same No campaign would re-form against such a referendum on the basis that it was racially divisive, unfair on white people, created legal doubt, would be a lawyer’s picnic, etc — is essentially the same as the reasons being offered against the Voice.
Then there’s the minority-of-one argument of Dutton, that we need a second referendum — a position not even his own Indigenous affairs spokeswoman Price will support.
But if Dutton is at odds with Price on a second referendum, he is also explicitly at odds with Mundine on the need for treaties, not to mention Australia Day. Mundine says he’s at odds with open racists within the No campaign, and has dumped or sidelined them. Many No campaigners openly object to any recognition at all, even the white man’s recognition on offer from the Liberals.
But as part of the hardening of positions that inevitably occurs during a campaign, other No arguments are getting more profile. While broadly successful in pushing a message of confusion and fear, the No campaign has had limited success in selling the line that a Voice would automatically lead to reparations being paid to First Peoples. A senior member of Mundine’s group is also peddling a line from the native title debates of the 1990s. In a good get by the Nine newspapers, former One Nation candidate Kerry White was reported as claiming: “Aboriginal people will be running this country, and all the white people here will be paying to live here.”
It could be 1996 and the Wik decision all over again, complete with John Howard and Tim Fischer holding up maps on The 7.30 Report warning people’s backyards were about to be seized by Black activists. Remember, this isn’t a fringe figure but a board member of Mundine’s No group.
It’s the latest of a variety of lies peddled by the No campaign, and as if on cue, Australia’s most prominent political liar, Scott Morrison, offered his intervention in the debate by telling his Cook constituents — unemployable outside politics and with his party terrified of losing his seat, Morrison remains trapped in Parliament — that:
The Voice is ill-defined and carries significant risk … Ultimately the High Court is then left to sort out the mess and decide what it all means, long after you have cast your vote. This will inevitably lead to needless confusion and uncertainty — over everything from our national defence to Centrelink, which all fall within the ambit of the Voice.
That this is yet another lie from Morrison is unsurprising: the man has made mendacity the defining feature of his time in politics, so there’s no reason to stop now.
What’s more ironic, and altogether funnier, is that the man who led as chaotic, incompetent and corrupt a government as he did, the man who secretly signed himself into ministries, the man who allowed his cabinet colleagues to be misled, should warn of a “mess” in government — especially at, of all places, Centrelink.
Still, remember the lesson from Morrison’s time in politics — you can be openly at war with each other, you can blatantly lie, you can utter complete nonsense, but you can still win an election. Or in this case, a referendum.
I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the No campaign. The No campaign doesn’t need to be coherent, doesn’t need to be cohesive, or have a unifying message.
The No campaign is arguing for nothing to change. All it has to do is throw out a thousand different reasons to not vote Yes. That’s all.
This isn’t true for Yes. They are arguing that we need change and to do that you need a coherent and clear message.
To say the No campaign is ‘divided’ is to not understand how it works.
Exactly. This is a referendum, not an election. There is no No party, and there doesn’t need to be.
That’s exactly what BK is arguing!
I think it’s a bit more complicated than that.
To be fair the article meanders quite broadly but the tone seems to be one of scratching your head as to how it can succeed when it is so ‘riven with division’. Which is what my comment addresses.
Agree, as a famous pollster always says, negatives move persuadable voters/people, but positives don’t.
Meanwhile Brexit and Trump had all the same features or elements and potential negative outcomes as the ‘No campaign’, create (permanent) division in electoral politics, leveraging ageing monocultural, less educated, often regional and above median age voters, before ‘the great replacement’ precludes the same sociocultural ‘wedges’.
Disruption allows the nativist authoritarian right to remain central, but disturbingly, it seems about trying to make permanent, restrictions on society, and ‘sovereignty, freedom and liberty’ for the <1%.
Two key phenomena observed by academic research in UK Brexit, US Trump, Orban’s Hungary i.e. ‘pensioner populism’ and ‘collective narcissism’ vs. whatever ‘others’ are thrown up by media messaging.
Don’t forget the cultural Marxists.
I suspect a large portion of the No vote could be traced back to the alleged anti-authoritarian attitude that allegedly resides in our national subconscious. You know – the Govt can get f##ked, “stick it up ‘em” streak. It’s the resort of people who would never dare raise their heads above the parapet when the arrows are flying, the populists who are convinced that someone somewhere is getting more than them and more than they deserve, and this is their chance to “fight back”, without danger of repercussions for them.
