Paul Murray: McGowan backs referendum but his refusal to listen on Banksia Hill exposes the humbug of Yes case
For the vast majority of Australians, the word humbug means something that is dishonest or misleading and describes behaviour that is intentionally deceiving.
But in Aboriginal slang, humbugging can connote something quite different: it describes people making unreasonable demands, usually for money.
There’s an awful lot of humbug coming from the Albanese Government as it tries to shore up waning support for the model of an Indigenous Voice it wants passed at a referendum later this year.
Last week’s national Resolve polling in Nine newspapers showing the potential Yes vote had dropped from 64 per cent late last year to just 53 per cent has alarmed its promoters who seemed to think the proposition would sail through on emotion and goodwill.
However, it has been evident for months — even before the No case solidified — that there was a big “soft” Yes vote that was steadily eroding within what appeared to be a strong majority.
Roy Morgan polling in April showed a higher No vote than Yes in Queensland and South Australia — which would be enough to sink the referendum.
In WA, Morgan had the split at 46-41 favouring Yes. But that figure is down 17 per cent since last December, with No up 15 per cent and undecideds up two.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese should have left the campaigning for the Voice to credible Indigenous proponents because it’s increasingly clear that he either knows little about it or is deceptively portraying it as something it is not.
His initial tactic of not releasing any details about how the Voice would work, telling people to read the 269-page Calma-Langton report, has backfired.
His playing down of a whole new chapter of the Constitution as a “modest” change has been exposed: sophistry at best, duplicity more likely.
The simple questions remain unanswered: how will the Voice make governments listen any better than now?
Having rolled up into a little ball to get Labor elected last year on the widespread dislike of his opponent, he thought another small target strategy was the way to go.
Albanese is typical of Labor’s Left which traditionally crave success on emblematic social causes. He nailed his Voice colours to the mast on election night and now must see it prevail to retain credibility.
The essential problem is that so much of the Yes case has been built on half-truths.
The proposition was never merely for a “Voice to Parliament” as the government — and most of the media — continues to describe it. The proponents don’t primarily want a better-informed Parliament, which is what that term denotes.
They want a government that does what they say.
And it was never really about “constitutional recognition” of Indigenous Australians either.
They want the Voice enshrined in the Constitution so it cannot be removed, no matter how badly it fails or how much Australians dislike it when they realise what it’s really about. That’s not “recognition”.
These are the fundamental flaws on which the Voice has been built.
These critical failings became starkly evident this week as legislation to allow the necessary changes to the Constitution came before the Federal Parliament.
On Monday, Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney announced a media campaign supporting the referendum which she said would be “neutral and informative.”
“A campaign designed to ready Australians for a conversation about the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum has officially been launched,” The West reported.
But we know that the proponents are welded to the Voice speaking directly to “executive government”. The benign-sounding “Voice to Parliament” disguises the true intentions — and the legalistic dangers they might represent.
“All Australians need to be well informed with access to a trusted source of information as they consider the proposal to change the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia through a referendum,” Burney was quoted as saying.
But the purpose of the referendum goes way past previous demands for “constitutional recognition” of Indigenous Australians to a legal cementing of the Voice so it cannot be changed whether it works or not.
Why does Burney continue to use language that misleads and disguises the government’s real intentions?
On Tuesday, after the debate on the legislation began in Canberra, The West ran a report which quoted Albanese being drawn into giving some specifics, possibly for the first time, about how the Voice could improve things for Indigenous Australians:
“Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told The West Australian that setting up the Voice would give confidence to other Indigenous leaders and groups that their viewpoints would be heard, such as on the state of the Banksia Hill Detention Centre.”
The report noted Albanese said he was “not trying to run eight State and Territory governments” or tell premiers and ministers how to do their jobs.
But does Albanese really believe that Premier Mark McGowan would be better informed about Banksia Hill if there was a Voice?
Indigenous people and parliamentarians have been swamping the Premier in concerns about what is wrong with our juvenile justice system.
McGowan has been dragged into face-to-face meetings with Indigenous people about Banksia Hill.
He couldn’t NOT have heard their voices.
In fact, McGowan is on record saying that he doesn’t need any more meetings with Indigenous people on the issue. The time for talking was over.
So Albanese’s choice of Banksia Hill actually disproves the very point he was trying to make.
The real problem is not the lack of indigenous voices. The problem is in governments listening – and then acting.
That Tuesday report also quoted Burney saying this about the Voice: “It is about making sure the voices of Indigenous Australians, in remote and regional communities, are heard and not ignored.”
And there’s the rub.
Can she explain how the Voice will make “sure” that people are “not ignored”?
That statement appears to be getting closer to what the mechanism being sought is all about. I’d ask her directly, but I’m still waiting for answers to questions I sent a month ago.
