Search

An emotional Scott Morrison delivers his last speech to parliament

In a poignant and somewhat unexpected farewell, former Prime Minister Scott Morrison bid adieu to federal parliament, leaving behind a legacy tinged with tears – and a surprising tribute to pop sensation Taylor Swift. As he marked his exit, Morrison delivered a heartfelt address, reflecting on his political journey, acknowledging his colleagues, and offering insights into his future endeavours. Flashing a Swiftie friendship bracelet emblazoned with the nickname "ScoMo" beneath the sleeve of his suit, Morrison's speech was a blend of personal anecdotes, political reflections and nods to popular culture. Surrounded by his family – his mother Marion, wife Jenny, and daughters Abby and Lily – Morrison addressed a gallery that, while not at full capacity, held a significant emotional weight for the departing leader. With a touch of humour, Morrison recounted his daughters' suggestion of incorporating references to Taylor Swift albums into his remarks, a challenge he gamely accepted. Seamlessly weaving Swift's song titles into his speech, Morrison painted a picture of his political journey, acknowledging the challenges he faced and the steadfast support of his loved ones, particularly his wife Jenny, whom he affectionately referred to as his "Lover": "It is true that my political opponents have often made me see Red. Often when subjected to the Tortured Poets who would rise to attack my Reputation. In response, I always thought it important to be Fearless and Speak Now. Or forever hold my silence and allow those attacks to become Folklore. Ever since leaving university in 1989 this has always been my approach. My great consolation has always been my Lover, Jen, who has always been there for me whenever I needed her from dawn, and beyond the many Midnights we have shared together. See? I'm actually a True Romantic after all. I can assure there is no Bad Blood, as I've always been someone who has been able to … Shake It Off." Reflecting on his tenure as Australia's 30th prime minister from 2018 to 2020, Morrison expressed gratitude to the Indigenous community and the defence personnel, emphasising their contributions to the nation's freedom and prosperity. He cautioned against what he termed a "drift of secularism" and advocated for a reconnection with traditional Christian values, underlining the importance of faith in his own life. Amid tears, Morrison thanked his staff, household personnel and security detail, acknowledging their dedication and sacrifice – particularly recalling two individuals injured while protecting him. “I want to specially mention Travis Ford and Jen McCrae," he said, "who were <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/news/news/dangerous-traffic-crash-rocks-scott-morrison" target="_blank" rel="noopener">terribly injured in the line of duty</a> protecting me … in a terrible car accident in Tasmania. I will always be grateful for your sacrifice.” Emotionally addressing his family, Morrison expressed profound gratitude to his wife and daughters, recognising the challenges they endured due to his public role. In a magnanimous gesture, Morrison extended well wishes to his political opponents and congratulated Prime Minister Albanese on his recent engagement. He also expressed appreciation for his party colleagues, including former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Peter Dutton, highlighting their support and camaraderie. Touching upon his role in the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal and Australia's stance against Chinese coercion, Morrison underscored the importance of standing firm in the face of geopolitical challenges. He warned against complacency and urged vigilance in safeguarding national interests against external threats. Closing on a deeply personal note, Morrison reaffirmed his faith in Jesus Christ, acknowledging his own imperfections and the power of forgiveness. Quoting scripture, he embraced his Christian beliefs unapologetically, emphasising the strength derived from his faith. The solemnity of the moment was then relieved somewhat when Morrison ended his speech with the words "And, as always, up, up, Cronulla!", as colleagues from across the political spectrum approached to bid him farewell. Morrison made a point of highlighting the main lessons he says he's learned during his political career, which we have summarised here: 1. Without a strong economy, you cannot achieve your goals as a nation He said there have been strong contributions made in this respect by both sides of politics, and Australia must be careful not to "reinstitutionalise our economy" and crush entrepreneurial spirit. 2. Threats are out there, and they are real Morrison talked about a new era of strategic competition, in which the old rules-based international order is being challenged by "a new arc of autocracy" ranging from Pyongyang to Beijing to Tehran and Moscow. He cited AUKUS, the Quad and new trading and defence relationships as key achievements of his government in this arena, but said that "continued vigilance and the connection between all spheres of police" is required going forward. 3. Judeo-Christian values shouldn't be forgotten in the 'increasing Western embrace of secularism' "Individual liberty, the rule of law, equality of opportunity, responsible citizenship, morality, liberty of speech, thought, religion and association. All of these stem from the core principle of respect for individual human dignity," Morrison said. "So does representative democracy. And even market-based capitalism. This is a unique Judeo-Christian principle." Image: ABC News

Retirement Life

As Scott Morrison leaves parliament, where does he rank among Australian prime ministers?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-strangio-1232">Paul Strangio</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a> This week Scott Morrison, Australia’s 30th prime minister, will deliver his valedictory speech to the House of Representatives. As Morrison leaves parliament, it’s timely to ask where he is placed in the pantheon of Australia’s national leaders. Already there have been unflattering verdicts on Morrison’s prime-ministerial standing. For example, in her withering account of his leadership, veteran columnist and author <a href="https://scribepublications.com.au/books-authors/books/bulldozed-9781922585981">Niki Savva writes</a> that among detractors, “Morrison was regarded as the worst prime minister since Billy McMahon”. Moreover, according to Savva, following the August 2022 revelation of his commandeering of five ministries during the COVID pandemic, his reputation sunk still lower: “he was worse than McMahon. Worse even than Tony Abbott, who lasted a scant two years in the job”. <h2>How can we rank prime ministerial performance?</h2> How might we know how Morrison’s record stacks up against his prime-ministerial peers? One device for evaluating comparative leadership performance is expert rankings. Australia has had a slow take-up in this field, unlike the United States, where presidential rankings have a lineage stretching back three-quarters of a century and are a veritable scholarly cottage industry. In recent years, there have been forays into this territory in Australia, with three prime-ministerial rankings conducted by newspapers and two initiated by Monash University in 2010 and 2020. (I was the organiser of both of these Monash rankings.) These rankings have been largely consistent in their results. The experts, mostly political historians and political scientists, have judged the nation’s greatest prime minister to be its second world war leader, John Curtin. The other leaders in the top echelon are, in rough order, Bob Hawke, Ben Chifley, Alfred Deakin, Robert Menzies, Andrew Fisher, John Howard, Paul Keating and Gough Whitlam. At the other end of the scale, Billy McMahon, who is chiefly remembered for being defeated by Labor’s Whitlam at the December 1972 election, thereby bringing to a close the Liberal Party’s postwar ascendancy, has been consistently rated Australia’s prime-ministerial dunce. Even his biographer, Patrick Mullins, acknowledges that McMahon has become “a by-word for failure, silliness, ridicule”. However, in the most recent of the rankings, the Monash 2020 survey, McMahon had a close competitor for bottom place: Tony Abbott. Forty-four out of 66 respondents to that survey assessed Abbott’s prime ministership a failure. Other prime ministers to the rear of the field included Abbott’s contemporaries, Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull. Morrison was not included in the 2020 rankings because as the incumbent his prime ministership was incomplete, and so it was premature to evaluate his performance. Let us now, though, measure his record against the nine benchmarks that the experts were asked to consider in rating the nation’s leaders. <h2>So how does Morrison shape up?</h2> The first is “effectively managing cabinet”. To date, little has been disclosed about the integrity of cabinet processes under Morrison’s stewardship. Yet, whatever the merits of that management, his scandalous breach of the norms of cabinet government by <a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-the-bell-report-on-morrisons-multi-ministries-provides-a-bad-character-reference-195368">secretly assuming several ministries</a> will irretrievably stain his reputation in this regard. Next is “maintaining support of Coalition/party”. That Morrison avoided being deposed by his party, which was the fate of his immediate predecessors (Rudd, Julia Gillard, Abbott and Turnbull), counts in his favour. As the ABC docuseries Nemesis shows, however, his prime ministership was marked by serious frictions both within the Liberal Party and between the Liberal and National coalition partners. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gLXdXUwGrJs?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> “Demonstrating personal integrity”. This was not one of Morrison’s strong suits. As Savva makes searingly evident, and Nemesis also highlights, Morrison earned a reputation for being economical with the truth (including hiding his acquisition of colleagues’ ministries), for evading accountability and shifting blame (“I don’t hold a hose, mate”), and for corrupted processes under his watch (an example being the <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-sports-rort-questions-for-morrison-after-bridget-mckenzie-speaks-out-133160">shameless pork-barrelling</a> of the community sport infrastructure program in the lead-up to the 2019 election). “Leaving a significant policy legacy”. Here Morrison is partly damned by his own words. In office, he insisted he was not concerned about his legacy, equating the idea with a vanity project. Indeed, an obsession with the theatre of politics and a corresponding lack of substance caused his prime ministership to come to be seen as bereft of purpose. On the other hand, management of the COVID pandemic, however mixed, accords a significance to his time in office. AUKUS stands as the other major legacy of Morrison’s prime ministership, entrenched as it has been by his successor, Anthony Albanese. The agreement promises to influence Australia’s defence capability until the middle of this century and beyond, although only time will tell whether it enhances the nation’s security or is a dangerous white elephant. “Relationship with the electorate”. Morrison’s record here is mixed. In his favour, he won an election (something McMahon couldn’t claim). Yet, by the time of the 2022 election, according to the Australian Election Study, he was the least popular major party leader in the history of that survey, which dates back to the 1980s. His public toxicity was a primary factor in the Coalition’s defeat, one of his Liberal colleagues comparing the depth of public sentiment against the prime minister in 2022 to “having a 10,000-tonne boulder attached to your leg”. “Communication effectiveness”. Styling himself as a Cronulla Sharks-supporting “daggy dad” from the suburbs, at least initially Morrison’s communication mode seemed to be well received in the community. He was relentlessly on message during the 2019 election campaign. But the shine rapidly wore off his persona following that victory, with growing doubts about his authenticity. Rather than persuade, his habit was to hector, and rather than empathise, he exuded smugness. A series of notorious tin-eared statements, which especially alienated women voters, came to define his image. By the end he was known as the “bulldozer-in-chief”. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yamdw5VeNtA?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> “Nurturing national unity”. An innovation of Morrison’s at the beginning of the pandemic was the national cabinet. Bringing together the prime minister and premiers, it worked effectively for a time, only for partisan interests over lockdowns to strain relations between Canberra and the states. Under pressure, Morrison also flirted with divisive culture-war politics, instances being his divisive Religious Discrimination Bill and his egregious handpicking of the anti-transgender Liberal candidate Katherine Deves to contest the 2022 election. “Defending and promoting Australia’s interests abroad”. The AUKUS pact has vehement critics, led by Morrison’s prime-ministerial peers Keating and Turnbull, who argue it jeopardises national sovereignty. There is no denying, however, that AUKUS was Morrison’s signature foreign policy enterprise. On the other hand, Australia’s reputation as a laggard on climate change under the Coalition hurt our international standing, not least among Pacific neighbours. The Morrison government’s belated commitment to a net zero carbon emissions by 2050 target was too little, too late. Bellicose rhetoric towards Beijing also led to a deterioration in relations with the nation’s major trading partner (as well as estranging Chinese-Australian voters). “Being able to manage turbulent times”. Here, again, Morrison’s record is at best mixed. In his favour is decisive early actions to ameliorate the COVID pandemic, headed by the JobKeeper program. As the pandemic progressed, however, his government was too often flat-footed, demonstrated by its dilatory approach to procuring vaccines. His response to natural disasters, most notably the 2019-20 Black Summer bushfires, was another shortcoming, exemplified by his secret holiday to Hawaii in the midst of the crisis. Arguably, his prime ministership was doomed from that moment. <h2>And the verdict?</h2> Prime-ministerial reputations can take time to settle. The passing of years fleshes out historical knowledge as well as providing greater perspective on performance in office. For example, the fate of AUKUS will quite possibly affect Morrison’s standing well into the future. Even allowing for this, it seems safe to forecast that Morrison will be rated among the least distinguished of Australian prime ministers. His government’s relatively successful early management of the COVID pandemic and the legacy of AUKUS might spare him from falling below McMahon and Abbott at the bottom of the prime-ministerial heap. But avoiding that ignominy will probably be a close-run thing.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/223003/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-strangio-1232">Paul Strangio</a>, Emeritus professor of politics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-scott-morrison-leaves-parliament-where-does-he-rank-among-australian-prime-ministers-223003">original article</a>.