What, enlighten me, is a cultural Marxist? I can’t see how your comment links to Marxism in any way at all
Neither does Cultural Marxism (outside of the arrangement of letters) so at least it’s consistent !
I’m suspecting from the context it’s a closet commie. You know, like the teachers in schools supporting students rights to openly identify as LGBTQI and transgender?
A term often (mis)used by the LNP who completely lack an understanding of theoretical aspects of Marxism, never read Marx, and sow fear in the general population about the red under the bed. Which is somewhat ironic considering that whole Timor-Leste gaffe…
Thank you, Kim. At least one reader does not live under a rock.
It’s an oxymoron used by RWNJ’s who want to sound intelligent to describe ‘lefties’ who they claim are using progressive issues (mostly identity politics) to deliberately undermine (their version of) Western society.
The ‘cultural’ is fair enough as part of the description, but it has nothing to do with Marxism. Marxism is a modernist, structural ideology (our social attitudes are dependent on the structures/classes in society). Identity politics/post-modernism are the opposite – individuals construct their identity and social structures personally.
Putting the two words together is just BS. But doesn’t it sound fancy!
It’s not meant to sound fancy, it’s meant to bring the standard Conservative boogeymen of Socialism/Communism to mind. Basically just a modernised “reds under the bed” (like “woke” is a modernised “politically correct”).
It’s an oxymoron used by RWNJ’s who want to sound intelligent to describe ‘lefties’ who they claim are using progressive issues (mostly identity politics) to deliberately undermine (their version of) Western society.
The ‘cultural’ is fair enough as part of the description, but it has nothing to do with Marxism. Marxism is a modernist, structural ideology (our social attitudes are dependent on the structures/classes in society). Identity politics/post-modernism are the opposite – individuals construct their identity and social structures personally.
Putting the two words together is nonsensical rubbish – like saying a round square. But doesn’t it sound fancy!
Christ on a crumpet – are you so out of touch with the Sky crowd that you have never heard the accusations of cultural Marxism? It’s Rowan Dean’s bread and butter.
You need to add a dollop of sarcasm for it to make sense, Tom.
Anti authoritarian? This would be a self delusion. Look at the amount of time that Australian voters have awarded government to the conservative parties. I agree though how well they are played by downward envy,
I did say “that allegedly resides in our national subconscious”. Thought that made it pretty clear that I was being contemptuous of the concept.
Maybe they’re playing 4D chess and electing conservatives so they have something to be anti-authoritarian about ? 😀
Couldn’t disagree more on the idea of Australian anti-authoritarianism. We are complacent, obedient and ignorant. When the French are out marching on the streets, we’re at home watching the footie or on the beach eating fish and chips.
We have meekly accepted being exploited by Big Biz and small-minded politicians; being under the thumb of two foreign powers, the UK and the US; and despite every piece of catastrophic evidence that we need to change we continue to destroy the environment through landclearing and over-development.
We are furious with anyone staging a protest and interrupting our daily routines and we applaud the protesters being harrassed by police or chucked in gaol.
Anti-authoritarian? Yeah, nah.
I doubt many voters will take much notice of the self appointed No campaigners. Does anyone really look to Clive Palmer, Lidia Thorpe or Peter Dutton to tell them how to vote?
Neither do I believe many voters will take much notice of the self appointed Yes campaigners. Does anyone really look to actors, sports stars or virtuous corporates to tell them how to vote?
People will make up their own minds. Many will vote “Yes”, but I suspect the sum of “No” and “not Yes” will prevail – with little regard to the campaigning from either side.
Corporates generally not, but I suspect a lot of people have opinions shaped around how their favourite celebrities feel (or they think they feel). I point to the small but vocal outrage / boycotts when actors/musicians/sports/celebrities in general express “unexpected” political opinions as evidence.
I think “small but vocal” is the operative phrase. How many MSM articles these days begin with “Outrage as…..[insert allegedly outrageous act or omission]”? Who is “outraged”? Somebody? Anybody? Anybody……?
Would most fans boycott their favourite band or actor because they suggested – for example – a man who wants to be treated as a woman is not identical to a natural woman? I think not. Some fans might – which makes it fringe behaviour. Newsworthy – but fringe – and highly unlikely to have any effect on the views of most fans.