Interestingly, Burney’s comment didn’t come during the referendum debate, but in reply to a question from veteran independent Queensland MP Bob Katter, who can appear to be madder than a cut snake, but sometimes says things containing real kernels of truth.
Katter’s rambling question put to Burney one simple proposition: “the only voice government listens to is its own.”
That forced Burney to say a constitutionally-enshrined Voice would ensure it was not ignored. How?
In his Sunday Times column last weekend, Ben Harvey included details of a well-lubricated discussion he had with the plausible former Labor adviser Daniel Smith, which provided more grist for the mill.
“Daniel achieved two things that night Anthony Albanese has failed on,” Harvey wrote. “First, he explained quickly and clearly why he was voting Yes: ‘First Nations people should be guaranteed a say over policies that affect them.’
“Second, he explained why not knowing precisely how the Voice will work shouldn’t be a deal killer: ‘It might take us years to get the model exactly right but that’s the case with many things worth doing. A constitutionally enshrined Voice will keep us trying to get it right’.”
On the first proposition, it should be obvious that no other Australians are “guaranteed” a say over policies that affect them. So is he saying this is a right dictated solely by race?
And in terms of his “deal killer”, isn’t it a safer bet to get the model right and then enshrine it, even if it takes years? That’s a better deal all round.
Or does Smith fear that Australians might change their minds if the Voice becomes an argumentative and disruptive force blocking “executive government” by invoking endless legal challenges?
On Tuesday, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton set out his position on the referendum in a precisely-enunciated 16-minute speech that should be made available to every Australian.
In it he quotes “one of Australia’s pre-eminent constitutional lawyers”, the recently deceased David Jackson KC, who said any attempt to limit the Voice’s power to make representations would be ruled invalid.
Dutton said key Voice designer Megan Davis had boasted that the Parliament can’t “shut the Voice up” and that it should have a “self-determined scope”.
He noted the legislation made it clear that the High Court would determine the powers, functions and remit of the Voice, not the Parliament.
So democratic decision-making is taken from the hands of elected representatives and given to non-elected judges. Why?
“We have just heard, in one speech, every bit of disinformation and misinformation and every scare campaign that exists in this debate,” were the first words in Burney’s reply.
So much for a civilised exchange of views. And she refused to accept any amendments to the government’s legislation.
No wonder they are losing support. Blame humbug.
The simple questions remain unanswered: how will the Voice make governments listen any better than now and how will governments respond to Indigenous needs more effectively than now?
For the vast majority of Australians, the word humbug means something that is dishonest or misleading and describes behaviour that is intentionally deceiving.
But in Aboriginal slang, humbugging can connote something quite different: it describes people making unreasonable demands, usually for money.
There’s an awful lot of humbug coming from the Albanese Government as it tries to shore up waning support for the model of an Indigenous Voice it wants passed at a referendum later this year.
Last week’s national Resolve polling in Nine newspapers showing the potential Yes vote had dropped from 64 per cent late last year to just 53 per cent has alarmed its promoters who seemed to think the proposition would sail through on emotion and goodwill.
However, it has been evident for months — even before the No case solidified — that there was a big “soft” Yes vote that was steadily eroding within what appeared to be a strong majority.
Roy Morgan polling in April showed a higher No vote than Yes in Queensland and South Australia — which would be enough to sink the referendum.
In WA, Morgan had the split at 46-41 favouring Yes. But that figure is down 17 per cent since last December, with No up 15 per cent and undecideds up two.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese should have left the campaigning for the Voice to credible Indigenous proponents because it’s increasingly clear that he either knows little about it or is deceptively portraying it as something it is not.
His initial tactic of not releasing any details about how the Voice would work, telling people to read the 269-page Calma-Langton report, has backfired.
His playing down of a whole new chapter of the Constitution as a “modest” change has been exposed: sophistry at best, duplicity more likely.
The simple questions remain unanswered: how will the Voice make governments listen any better than now?
Having rolled up into a little ball to get Labor elected last year on the widespread dislike of his opponent, he thought another small target strategy was the way to go.
Albanese is typical of Labor’s Left which traditionally crave success on emblematic social causes. He nailed his Voice colours to the mast on election night and now must see it prevail to retain credibility.
The essential problem is that so much of the Yes case has been built on half-truths.
The proposition was never merely for a “Voice to Parliament” as the government — and most of the media — continues to describe it. The proponents don’t primarily want a better-informed Parliament, which is what that term denotes.
They want a government that does what they say.
And it was never really about “constitutional recognition” of Indigenous Australians either.
They want the Voice enshrined in the Constitution so it cannot be removed, no matter how badly it fails or how much Australians dislike it when they realise what it’s really about. That’s not “recognition”.
These are the fundamental flaws on which the Voice has been built.