Retirement Life

Scott Morrison resigns from parliament

Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison has resigned from parliament, marking an end to his 16-year career in politics. Mr Morrison said he would leave politics at the end of February, setting up a by-election a year out from the next federal election. In a lengthy statement, the 55-year-old explained that he would be stepping back from politics to spend more time with his family, and be more involved in his church community. ScoMo paid tribute to his family – wife Jenny and daughters Lily and Abbey – in the statement, who he said “have sacrificed a great deal to support my service to our country and local community”. “I am grateful for their support, but the time has come for me to return to my private life and support my family to pursue their goals and for us to spend more time together as a family,” he said. “I am also looking forward to being more active in my church community outside the constraints of public office.” Mr Morrison said it had been his “great privilege” to represent his constituents in the Sydney electorate of Cook and noted the decision to leave had been “difficult”. “However, I believe the timing is now right to move on to a new season with my family and take on fresh challenges,” he said. After making the announcement of his resignation, Morrison appeared on Sky News to discuss his lasting legacy as one of Australia’s most controversial prime ministers. He told the Sky News’ Paul Murray, “I’m sure there’s things that people will need to forgive me for and I’ll forgive them. You just don’t carry these things around with you. You look forward.” He then quoted former US president Theodore Roosevelt, who Mr Morrison described as a “hero” for him. “He used to talk about – I’m one of those ones who was on the field, who has known victory and defeat, not one of those timid souls who have known neither, and just looks on from the outside,” he said. Image credits: Getty Images

News

Osher Günsberg slammed for "insulting Australians" over Voice defeat

Osher Günsberg has been slammed online after sharing his thoughts on the Voice to Parliament defeat, saying Aussies were "manipulated" into voting No. In the final episode of Q+A for 2023, the TV personality said that Australians should be "asking questions about who flooded the zone (with misinformation)", leading to a landslide defeat of the referendum. A tense exchange kicked off between the panellists when another guest, Liberal party activist Charlotte Mortlock, said the country needed to come together after the referendum defeat. Günsberg said during the course of the campaign, Australia went "from mostly wanting to do it" to "Oh my God the UN's coming to take my back yard". He said Australians should be "terrified of how quickly we were manipulated as a country". <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/QandA?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#QandA</a>: What is the next step for Indigenous Australians, after the Voice referendum? <a href="https://t.co/KgSoHkRp1d">pic.twitter.com/KgSoHkRp1d</a> — ABC News (@abcnews) <a href="https://twitter.com/abcnews/status/1729098407208440254?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 27, 2023</a></blockquote> "We're really lucky that it wasn't during a khaki election," he said, referring to an election held at a time of war. Ms Mortlock defended the Coalition and No voters, saying, "It's been such a divisive year... I do absolutely think that there is work that we can do to in a constructive way that is going to really unite the country and that's what we all have to focus on." Günsberg was quick to question the Liberal party's real motives behind their No campaign, asking whether she felt Opposition Leader Peter Dutton really wanted to unite the nation. "I do. I think the question really is the how," Ms Mortlock replied. Günsberg said, "I don't believe he really wants to." Günsberg and the ABC were both later slammed online for how the program went with some calling the program "insufferable". Others were quick to poke fun at Osher's impressive reality TV résumé, saying, "After the way Osher insulted mainstream common-sense Aussies I will never watch Bachelor again." Image credits: Q+A <p class="mol-para-with-font" style="font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; min-height: 0px; letter-spacing: -0.16px; font-family: graphik, Arial, sans-serif; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2; background-color: #ffffff; text-decoration-thickness: initial;">

Legal

"Soulless": Stan Grant finally breaks silence over Voice defeat

Stan Grant has finally broken his silence over the devastating Voice to Parliament defeat, saying the nation failed to "shoulder the load" of Indigenous Australians. In his first public comments since the referendum results were announced, the Indigenous journalist said the resounding No vote was a "judgment on me and all the others like me", along with generations of Indigenous people. His scathing comments came during an address at the Australian National University's Crawford Leadership Forum, where the former Q+A host reflected on the referendum result. "The voice was never about resentment, it was never about identity - it was a release, it was a moment to lay our burdens down," he said. "But Australia would not shoulder that load. Instead, we got a lecture about unity." "Those who own history claimed for themselves history's final word: 'No'." Grant went on to say that the overwhelming defeat of the referendum made clear that there would be no further advancements in the rights of Indigenous Australians during his lifetime, as long as it was left up to the public. "We have laid the sod over (my ancestors), sealed them in," he said. "I thought in me they may be able to speak, that those two sides of me might find a common voice. But we said 'No' to that." "My country has buried my ancestors for a second time. I am hearing the cold-hearted 'no' of a country so comfortable it need not care." "A country that feels, right now, soulless. A country of numbers, and no words but one: 'No'." Grant finished his scathing tirade by calling out the Yes campaign for not "letting the Voice speak", while also calling for more radical change, saying the Voice proposal was "shushed, shrunk small enough to fit into politics". "In the consultants' suites and the lawyers' dens, it was determined that if the voice was made so inoffensive, people may say 'Yes'." "Instead, it was so inoffensive people found it so easy to say 'No'." "The constitution is not our problem - our conscience is our problem." Image credits: Q+A

Legal

Waleed Aly and Steve Price clash over damning Voice letter

Waleed Aly and Steve Price have clashed over an anonymous letter from Yes campaigners, condemning those who opposed the Voice to Parliament. On Sunday night, a lengthy and unsigned letter was shared by activists associated with the Uluru Dialogue group, as the letter slammed No voters for committing "a shameful act" by contributing to the Voice defeat. On The Project, Price was quick to slam the author of the letter, who addressed the message to the Prime Minister and all federal members of parliament, saying they did not have "the guts" to sign it. "It seems to me the Yes campaign hasn't learned anything about the result that happened Saturday two weeks ago," he said on Monday night. "The public voted 60 (per cent) No, 40 (per cent) Yes and yet, they pen a letter that they then send to the Cabinet and Prime Minister calling people who voted No as doing a shameful act, suggesting No voters are racists." "If you are going to do that, at least have the courage to put your name to it." Aly then leapt to the defence of those who wrote the anonymous letter, saying, "I don't think they said all No voters were racist." "They said racism was a big part of the campaign and the vote, they are inextricably bound up." Aly admitted that while he did not agree with everything in the letter, it was "hard to have a simple response to it". "They must be so hurting. I can't deny them that. Whether we agree or not," he said. The open letter claims to be "the collective insights and views of a group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, community members and organisations who supported Yes". The published letter said, "The truth is that the majority of Australians have committed a shameful act whether knowingly or not, and there is nothing positive to be interpreted from it. We needed truth to be told to the Australian people." Image credits: The Project

Legal

Explainer: Australia has voted against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Here’s what happened