Remember the Aussie restaurant owner who told vegetarian activists who were accosting his customers and disrupting his business to F-off and kicked them out? In some echo chambers you’d think he’d killed Bambi, he was “on the wrong side of history”, was personally destroying the planet and his business was “going down”. Yeah right. Business has never been better.
My general assertion is that the impact of “opinion leaders” and other miscellaneous loud mouths is much less significant than many people think it is – irrespective of which team you’re “rooting for”. On the topic of sex, the bloke (and it’s almost always a bloke) who talks the loudest and the most (often about himself) in a business meeting isn’t necessarily the most persuasive.
Maybe I’m wrong and I simply give people too much credit in their ability to think for themselves.
One advantage of the internet is it allows minority/back row voices to be heard just as loudly as majority/front row voices.
One disadvantage of the internet is it allows minority/back row voices to be heard just as loudly as majority/front row voices.
Let me put it another way. If nobody cared about what celebrities said, why would businesses pay them so much money to say things ? I’d be staggered if there weren’t analysis being done on how (and who) much sales impact came from it, especially in this “big data” age.
Everyone takes note of everything, and the best advertising wins. We can all dredge an ‘opinion’ from our imaginations – while knowing nothing about it, yet still believing it’s valid. It’ll be based on thousands of references subliminally tucked away from our surroundings. Clive Palmer, Ash Barty, the High St. Possible hazards carry more weight than possible benefits. Fear wins over hope. Knowledge dispels fear, but there isn’t enough knowledge to go around. But that’s only my opinion.
“People will make up their own minds.”
Maybe most will, but not those who take the advice, “Don’t know? Vote No.”
Perhaps, but I don’t see your two statements as being mutually exclusive.
The statement “don’t know, vote no” is human nature. It describes exactly how people tend to instinctively respond to any change proposed by anyone else. It’s a catchy statement that could have been modelled on OJ Simpson’s slippery lawyers – “if the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit”. However, I contend most people will still make their own minds – whether they’ve heard the offending slogan or not.
As others have observed, the “Yes Campaign’s” job is so much harder than the “No Campaign’s” because Yes has to convince a double majority of voters:
The current polling suggests the “Yes Campaign” hasn’t done a good enough job of these seven points to get across the line.
Actually I’d be surprised if there was ever a need for a “No Campaign”. “No” is just the usual attention seekers looking for attention and/or to score points against real or imaginary foes. I doubt they’ve affected the size of the No vote at all.
Adopting a Clintonesque “deplorables” approach to those who are clearly too stupid and/or lazy and/or racist and/or easily manipulated by liars / charlatans / RWNJs / bad actors to weigh up the evidence and do the “right and proper thing” (ie. agree with me) is particularly counterproductive. At best, it achieves nothing. At worst, it turns a lot of undecided voters off, either through personal offence or disengagement with the general nastiness of the process.
The “Yes Campaign” will be a good case study for marketing students in coming years.
Oh damn. I forgot to mention the “elites”. Apparently it is a noun these days. I’m not sure what it means though, or why the mere mention of “elites” would convince anyone to vote one way or another. Perhaps it’s related to the Deep State?
Both sides seem determined to tar the other side’s arguments with the same high priced horsehair brush.
Two men say they’re Jesus. One of them must be wrong.
You forgot to include getting the news of an imminent referendum out to the terminally stupid. There are plenty of people out there who don’t actually know it’s happening. Nor do they care, and will probably reflexively vote no if they bother to vote at all.
Terminally stupid and only interested in the colour of their fingernails or their petrol-guzzling cars.
Any win by the No team will be a Phyrric Victory for Dutton. It won’t earn him a single extra vote in the polls or in the next election. He may campaign ‘Vote for me, I defeated the Voice’ but not a single Teal, Green or Labor voter will flip which is his primary KPI
Conversely a loss for the Yes team next month won’t loose Labor any votes come the next election
It will be a loss for Australia but the political scorecard will remain the same
I know Aston was a startling loss to the Liberals but how on earth could they be “terrified” of losing Cook. Morrison was at the height of his ignominy at the last election and suffered a 6.58% swing against him but still won by 62.44% 2pp. Given the history of poor government performance in by-elections, the fact that the Albo government’s honeymoon is long over, the housing affordability and cost of living crisis, surely with that kind of margin the Liberals must be relaxed and comfortable about retaining Cook. The proverbial drover’s dog would be a more popular candidate than Morrison and could could easily increase the margin.