Then what? As the October 14 Voice referendum grows closer, speculation is rampant about the socio-political consequences of the result. From political commentators such as The Australian’s Paul Kelly to the fewer luminary examples of that species, speculation is rife, with their binoculars focused on how and what the backlash might be from the losing camp.
This long-distance speculation is attractive mostly because there has been so much antagonism that a solid resentment has built up, on both sides. So much is invested…
Perhaps the most obvious forecast (fearcast?) is that a ‘No’ vote against the Voice will trigger claims of racism and bigotry from the ‘Yes’ camp. The mistake of mischaracterising their political opponents is expected to override any rational consideration, that it was the proposition that was faulty, not the voter. Although we could be forgiven for thinking that the ‘Yes’ campaign is conducted like a commercial product launch, complete with its own music track, it is not. It is a most consequential question put to Australians. It has been a disrespectful strategy, characterised by the initial refusal to provide equal funding for the ‘No’ argument. That was telling. ‘The mob will work you out,’ as Graham Richardson might say.
As Kelly writes:
‘Any referendum defeat, on the other hand, runs the grave risk that the wrong conclusion will be drawn, namely that the public has withdrawn its goodwill, rejected recognition and Indigenous aspirations, as distinct from rejecting a contentious model. The danger is the Yes camp, having misjudged the referendum, might then misjudge why it was defeated. If the voice goes down, the Yes camp must reflect upon itself, not the voters.’
In my own binoculars, I see something else if it’s a ‘No’ from us: I see a tidal wave of recriminations against all those badly advised corporates and sporting codes and law firms and organisations that pumped the ‘Yes’ campaign full of cash. They will be seen as totally out of touch with Australians. They might even be labelled enablers of a Voice that many consider an anti-democratic mechanism. A ‘No’ will let them know it’s not the money, stupid. Clive Palmer coulda told ‘em that.
Many ‘No’ voters might conclude that those corporates and others had acted in a way that could be deemed un-Australian. They will lose trust and may even seek alternative brands and suppliers. At the next election, voters, too, might seek alternatives to the party that thrust this un-Australian and destructive idea into the public square.
The boards of those corporations may try and shrug off such criticisms of their unilateral decisions – undemocratic itself, without the endorsement of shareholders – they might want to consider how even the biggest brands can crash in public esteem very quickly … just ask Qantas. (When will Qantas scrub off the YES23 logo from its planes?) Backing ‘Yes’ when Australia voted ‘No’ would harm the credibility of all those brands and groups. Loss of credibility leads to loss of legitimacy. That long-lasting self-harm from jumping on the Voice bandwagon is what my binoculars show. Of course, my focus setting may be wrong … but I think they will all be shamed – and the shame will linger.
Judging by how often Prime Minister Anthony Albanese comes close to tears when promoting the ‘Yes’ case, it would not be a surprise if he wept at a ‘No’ result. Others might weep at a ‘Yes’ result. It is such a crying shame this matter was handled by Albanese as badly as was the US withdrawal from Afghanistan by Biden.
The increasingly less likely ‘Yes’ victory will no doubt also generate resentment, this from the ‘No’ camp, where it may be argued that the result is illegitimate, ‘bought’ by millions of corporate cash. ‘They stacked the deck!’ That accusation could rest on the fact that polls are showing greater support for ‘No’ in the lead-up, before the big spend, so those who were uncommitted either way (and the soft ‘Yes’) may be swayed by the splurge leading up to the vote.
Indulge me a personal anecdote about this: a young woman who cuts my hair, a migrant from the Philippines, asked me the other day how I would vote in the referendum. ‘No’, I told her, and also why (in brief, before she finished my haircut!). She then said words to the effect, ‘So there is more than what’s in the pamphlet…?’