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/amy-maguire-129609">Amy Maguire</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-newcastle-1060">University of Newcastle</a> A majority of Australian voters have rejected the proposal to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, with the final results likely to be about 40% voting “yes” and 60% voting “no”. <h2>What was the referendum about?</h2> In this referendum, Australians were asked to vote on whether to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander <a href="https://voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment">Voice</a> to Parliament. The Voice was proposed as a means of recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the <a href="https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/australias-first-peoples">First Peoples of Australia</a> in the Constitution. The Voice proposal was a modest one. It was to be an advisory body for the national parliament and government. Had the referendum succeeded, Australia’s Constitution would have been amended with a new section 129: <blockquote> In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. </blockquote> This proposal was drawn from the <a href="https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement/view-the-statement/">Uluru Statement from the Heart</a> from 250 Indigenous leaders, which called for <a href="https://deadlystory.com/page/culture/Annual_Days/NAIDOC_Week/NAIDOC_2019/Hey_you_Mob_it_s_NAIDOC_week#:%7E:text=The%20statement%20outlines%20a%20need,see%20below%20for%20more%20information">three phases of reform</a> - Voice, followed by Treaty and Truth -telling about Australia’s colonial history. The proposal was for constitutional change to ensure the Voice would not be abolished by government in future, as previous Indigenous bodies have been. <h2>How did Australians vote?</h2> Voting is <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/publications/voting/">compulsory</a> in Australia. Every eligible Australian citizen over 18 years of age is obliged to vote in elections and referendums. Australia has one of the <a href="https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/how-many-people-voted-in-the-last-election/#:%7E:text=According%20to%20the%20Australian%20Electoral,voter%20turnouts%20in%20the%20world.">highest rates of voter turn out</a> in the world - over 90% of those eligible have voted in every national election since compulsory voting was introduced in 1924. Australia has a written <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005">Constitution</a>. A successful referendum vote is required to <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter1/Constitution_alteration">change</a> the Constitution in any way. To succeed, a referendum proposition requires a <a href="https://voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/how-referendum-works#:%7E:text=For%20a%20referendum%20to%20be,4%20out%20of%206%20states.">double majority</a>. This means it must be agreed to by a majority of voters, and a majority of states. Australia has six <a href="https://digital-classroom.nma.gov.au/images/map-australia-showing-states-and-territories">states</a>, so at least four must have a majority of voters in favour for a referendum to succeed. Australia also has two territories - individuals in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-and-territory-ballots-will-be-counted-differently-at-the-voice-referendum-is-that-fair-212703">territories</a> contribute to the overall vote, but the territories do not count towards the majority of states. It’s very difficult to achieve constitutional change in Australia. Since federation in 1901, 45 questions have been put to Australian voters in <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/referendum_dates_and_results.htm">referendums</a>. Only eight of those have succeeded. In the Voice referendum, only the Australian Capital Territory voted “yes” by majority. A <a href="https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/ReferendumNationalResults-29581.htm">clear majority</a> of the national electorate voted “no”. All states returned majority “no” results. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people constitute <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples/estimates-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-australians/latest-release#:%7E:text=Data%20downloads-,Key%20statistics,Queensland%20and%20Western%20Australia%20combined.">3.8% of Australia’s population</a>. Government members claimed on ABC TV in the referendum coverage that polling booths including high proportions of Indigenous voters, for example Palm Island in Queensland, returned high “yes” votes. However, in a majoritarian democracy like Australia, such a small proportion of the national population cannot dictate the outcome of a national poll. Importantly, the Voice referendum did not have unanimous support across the two main political parties in Australia. The Labor government <a href="https://theconversation.com/were-all-in-declares-an-emotional-albanese-as-he-launches-the-wording-for-the-voice-referendum-202435">announced</a> and has campaigned for “yes”. The leader of the opposition, Liberal Queensland MP <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-05/peter-dutton-voice-to-parliament-yes-no-vote-referendum/102797582">Peter Dutton</a>, campaigned strongly against the referendum proposal. <h2>What happens now?</h2> The government is bound to abide by the referendum result. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has confirmed that his government <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/08/labor-wont-try-to-legislate-indigenous-voice-if-referendum-fails-albanese-says#:%7E:text=The%20prime%20minister%2C%20Anthony%20Albanese,away%20from%20the%20voice%20altogether%3F%E2%80%9D">will not seek to legislate a Voice</a> as an alternative to the constitutional model. Albanese, conceding the failure of the referendum, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-14/live-updates-voice-to-parliament-referendum-latest-news/102969568">said</a>: “Tomorrow we must seek a new way forward”. He called for a renewed focus on doing better for First Peoples in Australia. The referendum outcome represents a major loss for the government. But much more important than that will be the negative impacts of the campaign and loss on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. On ABC TV, Arrernte/Luritja woman <a href="https://www.snaicc.org.au/about/contact/staff-bios/">Catherine Liddle</a> called for a renewed focus on truth-telling and building understanding of Australia’s history across the population. She said the failure of the referendum reflected a lack of understanding about the lives and experiences of Indigenous people in Australia. “Yes” campaign advocates reported <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/we-are-tired-victorian-yes-advocates-devastated-as-no-vote-refuses-voice-20231012-p5ebse.html">devastation</a> at the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/14/australian-voters-reject-proposal-for-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-at-historic-referendum">outcome</a>. Sana Nakata, writing <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-political-subjugation-of-first-nations-peoples-is-no-longer-historical-legacy-213752">here</a>, said: “now we are where we have always been, left to build our better futures on our own”. Some First Nations advocates, including Victorian independent Senator <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/8/16/lidia-thorpe-says-australias-voice-referendum-should-be-called-off">Lidia Thorpe</a> - a Gunnai, Gunditjmara and Djab Wurrung woman - argued the Voice proposal lacked substance and that the referendum should not have been held. Advocates of a “<a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/article/these-progressive-no-campaigners-are-looking-beyond-the-vote-heres-what-they-want/tdyj2ilx6">progressive no</a>” vote (who felt the Voice didn’t go far enough) will continue to call for recognition of continuing First Nations sovereignty and self-determination through processes of treaty and truth-telling. The information landscape for Australian voters leading up to this referendum was murky and difficult to navigate. The Australian Electoral Commission published a <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/media/disinformation-register-ref.htm">disinformation register</a>. <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/extremely-politicised-and-very-worrying-how-misinformation-about-the-voice-spread/w9sl4pzba">Misinformation and lies</a>, many circulated through social media, have influenced the decision-making of a proportion of voters. It’s open to question whether constitutional change of any kind can be achieved while voters remain so exposed to multiple versions of “<a href="https://www.amnesty.org.au/sorting-fact-from-fiction-in-the-voice-to-parliament-referendum/">truth</a>”. For many First Nations people, the proliferation of lies and misinformation driven by <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-66470376">racism</a> throughout the Voice debate have been <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-03/indigenous-mental-health-impacts-of-voice-referendum-debate/102923188">traumatising</a> and brutal. Indigenous Australians’ Minister, Wiradjuri woman Linda Burney, spoke to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people after the result: “Be proud of your identity. Be proud of the 65,000 years of history and culture that you are part of”. Her <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/videos/national/linda-burney-gives-emotional-speech-following-referendum-result/clnpw6w0n009u0jp8kvgbijuy">pain</a> was patently obvious as she responded to the referendum outcome.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/215155/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/amy-maguire-129609">Amy Maguire</a>, Associate Professor in Human Rights and International Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-newcastle-1060">University of Newcastle</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-australia-has-voted-against-an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-heres-what-happened-215155">original article</a>.

Legal

"A mean country": Stan Grant shares his thoughts on the Voice referendum

Stan Grant has opened up about his thoughts on the Voice referendum campaigns, admitting it is becoming harder to defend Australia's "mean" reputation. The former ABC presenter appeared as a social guest on a special two-part episode of the podcast Blak Matters, with each part airing just before the Voice vote on October 14th. In the podcast, Grant spoke about his recent trip to Europe, working with the Constructive Institute in Denmark, and how difficult it has become to speak positively about living in Australia. “When you’re overseas, you’re almost an ambassador for your own country, you have to explain your country to other people,” Mr Grant said. “And it really saddened me that the word I kept coming back to was ‘mean,’ and I think we have become an increasingly mean country. I think there’s an absence of kindness in our country." “You hear it in things like ‘if you don’t know, vote no.’ That’s a mean thing to say.” Grant went on to criticise the "noise" surrounding the Voice, saying there has been very little constructive debate about the issue and too much fear mongering. “This is also the first referendum of the 24/7 news cycle and social media and that’s elevated and amplified the noise,” Mr Grant said. “For a lot of people, when you add uncomfortable questions of history and race, they’re barbecue stoppers." “If you want to stop the party, talk about racism, or talk about history. No one wants to go there." “And we have a referendum that lands right at that point of history and race and politics amplified by 24/7 news media, and a toxic social media weaponised by 24/7 news media coverage.” Image credits: Listnr

Travel Trouble

Coming to terms with the past is more important than ever. The Voice referendum is a vital first step