These critical failings became starkly evident this week as legislation to allow the necessary changes to the Constitution came before the Federal Parliament.
On Monday, Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney announced a media campaign supporting the referendum which she said would be “neutral and informative.”
“A campaign designed to ready Australians for a conversation about the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum has officially been launched,” The West reported.
But we know that the proponents are welded to the Voice speaking directly to “executive government”. The benign-sounding “Voice to Parliament” disguises the true intentions — and the legalistic dangers they might represent.
“All Australians need to be well informed with access to a trusted source of information as they consider the proposal to change the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia through a referendum,” Burney was quoted as saying.
But the purpose of the referendum goes way past previous demands for “constitutional recognition” of Indigenous Australians to a legal cementing of the Voice so it cannot be changed whether it works or not.
Why does Burney continue to use language that misleads and disguises the government’s real intentions?
On Tuesday, after the debate on the legislation began in Canberra, The West ran a report which quoted Albanese being drawn into giving some specifics, possibly for the first time, about how the Voice could improve things for Indigenous Australians:
“Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told The West Australian that setting up the Voice would give confidence to other Indigenous leaders and groups that their viewpoints would be heard, such as on the state of the Banksia Hill Detention Centre.”
The report noted Albanese said he was “not trying to run eight State and Territory governments” or tell premiers and ministers how to do their jobs.
But does Albanese really believe that Premier Mark McGowan would be better informed about Banksia Hill if there was a Voice?
Indigenous people and parliamentarians have been swamping the Premier in concerns about what is wrong with our juvenile justice system.
McGowan has been dragged into face-to-face meetings with Indigenous people about Banksia Hill.
He couldn’t NOT have heard their voices.
In fact, McGowan is on record saying that he doesn’t need any more meetings with Indigenous people on the issue. The time for talking was over.
So Albanese’s choice of Banksia Hill actually disproves the very point he was trying to make.
The real problem is not the lack of indigenous voices. The problem is in governments listening – and then acting.
That Tuesday report also quoted Burney saying this about the Voice: “It is about making sure the voices of Indigenous Australians, in remote and regional communities, are heard and not ignored.”
And there’s the rub.
Can she explain how the Voice will make “sure” that people are “not ignored”?
That statement appears to be getting closer to what the mechanism being sought is all about. I’d ask her directly, but I’m still waiting for answers to questions I sent a month ago.
Interestingly, Burney’s comment didn’t come during the referendum debate, but in reply to a question from veteran independent Queensland MP Bob Katter, who can appear to be madder than a cut snake, but sometimes says things containing real kernels of truth.
Katter’s rambling question put to Burney one simple proposition: “the only voice government listens to is its own.”
That forced Burney to say a constitutionally-enshrined Voice would ensure it was not ignored. How?
In his Sunday Times column last weekend, Ben Harvey included details of a well-lubricated discussion he had with the plausible former Labor adviser Daniel Smith, which provided more grist for the mill.
“Daniel achieved two things that night Anthony Albanese has failed on,” Harvey wrote. “First, he explained quickly and clearly why he was voting Yes: ‘First Nations people should be guaranteed a say over policies that affect them.’
“Second, he explained why not knowing precisely how the Voice will work shouldn’t be a deal killer: ‘It might take us years to get the model exactly right but that’s the case with many things worth doing. A constitutionally enshrined Voice will keep us trying to get it right’.”
On the first proposition, it should be obvious that no other Australians are “guaranteed” a say over policies that affect them. So is he saying this is a right dictated solely by race?
And in terms of his “deal killer”, isn’t it a safer bet to get the model right and then enshrine it, even if it takes years? That’s a better deal all round.
Or does Smith fear that Australians might change their minds if the Voice becomes an argumentative and disruptive force blocking “executive government” by invoking endless legal challenges?
On Tuesday, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton set out his position on the referendum in a precisely-enunciated 16-minute speech that should be made available to every Australian.
In it he quotes “one of Australia’s pre-eminent constitutional lawyers”, the recently deceased David Jackson KC, who said any attempt to limit the Voice’s power to make representations would be ruled invalid.
Dutton said key Voice designer Megan Davis had boasted that the Parliament can’t “shut the Voice up” and that it should have a “self-determined scope”.
He noted the legislation made it clear that the High Court would determine the powers, functions and remit of the Voice, not the Parliament.
So democratic decision-making is taken from the hands of elected representatives and given to non-elected judges. Why?
“We have just heard, in one speech, every bit of disinformation and misinformation and every scare campaign that exists in this debate,” were the first words in Burney’s reply.
So much for a civilised exchange of views. And she refused to accept any amendments to the government’s legislation.
No wonder they are losing support. Blame humbug.
The simple questions remain unanswered: how will the Voice make governments listen any better than now and how will governments respond to Indigenous needs more effectively than now?
