The huge defeat of The Voice proposal is a clear signal that Australians want a change in direction in policy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—but not just any change.
There was no triumphalism in the victory speeches of the main No campaigners, like Senator Jacinta Nampijimpa Price, and even an underlying tone of sadness that things had come to this.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in his referendum night speech seemed to be soliciting a new approach and bipartisanship with Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, which he seemed to be welcoming of, albeit with some political thorns.
Labor is promising to get back to bread and butter issues, claiming The Voice campaign will have no effect on their vote at the next election.
I think this is wrong.
Labor’s Approach to Governance Exposed
The first problem is that Yes campaigners cannot accept the truth that the major reason they lost the campaign was that the proposition was a non-solution to a very real problem.Labor has a drawer full of such policies.
They are collectivist, top-down, and often give special privileges to particular groups. And they have been produced without consultation with the wider community by people whose practical experience and understanding are limited.
It’s not enough for Labor to name the problems that people are suffering from—interest rate increases; housing affordability and rental crises; stuttering electricity systems and escalating power prices; low economic productivity; lack of childcare and aged care places; and massive debt and the threat of higher taxes.
There was no positive connection between a constitutionally enshrined bureaucracy full of well-known activists who already had the ear of the government, and improving outcomes for Aborigines.
Likewise, there is no positive connection between a small increase in government housing expenditure and housing affordability; ever-higher penetrations of wind and solar, and lower power prices; higher nominal wages but an inflexible workforce to higher economic productivity; unrealistic staffing demands to available increased child and aged care availability; or all of the above to lowering debt and keeping taxes under control.
Labor won the last election because the electors were tired of the Liberal-National Coalition, and even more tired of former Prime Minister Scott Morrison. Plus, Labor used a small target strategy, hiding the details of their policies as much as possible.
Polling on The Voice that I have seen said that once people could be convinced it wasn’t racist to oppose The Voice and started looking at the details, they could switch from supporters to opponents. The same dynamic will play out on other policies.
Moral Absolutism an Achilles Heel for the Left
The second problem is the sense of unassailable virtue that Yes campaigners appeared to have. If you weren’t with them, you weren’t just wrong, you were a bad person.I was abused on polling day, not just by the odd voter calling me “filth,” but by the lovely booth worker on the other side telling people to “do the right thing” or “dig deep.”
I’m sure she didn’t mean to be offensive, and we had a very convivial time at the booth, but that attitude is not only deeply insulting to those who honestly hold a different view, but also alienating.
It also means they are strongly inhibited from listening to other views or compromising, making every inflexible policy idea a potential SS Titanic.
All too frequently, they told voters they were “racists.” Again, this is deeply embedded in the Labor and Green’s DNA.
If you disagreed with them on COVID policy, you weren’t just wrong, you were a “granny killer.”
Disagree on climate change then not only do you want to destroy the planet, but the future of your children and grandchildren.
Support capitalism and you are an “exploiter.”
If an employer makes a mistake on pay it is “wage theft.”
Moral absolutism on issues that are anything but absolute, breeds resistance, not obedience. By showing these characteristics during the campaign, the Yes case also has to share the credit for the referendum’s defeat with the No case.
Then there is the charge that the No campaign was based on misinformation and disinformation, charges that were made on the night against prominent spokespeople for No, like Warren Mundine.
When you dig into this, the charge itself is a lie.
The three most popular examples, as determined by ChatGPT, were that The Voice would have been a third chamber of parliament; that it would lead to separatism, division or apartheid; and that The Voice would cost taxpayers money.
Who Else Is Being Blamed for The Voice Result?
They are also blaming Mr. Albanese. While this may be fair, it undermines his authority if he is genuine in his intent to change direction. It is also not a variable they are in a position to change—he will lead Labor to the next election, cemented into place by the “reforms” that former leader Kevin Rudd introduced designed to ensure no more palace coups against sitting prime ministers by nervous cabinet colleagues.Then there is the desperate claim that this is all Mr. Dutton’s fault. Again, it hinges on a belief in the absolute righteousness of The Voice, and the idea, insulting to voters just as much to Mr. Dutton, that it was their duty to give it a tick.
Will This Trigger Self-Reflection?
Labor has occasionally provided good and durable government, most notably during the Hawke-Keating era, when it governed pragmatically from the centre (and even the right), and tried as much as it could to be consultative.Other Labor administrations, convinced of their own purity and dismissive of the democratic will and intelligence of the voters, have spectacularly self-immolated, like Gough Whitlam, Paul Keating, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, and then the phoenixed Kevin Rudd again.
The Greens show even less of the traits required to govern from the centre, bringing governments of the left down for failures of ideological purity.
The defeated referendum campaign displays all those Labor and Green traits with none of the humility and understanding of human nature, or the bounds of reality, required to run a successful democratic government.
So while there are signs from Mr. Albanese that he wants a new start, the old ways are deeply embedded in his government, and those who support it. That means that sooner or later they will face another eruption like they did last Saturday.
You would think that with a result this decisive they would be changing course, but old habits, and human nature, die hard.