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/heidi-norman-859">Heidi Norman</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a> This Saturday is the final day of voting in the Voice to Parliament referendum, which asks Australians to support recognition of First Peoples in the Constitution and enable First Peoples’ representation on relevant policies and programs. Over the last several weeks, I have attended many events supporting and advocating for the Voice referendum. In these forums, my fellow Australians talk about the Constitution, the role of government and how power is exercised in modern democracy. Some have never read or thought about the Constitution before. I’ve seen young First Nations lawyers explaining to a mixed crowd how the Constitution works, what is included in it and what a constitutionally enshrined Voice would mean. I have been invigorated by such sincere participation in understanding how our democracy works, and could work better. This serious contemplation was getting underway at the Referendum Council’s Aboriginal regional dialogues I attended in 2017. With other Aboriginal people, we discussed what change could look like. I have supported the implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and played my small part supporting the “yes” vote at my university and with my family and community. <h2>How opinions have differed</h2> Debates around the Voice have presented three competing narratives to the Australian public. The “yes” position addresses the outstanding business of the place of First Peoples in the life of the nation. This position is an offer of peace, to walk together towards settlement. It also believes that if First Peoples are able to work with and through government – with power devolved to local-level decision-making – the everyday experiences of the disadvantaged will be changed. The Voice proposal is a modest, middle path. It’s a compromise position that was believed to have the greatest chance of gaining support from progressives, liberals and conservatives. The “no” position refuses to acknowledge the unique place of First Peoples in the life of the nation and rejects any perceived “special treatment” based on either disadvantage or cultural difference. A third, minority group is the so-called “progressive no” vote, which rejects the Voice referendum as an unacceptable compromise with limited utility as a mechanism to advance First Peoples’ rights. It argues Voice is not enough, and it’s time instead for recognition of sovereignty. Each of these narratives draws from competing versions of the story of the nation’s past and future. We can see that understanding our history is more important than ever in addressing the politics of disruption and disinformation and the toxic social and political discourse that has dominated the campaign. <h2>Right-wing tactics of division</h2> Debate over the referendum has played out in a different way to other referendums and general election campaigns. The debate has often been discourteous, relying on a swarm of cruel, derogatory and racist social media posts. Some leading “no” campaigners have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/28/we-forgive-but-never-forget-yes-campaigner-rachel-perkins-responds-to-warren-mundine-on-uluru-statement">presented</a> increasingly extremist and sensational views intended to dominate the news cycle and social media. In many ways, the “no” campaign has followed patterns of right-wing campaigning from overseas, which is intended to destabilise the social relations, trust and confidence we have in one another and seed division. Consider the Brexit debate in the UK, and or US Capitol insurrection and claims of a stolen election by former President Donald Trump. Each provided a platform for people to express white nationalist sentiments and their deep distrust in the institutions of democratic government. The “no” campaign’s tactics have also sought to <a href="https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/mcs/article/view/8813">link</a> a host of disparate themes to the referendum, from climate change denial to anti-vaccination beliefs. The common theme is grievance against the perceived extension of the distrusted government into people’s lives. Disinformation has played a key role. Other concerns have also been publicly raised about the Voice, such as that it would be a risk to <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-the-voice-to-parliament-would-not-force-people-to-give-up-their-private-land-212784">people’s private land</a>. These concerns are sincerely feared, but totally unfounded. <h2>Difficulties confronting our history</h2> What sits beneath this right-wing rhetoric in Australia is the highly charged debate over the nation’s past and its future. Contesting views about Australia’s history should not come as a surprise. Since historians became more interested in the telling of Australian history “from the other side” and writing First Peoples back into the nation’s story, it has been met with an equal measure of resistance and shock. The ongoing difficulty of “coming to terms” with colonial histories can be attributed to a number of things: <ul> <li> historical amnesia, disbelief or cultural differences over what counts as historical knowledge </li> <li> the strategic use of “forgetting” to protect a social group’s self-image </li> <li> and the belief that engaging in these difficult histories is somebody else’s responsibility rather than our own. </li> </ul> The Voice Referendum and Uluru Statement introduce a new nationalism underpinned by a different origin story: the process of a settlement between First Nations and non-Indigenous Australians with a recognition of how our continent’s much deeper history can be a gift, or inheritance, to all Australians. In this vision for the future, the worlds of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders narrate the story of the country over much longer timeframes through an entirely different archive and knowledge system. The idea of inheritance of a much deeper and longer history of country is less concerned with colonial settler-Indigenous relations. Rather, it is a transformed sense of history that extends over thousands of generations and speaks to place. <h2>Playing a role in the future of the nation</h2> The aim of the Voice is to strengthen democracy by meaningfully engaging with those who have the knowledge and expertise, in local conditions and contexts, to improve government decisions in Indigenous policy and programs. The Voice proposal eschews a rights framework in favour of <a href="https://www.mup.com.au/books/its-our-country-paperback-softback">providing</a> <blockquote> the impetus for a profound paradigmatic shift between Indigenous peoples and the state. While this “power of influence” on one hand seeks to improve policy and programs and services on the ground, it also seeks to shape a new and meaningful relationship between Indigenous Peoples and political institutions. </blockquote> There is a legitimate and important role for government to play in First Peoples’ lives, but this role can be improved by greater participation and local-level input in the design and implementation of policy and programs. For too long, First Peoples have experienced the worst excesses of government and its various instruments – namely the police and judiciary. There’s a reason why many people hold a deep and abiding fear and suspicion of government. It has been responsible for many traumas: <ul> <li> the brutal dislodging of kinship connections </li> <li> the taking of land without any legal basis or compensation </li> <li> the violent dispersal of people from their land, which has rendered many destitute and without means to care for their families </li> <li> the removal of people’s children, denial of basic services and assistance, and management of people’s lives by a cruel and underfunded protection board </li> <li> the <a href="https://www.monash.edu/law/research/centres/castancentre/our-areas-of-work/indigenous/the-northern-territory-intervention/the-northern-territory-intervention-an-evaluation/what-is-the-northern-territory-intervention">empowering</a> of police and military to seize people’s community assets. </li> </ul> And yet, the Voice referendum, supported by the overwhelming majority of First Peoples, seeks to improve the relationship with governments to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness of policies intended to improve lives. At one Sydney “yes” rally, we walked from Redfern Park along Cleveland Street to Victoria Park. It was a massive turnout that far exceeded expectations. The mood was serious, yet joyous. People came from all over Sydney and brought their place with them – the crew from “The Shire” got a big cheer from the crowd. This gathering was not looking for division, but rather a heart-filled yearning to come together as a community of people and play a role in the future of a nation that’s accepting of the fact it’s our country, too.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/215152/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/heidi-norman-859">Heidi Norman</a>, Professor, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a> Image credits: Central Land Council - PR Image This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/coming-to-terms-with-the-past-is-more-important-than-ever-the-voice-referendum-is-a-vital-first-step-215152">original article</a>.

Caring

Kyle and Jackie O reveal their stance on the Voice

Kyle and Jackie O have revealed how they have voted in the Voice to Parliament referendum, while discussing the upcoming vote with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. The radio hosts were joined by the PM on Wednesday morning to chat about the Voice live on air, with Kyle Sandilands revealing he has voted Yes by postal vote. Sandilands admitted he was left feeling confused by the “talking points” from both sides, but shared he "feels like I’ve done the right thing" by voting Yes. “I just thought to myself, voting yes, that’s what I’m gonna do. I don’t care what anyone else does, but I just thought I want to … at least feel like I’ve done the right thing,” he told listeners and the Prime Minister. "Jackie also voted Yes." <blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyKu8qpPalZ/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"> </div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"> </div> </div> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyKu8qpPalZ/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Kyle and Jackie O (@kyleandjackieo)</a> </div> </blockquote> He went on to say there needed to be a greater focus on struggling regional communities where “young fellas” are getting into trouble because they’re "bored". “I’ve been that kid. I’m not even Indigenous. I’ve been that bored homeless kid where we just thought, ‘Let’s cause some trouble because there is nothing else to do’.” Mr Albanese agreed with Sandilands and praised him for voting Yes, saying the Voice would help create opportunities for Indigenous Australians. Sandilands told the Prime Minister that his co-host Jackie O had also voted Yes, but said after a number of open discussions about the referendum, some of the show’s staff had voted No. A producer on the program told Mr Albanese that he felt Indigenous Australians coming out in favour of the No vote had confused many voters. Sandilands said it depended on a person's individual politics, “not just the colour of your skin”, to which Albanese agreed. Image credits: KIISFM <div class="media image" style="caret-color: #000000; color: #000000; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 24px; display: flex; flex-direction: column; align-items: center; width: 705.202209px; max-width: 100%;"> </div>

Legal

Ray Martin's scathing Voice to Parliament speech

Ray Martin has ripped into No voters while discussing the upcoming Voice to Parliament referendum, calling them "dinosaurs and d**kheads". The veteran TV presenter spoke to supporters of the Yes campaign at the Factory Theatre in Marrickville, in Sydney's inner west, and did not hold back on what he thought of those voting no on October 14th. He called out those who are voting No, suggesting they are too lazy to educate themselves by performing a simple Google search, and instead are being driven by division and fear. Martin said, “If you don’t know, find out what you don’t know.” <div id="story-primary" data-area="story-primary"> “What that excellent slogan is saying, is if you’re a dinosaur or a d**khead who can’t be bothered reading, then vote No.” He went on to argue that No voters kept begging Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for the details of the referendum, but the details “could not be simpler”. </div> “At this stage of the game, the details simply don’t matter. They never did matter, honestly. They’re irrelevant,” he said. “Over the next 10 to 20 years, no matter who is in government, the details will change, inevitably. As will the members of the Voice delegation from around Australia, according to the needs, the priorities and the policies that are meant to close that bloody gap. “You can’t write all that in the constitution in 2023.” He explained that as governments and priorities will change over the years, so will the roles and responsibilities of the Voice representatives. “It’s a big country with lots of different demands and needs. How do you give the details of all that in the Australian constitution? Of course you don’t.” Image credits: Getty Images

Legal

What kind of Australia will we wake up to if the Voice referendum is defeated on October 14?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-strangio-1232">Paul Strangio</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a> It was Robert Menzies, father of the modern Liberal Party, who famously remarked: “to get an affirmative vote from the Australian people on a referendum proposal is the labour of Hercules”. Menzies knew this from bitter experience. The politician with the electoral Midas touch was the sponsor of three unsuccessful referendums. Most notable was Menzies’ (thankfully) failed 1951 attempt to win public support for amending the Constitution to grant his government the power to outlaw the Communist Party of Australia. On the Labor side of politics, the feat of constitutional change has been an even more unfulfilling exercise. The party has been responsible for 25 amendment proposals and only one has been successful. It has been a truly Sisyphean quest. If the opinion polls are to be believed, history is repeating itself with the impending Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice referendum. Since the middle of the year, those polls have been relentlessly moving in the wrong direction for the “yes” case. On the current trajectory, the Voice will secure less than 40% of the national vote and also fail to win the support of a majority of states. The frontier states of Queensland and Western Australia in particular are lost causes. As it must, the “yes” camp continues to evince optimism. Its advocates point, for example, to the relatively high number of undecided voters, hoping they break heavily in their favour. I fervently pray this optimism is well placed. Yet a prudent government would now be wargaming what to do in the scenario that the Voice is defeated on October 14. For Anthony Albanese, a “no” vote will present diabolically difficult challenges. As prime minister, he will be tasked with making sense of that result. His response will need to be finely calibrated, modulating the message to different audiences. First, and most importantly, he will have to devise a formula of words to console and soothe the Indigenous population, the majority of whom will likely feel that the rejection of the Voice is another in a long line of acts of dispossession and exclusion by settler Australia. Albanese has often likened the Uluru Statement from the Heart to a generous outstretched hand. He will not only need to explain why that hand has been spurned, but give cause why First Nations people should continue to keep faith with non-Indigenous Australia. He will have to provide reassurance that reconciliation endures as a genuine project. Both at home and abroad there will be those who view a “no” vote as having exposed a dark streak of racism in Australia’s soul. Albanese will feel obliged to seek to absolve the nation of that stigma. But given some of the more noxious attitudes aired during the referendum campaign, airbrushing racism out of the picture will not be easy. On election nights, leaders are typically magnanimous in victory and gracious in defeat. There is a convenient myth about election results: that the punters always get it right. Albanese will no doubt have to publicly give lip service to that notion if the referendum fails. He will avoid recriminations, despite the sophistry and mendacity that has characterised the “no” side of the debate. In this way, he will play the role of healer-in-chief after the bitter divisions of the referendum campaign. What attacks there are on Peter Dutton for being a wrecker will probably be left to be made by other government members, but even these will have to be carefully framed so as to not indict all those who fell in behind the “no” cause. The larger dilemma Albanese and his government will face if the referendum is lost is where to next with the Uluru Statement agenda, to which the prime minister signed up lock stock and barrel on election night in May 2022. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MlulrQ1w9Zs?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> Most pressing will be the question of what happens to the idea of an Indigenous Voice to parliament. The most obvious fallback position will be a legislated rather than constitutionally enshrined Voice. The complication is that Dutton has claimed some of that space and Indigenous leaders have rightly portrayed a legislated Voice as a poor substitute because it can be repealed by a future government. Somehow a legislated Voice will have to be transformed into a palatable alternative. The Voice was the low hanging fruit of the Uluru statement when compared to treaty-making. The realpolitik takeout from the rejection of the Voice referendum will be that there is next to no chance of delivering on a national treaty in the short to medium term, especially if that were to involve some form of constitutional amendment. It would provoke an even more shrill scare campaign than the one we have endured over the Voice. In the absence of progress at the national level, it will be left to the states to advance treaty making and truth telling. The defeat of the Voice referendum may set back other elements of Labor’s vision for the nation. When he won office, Albanese appointed an assistant minister for the republic in a clear signal that a move to a republic would be a feature of his government’s longer term reform program. With the Australian public’s profound reluctance to embrace constitutional change demonstrated yet again, it will likely douse enthusiasm within the government for proceeding to a referendum on a republic in its second term. The idea will continue to drift, as it has since 1999. Another probable consequence of the loss of the referendum will be a narrowing of the priorities of the government. Labor hardheads will read that result and opinion polls showing a dip in the government’s support as evidence that voters are growing frustrated by what they regard as a straying from bread and butter issues. So, we are likely to see a less expansive government as it steers towards focussing chiefly on matters such as the economy, cost of living pressures and housing shortages. These, of course, are vital issues, but they will not stir the soul or etch themselves into history as would a Voice, treaty and republic. All of this seems a desperate shame. But it is the Australia we will wake up to the morning after October 14, if indeed the referendum goes down.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/214359/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-strangio-1232">Paul Strangio</a>, Emeritus professor of politics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-kind-of-australia-will-we-wake-up-to-if-the-voice-referendum-is-defeated-on-october-14-214359">original article</a>.

Legal

7 ways to look after yourself and your community before and after the Voice referendum

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jacob-prehn-956034">Jacob Prehn</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888">University of Tasmania</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/joselynn-baltra-ulloa-1470454">Joselynn Baltra-Ulloa</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888">University of Tasmania</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/justin-canty-1470456">Justin Canty</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888">University of Tasmania</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kate-vincent-1470455">Kate Vincent</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888">University of Tasmania</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/milena-heinsch-348951">Milena Heinsch</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888">University of Tasmania</a> The lead-up to the Voice referendum is already <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/24/concerns-for-mental-health-of-indigenous-australians-amid-reported-uptick-in-abuse-as-voice-debate-progresses">affecting</a> the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. These impacts will likely worsen during and after the vote. A quick search of any social media platform about the Voice referendum reveals a range of strong perspectives on voting “yes” or “no”. But in the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/29/government-puts-social-media-giants-on-notice-over-misinformation-and-hate-speech-during-voice-referendum">loosely regulated</a> world of social and news media, many conversations are becoming toxic and racist, and turning into <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/first-nations-mental-health-advocates-call-on-politicians-to-champion-respectful-referendum/vh4ytvjvq">hate speech</a>. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are already <a href="https://www.indigenoushpf.gov.au/measures/3-10-access-mental-health-services#:%7E:text=Aboriginal%20and%20Torres%20Strait%20Islander%20people%20experience%20a%20higher%20rate,as%20high%20as%20for%20non%2D">disproportionately affected</a> by mental ill health, including hospitalisations and <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/suicide-self-harm-monitoring/data/populations-age-groups/suicide-indigenous-australians">troubling rates</a> of suicide. This is why we must take extra care and adopt strategies to support Indigenous Australians and each other. <h2>The issues hate speech bring</h2> <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/10538720.2019.1683113">Research</a> following the marriage equality postal survey in 2017 found the intense public debates and media messaging had negatively affected the mental health of LGBTIQ+ communities. As we approach the Voice referendum it’s imperative we learn from this. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experience <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/topics/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-health/status-and-determinants#:%7E:text=The%20burden%20of%20disease%20for,and%20Torres%20Strait%20Islander%20people.">worse</a> health and wellbeing outcomes than non-Indigenous people in Australia. <a href="https://indigenoushpf.gov.au/report-overview/overview/summary-report?ext=.">A government health performance summary report</a>, released in July, revealed about one-third of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experience elevated levels of psychological distress. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to achieve equity with non-Indigenous Australians on measures such as life expectancy, education and income, there needs to be systemic change. This type of change would likely include constitutional amendments, legislative revisions, the establishment of treaties, embracing truth-telling and other significant measures. Undoubtedly, such transformative steps would spark national discussion and debate. Discussion is important to fostering understanding and driving progress in society. The problem lies in the politicisation of debate about marginalised people and the amplifying effect on their psychological distress and mental health. This should be a pressing concern for all Australians. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership in mental health during the Voice referendum is crucial. Dr Clinton Schultz, a Gamilaroi man, for example, is leading work with the <a href="https://www.blackdoginstitute.org.au/media-releases/indigenous-mental-health-groups-call-on-politicians-to-champion-respectful-referendum/">Black Dog Institute</a> to encourage respectful conversations and protect the wellbeing of Indigenous people. The federal government has also contributed through the “<a href="https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-09/first-nations-mental-health-and-wellbeing-services-and-supports.pdf">Take care of yourself and your mob</a>” initiative. <h2>Seven strategies for self and collective care</h2> As social work academics with expertise in the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, we propose <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean-Balestrery/publication/368288426_Ubuntu_and_Social_Work_Advancing_A_Global_Lens_and_Language_in_Healthcare/links/641b07ae92cfd54f842048cc/Ubuntu-and-Social-Work-Advancing-A-Global-Lens-and-Language-in-Healthcare.pdf#page=502">seven strategies of self-care for Indigenous Australians</a> as the referendum draws nearer. We also invite non-Indigenous people to provide support for First Nations people during this time, and always. 1) Set boundaries when discussing the Voice referendum Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have the right to choose whether they wish to engage in conversations about the Voice referendum, or answer questions. If you are non-Indigenous, be mindful unsolicited questions about the referendum, particularly from acquaintances or strangers, could inadvertently make someone feel burdened, uncomfortable or unsafe. 2) Disconnect and spend less time looking at social media and news We have witnessed a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-02/rise-in-harmful-online-attacks-in-lead-up-to-voice-referendum/102807476">surge</a> in offensive, harmful and racist content online. For everyone, limiting exposure to social media and the news can be essential for mental wellbeing. Disconnecting and restricting how much energy we put into such content is something we can control. If you are non-Indigenous and encounter such comments online, please report them. We can all play a part in fostering a safe and respectful community. 3) Stay connected with others and avoid isolation <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590291120300723">Social isolation can take a toll on health and wellbeing</a>. Prioritise quality time with friends, family and community, exploring conversations beyond the referendum. Embrace opportunities to stay connected with others through meaningful physical, social and cultural interactions. 4) Personal and community-care practices Self-care is often viewed as an individual activity. Find ways to create, maintain and enhance personal and community-based care practices. Consider opportunities for including others in activities such as exercise, time outside or crafting cultural items. Organisations can lead and facilitate these collective care initiatives. 5) Make time for your body, mind and spirit Set aside regular time for physical activity, stimulate your mind with enjoyable pursuits and nurture your spiritual dimensions if they hold significance for you. This could include connecting with country, attending church or practising yoga. 6) Spend time on Country and practice Indigenous culture <a href="https://www.lowitja.org.au/content/Document/Lowitja-Publishing/Lowitja_Inst_Health_Benefits_OnCountry__report__WEB.pdf">Spend time on Country</a> in your favourite place, <a href="https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/148406/8/Defining_the_Indefinable_WEB2_FINAL.pdf">undertake cultural practices</a> and invite others to join you. If you are non-Indigenous, seek out opportunities to deepen cross-cultural connection, understanding and appreciation by participating in Indigenous cultural practices. 7) Know the signs and seek help Emotional distress and triggers can arise unexpectedly. Recognise the <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-you-worried-someone-you-care-about-is-thinking-of-suicide-heres-how-you-can-support-them-from-afar-135940">signs</a> within yourself and among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people around you. If you or anyone else is feeling unwell, we suggest moving away from the cause, spending time with people and places that bring you peace, and if needed <a href="https://www.13yarn.org.au/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwmICoBhDxARIsABXkXlKDSN_iCsyfccXNgD8k49nK5xE0ChmBykxLGcLrt_e_oVVTBtDonD0aAv22EALw_wcB">seeking help</a>. The enduring resilience shown by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is deep, but not inexhaustible. All Australians should make caring for each other a focus in these complex and challenging times. <hr /> If you are experiencing distress, there are First Nations-led resources available: <ul> <li> <a href="https://wellmob.org.au/">Wellmob</a> </li> <li> <a href="https://www.13yarn.org.au/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwx5qoBhDyARIsAPbMagCVVK7aNnqHIcZ-WPSTIf9SbgWpx9QBeCpPIJtIYUKBYazBkfNf9CYaAhaEEALw_wcB">13YARN</a> </li> <li> <a href="https://headspace.org.au/yarn-safe/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwx5qoBhDyARIsAPbMagDOgHR_7ErG-8VZkWUYYx7kSVlvgFhPxxugvdhi1VQc7sfIapTXbdIaArg8EALw_wcB">Yarn Safe</a><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/213372/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> </li> </ul> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jacob-prehn-956034">Jacob Prehn</a>, Associate Dean Indigenous College of Arts, Law, and Education; Senior Lecturer - Indigenous Fellow, Social Work, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888">University of Tasmania</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/joselynn-baltra-ulloa-1470454">Joselynn Baltra-Ulloa</a>, Senior Lecturer in Social Work - School of Social Sciences, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888">University of Tasmania</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/justin-canty-1470456">Justin Canty</a>, Lecturer in Social Work - School of Social Sciences, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888">University of Tasmania</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kate-vincent-1470455">Kate Vincent</a>, Lecturer in Social Work, Social Work Program Convenor, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888">University of Tasmania</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/milena-heinsch-348951">Milena Heinsch</a>, Professor and Head of Social Work, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888">University of Tasmania</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/7-ways-to-look-after-yourself-and-your-community-before-and-after-the-voice-referendum-213372">original article</a>.

Caring

No, the Voice proposal will not be ‘legally risky’. This misunderstands how constitutions work

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/william-partlett-708330">William Partlett</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> The “no” campaign’s primary argument in the current referendum debate focuses on the dangerous consequences of a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament. This argument is relevant to the parliamentary debate about how a constitutional Voice to Parliament will be set up through legislation. But it has no bearing on the referendum debate. This debate involves a different, moral question: do you support the idea of recognising First Australians in the Constitution by giving them a voice on matters that affect them? <h2>What exactly is the ‘no’ campaign arguing?</h2> Although the “no” campaign opposes a constitutionally enshrined Voice, some of its key leaders are not against the general idea of a Voice institution itself. Instead, many “no” campaigners, including Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, <a href="https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/voice-to-parliament/dutton-says-his-priority-remains-establishing-a-local-and-regional-voice/video/45255e2fa30463000b1111d7188db1aa">support</a> legislated Voice institutions at the regional level. The “no” side also does not oppose constitutional recognition for First Australians. Dutton has recently promised that if the Voice referendum fails, the Coalition would <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/03/peter-dutton-says-coalition-will-hold-indigenous-recognition-referendum-if-voice-to-parliament-vote-fails">hold another referendum</a> on First Nations constitutional recognition if it is returned to power. The “no” side’s main argument, therefore, is a very specific one. It focuses on what it claims are the dangerous consequences of recognising First Australians by placing a Voice institution in the Australian Constitution. In its official campaign <a href="https://aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/referendum-booklet.pdf">pamphlet</a>, the “no” side claims that doing this will: <ul> <li> be “legally risky” and lead to litigation </li> <li> “risk delay and dysfunction” in government </li> <li> be a “costly and bureaucratic” institution with “no issue beyond its scope”. </li> </ul> Finally, the “no” side claims the Albanese government has not put forth any details on how this Voice body would function, and it would be a “permanent” change that will open the door for “activists”. <h2>The nature of constitutions</h2> These concerns, however, fundamentally misunderstand how constitutions work. Constitutions are not detailed documents that anticipate every possible circumstance. On the contrary, they are by nature short and incomplete documents. They inherently contain large gaps. In Australia, the evolution of constitutional institutions has been primarily shaped by parliament through legislation. Take the constitutional provision creating the High Court as an example. The Constitution contains very little detail on how the High Court operates. It does not even specify how many justices will be on the court. It merely says: <blockquote> The High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice, and so many other Justices, not less than two, as the Parliament prescribes. </blockquote> Indeed, it was left to parliament to establish the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court in the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00836">Judiciary Act</a> in 1903. And since then, parliament has passed numerous amendments that continue to shape the operation of the court, ensuring it continues to develop in line with the needs of contemporary Australian society. For instance, the court has <a href="https://www.hcourt.gov.au/about/history-of-the-high-court">increased</a> in size from three to seven justices in order to handle its increasing case load, which many in the early 20th century thought would be very light. <h2>The Voice to Parliament proposal</h2> The proposed Voice body will operate in the same way. The <a href="https://voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment">proposal</a> is typical of other clauses already in the Constitution – it contains little detail other than there “shall be a body” called the “Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders Voice” that will make “representations” to parliament. Details on how the body is selected and how it will operate are explicitly left to parliament. The final section of the proposed Voice provision <a href="https://voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment">states</a>: <blockquote> the parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. </blockquote> If the October referendum vote is successful, it will be up to the current parliament to pass the foundational legislation setting up the Voice body. But this law will always be subject to change by subsequent parliaments. If there are problems with the way it functions, future parliaments can fix those issues through amending legislation (just as the functioning of the High Court has changed over time). The proposed constitutional Voice will, therefore, operate in much the same way as a legislated Voice would. In the end, both would be controlled by parliament. The various concerns of the “no” side are best suited to this legislative debate. For instance, it will be important to ensure the legislation creating the Voice does not lead to dysfunctional government or become a costly or ineffective bureaucracy. But the “no” side’s concerns have no bearing on the constitutional question we all must answer in the referendum. <h2>A moral question</h2> Instead, we face a clearer, moral question on October 14: do we support the idea of recognising First Australians in the Constitution by giving them a voice in matters that affect them? In answering this question, it is worth considering the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/IndigLRes/rciadic/national/vol1/">findings</a> of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody from more than 30 years ago. The commission linked the shocking number of First Australians dying in state custody to the historical fact that Aboriginal people have faced “deliberate and systematic disempowerment” for more than a century. It said: <blockquote> Decisions were made about them and for them and imposed upon them. </blockquote> Only First Nations empowerment, the report concluded, would overcome this disadvantage. This empowerment process began with a series of First Nations regional dialogues that ultimately called for a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament in 2017. This empowerment is not real, however, until we heed this call.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212696/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/william-partlett-708330">William Partlett</a>, Associate Professor, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-the-voice-proposal-will-not-be-legally-risky-this-misunderstands-how-constitutions-work-212696">original article</a>.

Legal

The ‘yes’ Voice campaign is far outspending ‘no’ in online advertising, but is the message getting through?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrea-carson-924">Andrea Carson</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/la-trobe-university-842">La Trobe University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/max-gromping-1466451">Max Grömping</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-strating-129115">Rebecca Strating</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/la-trobe-university-842">La Trobe University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/simon-jackman-310245">Simon Jackman</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841">University of Sydney</a> With early voting set to open next week for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum, this is a critical time for campaigners to win over voters. If the <a href="https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n11054/pdf/ch01.pdf">2022 federal election</a> is anything to go by, Australians have developed a taste for early voting, with fewer than half of all voters actually going to a polling station on election day. If the same voting patterns apply to the referendum, this means more than half of Australians, particularly <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/government-and-opposition/article/correlates-of-early-voting/49D19E94A1D26F9AFE1B72DCB56AFF3F">older voters</a>, may have cast a vote before voting day on October 14. <h2>What’s happening in the polls?</h2> Public polls indicate support for the “yes” campaign continues to decline, despite, as we’ve shown below, huge spending on advertising and extensive media coverage of its message. According to <a href="https://simonjackman.github.io/poll_averaging_voice_2023/poll_averaging.html">Professor Simon Jackman’s</a> averaging of the polls, “no” currently leads “yes” by 58% to 42% nationally. If this lead holds, the result would be <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/1999_referendum_reports_statistics/1999.htm">even more lopsided</a> than the 1999 republic referendum defeat, where the <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/1999_referendum_reports_statistics/summary_republic.htm">nationwide vote </a> was 55% “no” to 45% “yes”. The rate of decline in support for “yes” continues to be about 0.75 of a percentage point a week. If this trend continues, the “yes” vote would sit at 39.6% on October 14, 5.5 percentage points below the “yes” vote in the republic referendum. If “yes” were to prevail on October 14, it would take a colossal reversal in public sentiment, or it would indicate there’s been a stupendously large, collective polling error. Or perhaps both. <hr /> <iframe style="width: 100%;" src="https://simonjackman.github.io/poll_averaging_voice_2023/level_plot_standalone.html" width="100%" height="688"> </iframe> <hr /> <h2>What’s happening in the news and social media?</h2> Using Meltwater data, we have seen a massive spike in Voice media coverage since Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced the referendum date at the end of August. In the most recent week we analysed, from September 14-21, we saw a huge jump of mentions of the Voice to Parliament (2.86 million) in print media, radio, TV and social media. This compares to about a quarter million mentions in the first week of the “yes” and “no” campaigns, which we documented in our <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-no-campaign-is-dominating-the-messaging-on-the-voice-referendum-on-tiktok-heres-why-212465">last report</a> of this series monitoring both campaigns. Voice coverage now constitutes 6.7% of all Australian media reporting, up from 4.2% in week one. To put that in perspective, mentions of Hugh Jackman’s marriage split from Deborra-Lee Furness comprised 1.5% of total weekly coverage, while mentions of the AFL and NRL amounted to 4.1% and 1.7%, respectively. Media coverage of the Voice peaked on September 17 with 38,000 mentions, thanks to widespread coverage of the “yes” rallies that day around the country. This was followed closely by 35,000 Voice mentions the next day, led by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s <a href="https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/voice-to-parliament/voice-will-see-lawyers-in-sydney-and-melbourne-get-richer-dutton/video/40349a54a9f0c2f48baec7ba7263a000">claim</a> on Sky News that a Voice to parliament would see lawyers in Sydney and Melbourne “get richer” through billions of dollars worth of treaty negotiations. Our analysis of X (formerly Twitter) data provides further insight to these trends, showing the nationwide “yes” rallies on September 17 received the most public engagement about the Voice during the week we analysed. <hr /> <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/549754/original/file-20230922-21-tp54x2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/549754/original/file-20230922-21-tp54x2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=269&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549754/original/file-20230922-21-tp54x2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=269&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549754/original/file-20230922-21-tp54x2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=269&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549754/original/file-20230922-21-tp54x2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549754/original/file-20230922-21-tp54x2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549754/original/file-20230922-21-tp54x2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>X (Twitter) data accessed via Meltwater. Author provided</figcaption></figure> <hr /> <h2>Who is advertising online?</h2> This week, we specifically turned our attention to the online advertising spending of the campaigns. We also examined the types of disinformation campaigns appearing on social media, some of which are aimed at the Australian Electoral Commission, similar to the anti-democratic disinformation campaigns that have roiled the US. The main online advertising spend is on Meta’s Facebook and Instagram platforms. We have real-time visibility of this spending thanks to the ad libraries of Meta and Google. The Yes23 campaign has far outspent any other Voice campaigner on these platforms. In the last three months, its advertising expenditure exceeds $1.1 million, compared to just under $100,000 for Fair Australia, the leading “no” campaign organisation. <hr /> <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/549942/original/file-20230925-23-7tl134.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/549942/original/file-20230925-23-7tl134.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=241&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549942/original/file-20230925-23-7tl134.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=241&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549942/original/file-20230925-23-7tl134.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=241&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549942/original/file-20230925-23-7tl134.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=303&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549942/original/file-20230925-23-7tl134.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=303&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549942/original/file-20230925-23-7tl134.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=303&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>Top five Voice campaign spenders on Facebook and Instagram since June 2023. Meta ad library</figcaption></figure> <hr /> Yes23 has also released a far greater number of new ads in September (in excess of 3,200) on both platforms, compared to Fair Australia’s 52 new ads. The top five spenders from both sides are listed below. As early voting nears, this graph shows Yes23 ad spending outpaced Fair Australia on both Google and Meta platforms in week three, as well. <hr /> <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/549762/original/file-20230922-23-1bi7ov.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/549762/original/file-20230922-23-1bi7ov.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549762/original/file-20230922-23-1bi7ov.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549762/original/file-20230922-23-1bi7ov.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549762/original/file-20230922-23-1bi7ov.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=608&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549762/original/file-20230922-23-1bi7ov.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=608&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549762/original/file-20230922-23-1bi7ov.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=608&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>Campaign ad spending on digital platforms from Sept. 14-21. Authors provided.</figcaption></figure> <hr /> The advertising spending data shows how drastically different the strategies of the two main campaigns are. Yes23’s approach is an ad blitz, blanketing the nation with hundreds of ads and experimenting with scores of different messages. In contrast, the “no” side has released far fewer ads with no experimentation. The central message is about “division”, mostly delivered by the lead “no” campaigner, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. All but eight of the ads released by the “no” side in September feature a personal message by Price arguing that the referendum is “divisive” and “the Voice threatens Aussie unity.” To win, “yes” requires a majority of voters nationwide, as well as a majority of voters in a majority of states. The “no” side is strategically targeting its ads to the two states it believes are most likely in play – South Australia and Tasmania. It only needs to win one of these states to ensure the “yes” side fails. <hr /> <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/549949/original/file-20230925-20-zgr4wg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/549949/original/file-20230925-20-zgr4wg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=797&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549949/original/file-20230925-20-zgr4wg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=797&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549949/original/file-20230925-20-zgr4wg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=797&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549949/original/file-20230925-20-zgr4wg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1001&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549949/original/file-20230925-20-zgr4wg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1001&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549949/original/file-20230925-20-zgr4wg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1001&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>Campaign ad spend on Meta platforms across the states since mid-August. (Dark blue = greater the ad spend). Author provided</figcaption></figure> <hr /> <h2>Referendum disinformation</h2> The Meltwater data also reveal a surge in misinformation and disinformation targeting of the AEC with American-style attacks on the voting process. Studies show disinformation surrounding the referendum has been <a href="https://osf.io/qu2fb/">prevalent</a> on X since at least March. To mitigate the harms, the AEC has established a <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/media/disinformation-register-ref.htm">disinformation register</a> to inform citizens about the referendum process and call out falsehoods. We’ve identified three types of disinformation campaigns in the campaign so far. The first includes attempts to redefine the issue agenda. Examples range from the false <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-02/fact-check-indigenous-australians-support-for-the-voice/102673042">claims</a> that First Nations people do not overwhelmingly support the Voice to <a href="https://stephenreason.substack.com/p/the-voice-to-parliament-the-united">conspiracy myths</a> about the Voice being a globalist land grab. These falsehoods aim to influence vote choice. This disinformation type is not covered in the AEC’s register, as the organisation has no provisions to enforce truth in political advertising. The register does cover a second type of disinformation. This includes spurious claims about the voting process, such as that the referendum is voluntary. This false claim aims to depress voter turnout in yet another attempt to influence the outcome. Finally, a distinct set of messages targets the AEC directly. The aim is to undermine trust in the integrity of the vote. A most prominent example was Dutton’s <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/voice-voting-rules-confusion-stinks-dutton-20230824-p5dz41">suggestion</a> the voting process was “rigged” due to the established rule of counting a tick on the ballot as a vote for “yes”, while a cross will not be accepted as a formal vote for “no”. Sky News host Andrew Bolt <a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1256952825005993">echoed</a> this claim in his podcast, which was repeated on social media, reaching 29,800 viewers in one post. Attention to the tick/cross issue spiked on August 25 when the AEC <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/25/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-referendum-aec-poll-unfairness-claims-rejected">refuted</a> the claim (as can be seen in the chart below). Daily Telegraph columnist and climate change denialist Maurice Newman then linked the issue to potential <a href="https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/maurice-newman-aec-rules-on-voting-could-create-confusion-uncertainty/news-story/c76bc3e1e031c2f349710dd1e9f3b51e?btr=15aad1c65d873d8f896d09618a96e228">voter fraud</a>, mimicking US-style attacks on the integrity of voting systems. <hr /> <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/549852/original/file-20230924-23-ob3ltn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/549852/original/file-20230924-23-ob3ltn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549852/original/file-20230924-23-ob3ltn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549852/original/file-20230924-23-ob3ltn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549852/original/file-20230924-23-ob3ltn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549852/original/file-20230924-23-ob3ltn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549852/original/file-20230924-23-ob3ltn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>Disinformation attacking AEC or referendum over past month. Authors provided</figcaption></figure> <hr /> The volume of mentions of obvious disinformation on media and social media may not be high compared to other mentions of the Voice. However, studies show disinformation disproportionately grabs people’s attention due to the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0224-y">cognitive attraction</a> of pervasive negativity, the focus on threats or arousal of disgust. All three types of disinformation campaigns attacking this referendum should concern us deeply because they <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00104140231193008">threaten trust</a> in our political institutions, which undermines our vibrant democracy.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/213749/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrea-carson-924">Andrea Carson</a>, Professor of Political Communication, Department of Politics, Media and Philosophy, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/la-trobe-university-842">La Trobe University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/max-gromping-1466451">Max Grömping</a>, Senior Lecturer, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-strating-129115">Rebecca Strating</a>, Director, La Trobe Asia and Associate Professor, La Trobe University, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/la-trobe-university-842">La Trobe University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/simon-jackman-310245">Simon Jackman</a>, Professor, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841">University of Sydney</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-yes-voice-campaign-is-far-outspending-no-in-online-advertising-but-is-the-message-getting-through-213749">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Cathy Freeman reveals her stance on the Voice

Cathy Freeman has revealed her stance on the upcoming Voice to Parliament referendum, joining the Yes campaign in their latest promotion video. The Olympic champion, who is a proud Kuku Yalanji and Birri Gubba woman, spoke out for the first time in support of the Voice, and asking other Aussies to "stand with me". "I can't remember a time when change has felt so urgent, where momentum has been so strong," Freeman says in the video. "From small towns to big cities, something is in the air. I know all Australians feel it too." <iframe title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0X1H4ms2BtI?si=8Fu5guV41zxs2sge" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe> "We have the chance to be part of a moment that brings people together, to work hard for something that we can all believe in." "And right now, each of us can be part of something that really matters. To stand together and to show our support for Australians who need it the most." "To recognise Indigenous peoples in our constitution for the very first time, to give our kids the very best start in life, an equal start in life." "And to open our hearts and change our future." She concluded the video by urging undecided Aussies to join her at the polls and vote Yes in the historic referendum. "I'm voting yes, and I am asking that all Australians do too. So please stand with me and write Yes on October 14," she said. Freeman has joined the campaign just after an estimated 200,000 people turned out across the country to march in support of the Yes campaign, just four weeks before the vote is set to take place. Australians will head to the polls on October 14th to either vote Yes or No to instate an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, which will act as an advisory board to amplify issues plaguing Indigenous communities. Image credits: YouTube - Yes23

Legal

No, the Voice to Parliament would not force people to give up their private land

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kate-galloway-9907">Kate Galloway</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a> In the polarised debate about the Voice to Parliament referendum, some proponents of the “no” vote have <a href="https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/voice-legislation-does-not-authorise-a-land-grab/">claimed</a> the creation of the new advisory body would lead to the conversion of private land titles in Australia to native title. The implication is that people will be forced to give up their land. This has sown fear among some Australians. Last week, a false letter purporting to be from a member of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria was distributed to homes in regional Victoria, saying the body was moving into the “next phase of reacquiring land”. The minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/fake-letter-scaremongering-about-indigenous-land-claims-sparks-outrage-20230912-p5e43n.html">called</a> it a “another example of the dirty tricks campaign” being waged to sow doubt over the Voice referendum. Similar concerns were raised following the High Court decision in the <a href="https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/mabo-case">Mabo case</a> in 1992 and passage of the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00178">Native Title Act</a> a year later. Like the fear-mongering over the Mabo decision, the current alarm over the potential loss of private lands with a Voice to Parliament is unwarranted because this claim is manifestly incorrect. There are two foundational legal reasons why: <ul> <li> because of the words of the proposed constitutional amendment itself </li> <li> and because of the way that native title works. </li> </ul> <h2>Would the proposed Voice have powers related to land?</h2> The proposed constitutional amendment that would create the Voice is very simple. It seeks to insert one new section into the Constitution, which reads: <blockquote> In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: <ol> <li> there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; </li> <li> the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; </li> <li> the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. </li> </ol> </blockquote> The words clearly provide for only one activity to be undertaken by the Voice. The new body “may make representations” on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. There is no express or hidden power to either take people’s land or give land to First Nations people. The Voice is a committee that may provide advice to parliament and government on issues relating to First Nations people. That is all. And this advice is not binding. The parliament of the day is free to ignore it, if it wishes to. The new provision also gives one sole power to the parliament – it would have the capacity to set up the Voice. It is not possible to understand this provision as creating a special power to take people’s land, or to “convert” land to native title. Importantly, the power to establish the Voice would not be given to the government – it would belong to parliament. In exercising this power, normal parliamentary processes will apply and the parliament will be accountable to the public. There are no other changes to the Constitution proposed in this referendum. <h2>How native title works</h2> In the famous Mabo case, the High Court found that the land title of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, held under their traditional law and custom, survived the introduction of British sovereignty over Australia. Mabo confirmed native title can only be claimed over land where there is no interest in conflict with the exercise of this right. Native title will always give way to grants of exclusive land use. Following this decision, the law now states that every grant of freehold land (“private” land) extinguishes native title. Further, in the later case of <a href="https://jade.io/article/68082">Fejo v Northern Territory</a>, the High Court confirmed that once native title has been extinguished, it cannot be revived. Consequently, even if the constitutional change creating the Voice did (somehow) recognise native title, it is not possible to “convert” freehold land to native title. On private land, native title no longer exists under Australian law. To put these claims of “land conversion” in context, it is helpful to recall the public response to the Mabo decision. Following the High Court judgement in Mabo, the mining industry ran a national campaign asserting that native title would threaten people’s back yards. The managing director of Western Mining, Hugh Morgan, <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=(Id:library/prspub/raf10);rec=0">said</a> the High Court’s decision "put at risk the whole legal framework of property rights throughout the whole community." This campaign led to significant public fear about the effects of native title. These claims about native title after Mabo were incorrect. Private landholdings have not been threatened. Indeed, on the ten-year anniversary of the Mabo decision, former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett even <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/i-was-wrong-on-mabo-kennett-20020601-gdu9dt.html">admitted that his initial fears had been unfounded</a>. In reading or listening to claims about the effect of the Voice, it is prudent to question the source of information. If you have questions, seek a reliable source to read the words of the proposed amendment and understand the objective of the constitutional change. If you hear of a claim that seems extreme, it may well be aimed at diverting the public’s attention from the real issues.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212784/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kate-galloway-9907">Kate Galloway</a>, Associate Professor of Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-the-voice-to-parliament-would-not-force-people-to-give-up-their-private-land-212784">original article</a>.

Legal

Misinformation and the Voice: how can you spot and defuse false claims?

On 14 October, Australians will vote in their first referendum in 24 years. <div class="copy"> The question – whether to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament – has been hotly debated for much of this year already, and campaigning will ramp up for both the Yes and No votes in coming weeks. <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/what-if-instead-of-blaming-readers-of-misinformation-we-showed-them-how-to-tell-the-difference-between-facts-and-falsehoods/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" data-type="link" data-id="https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/what-if-instead-of-blaming-readers-of-misinformation-we-showed-them-how-to-tell-the-difference-between-facts-and-falsehoods/">Misinformation</a> and <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/health/covid/inoculating-against-disinformation/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" data-type="link" data-id="https://cosmosmagazine.com/health/covid/inoculating-against-disinformation/">disinformation</a> about the referendum have also been circulating, both on- and offline. What should we be keeping an eye out for, and what are the best methods of dealing with misinformation? Cosmos investigates. “There’s a whole field unto itself on how you classify misinformation,” says Dr Natasha van Antwerpen, a lecturer in psychology at the University of Adelaide. It can vary “from the very blatant, absolute lie, through to something that, even if all the facts are correct, the actual impression that you get is not true”, she says. It’s particularly difficult to see if you’re dealing with statements about the future – such as, ‘a Yes or No vote will cause this thing to happen’. “With prediction, it can be really challenging, because you don’t really have a ground truth to work with,” says van Antwerpen. “Things that you can always look out for tend to be: if it’s a really extreme statement, if there’s no degree of uncertainty in the prediction, and sometimes if it’s very obviously feeding into a politicised narrative, that can be a bit of a red flag.” Acknowledging uncertainty is often a better sign that the information is true, says van Antwerpen, as is checking someone’s citations. “What are the bases that they’re making those predictions on? Have they actually got solid research evidence behind the predictions that they’re making, as opposed to speculation?” While the actions both campaigns want people to take in this referendum are very simple – either vote yes, or no – they rest on a very complicated cultural context. “There’s a lot of things that are feeding into people’s decision making that don’t just come from the campaign, they have extraordinary long legacies in Australia,” says Dr Clare Southerton, a lecturer in digital technology and pedagogy at La Trobe University. “When you’re trying to inform people, they’re always going to be interpreting it through their own lens. And that’s how misinformation is able to circulate so rapidly: people respond to it in emotional ways, because they’re coming to it from their own personal histories.” What’s the best way to deal with misinformation if you do come across it? “I wish there was a simple answer,” says Southerton. “Unfortunately, research shows that at this point there is really no most successful strategy.” That said, there are things that work in different circumstances. Southerton says that on social media, reporting the misinformation is a reliable strategy. “When misinformation is mass-reported, it does get taken down – unfortunately, not usually before many, many eyeballs have seen it.” What about your friend or relative who’s dead-set on a stance you know is factually incorrect? Southerton says that while, once again, there’s no method with strong evidence proving it to be the best, connecting with the person “on an emotional level” often helps change their beliefs. “If you can think about where they might be coming from, and connect with them on that level, that’s going to be the most successful. Because we know that people share misinformation because the position that the misinformation has taken makes them feel good,” says Southerton. Southerton warns against “debunking” by simply telling someone that they’re wrong. “Correcting someone, or fact checking, feels good to us, but often shames the person who’s shared the misinformation and can radicalise them further.” This doesn’t mean you need to legitimise their viewpoint. “Try and think about ways that you can humanise your position to them,” says Southerton. “Ultimately, this is a very emotional time for Aboriginal people in Australia, to have these kinds of debates happening about them in a way that can open up conversation for extreme racism to happen in the public sphere. “So it’s really important that we don’t legitimise that racism. But at the same time, […] what is actually successful, as a way to combat misinformation, is about connecting with people who are sharing it, and seeing what ways we can best reach them.” For people who deal with a lot of misinformation professionally, van Antwerpen says it’s important to choose which myths to debunk – you won’t be able to fight every single false statement. Once chosen, she recommends <a href="https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/debunking-handbook-2020/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Debunking Handbook</a> by Stephan Lewandowsky for evidence-based advice on challenging myths. In general, “you want to start with the facts in a very clear way, so you want it to be as concise as possible,” she says. “We used to say ‘never repeat the misinformation’, but that’s changed a bit now. Generally, it’s best to warn that you’re going to say misinformation, and then just say it once.” Then, van Antwerpen says it’s very important to explain why the misinformation is wrong. “Our brains like to have some sort of explanation. If we don’t have something to fill the gap that’s left when we correct the misinformation, it will just go back to the misinformation.” Being conscious of political narratives, without feeding them and getting more polarised, is important too. “When we present these really polarised arguments, people often tend to either polarise or they’ll get apathetic and drop out,” says van Antwerpen. “So if you’re looking at informing people, it’s finding how can you communicate it in a way that’s not encouraging that split.” Image credits: Getty Images <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/people/behaviour/misinformation-voice-referendum/">This article</a> was originally published on <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com">Cosmos Magazine</a> and was written by <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/contributor/ellen-phiddian/">Ellen Phiddian</a>. </div>

Legal

It was written for nuclear disarmament – but today You’re The Voice is the perfect song for the ‘yes’ campaign

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-tregear-825">Peter Tregear</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> The serendipity of the pairing between John Farnham’s 1986 hit single You’re the Voice and the Voice to Parliament referendum is obvious, but it goes well beyond the fact the two share the key word “voice”. The original was composed by a team of British songwriters in response to an anti-nuclear demonstration in London’s Hyde Park in 1985. Chris Thompson, Andy Qunta and Maggie Ryder had planned a song-writing session on the day an <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/27/world/100000-in-london-protest-arms-race.html">estimated 100,000 marched through central London</a> in support the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Thompson, however, overslept. As an act of self-admonishment he decided to express his remorse by conceiving a song that emphasised the importance of personal agency in achieving political change. This is the kernel of meaning in You’re the Voice. It is also what makes it so especially well suited to support a campaign about a referendum to give Indigenous Australians a constitutionally recognised Voice to Parliament nearly 40 years later. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> OUR NEW AD IS LIVE! You’re the Voice that will make history. On 14 October, we know we all can stand together with the power to be powerful. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/HistoryIsCalling?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#HistoryIsCalling</a>, so <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/VoteYes?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#VoteYes</a>. Are you in? John Farnham is. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/UluruStatement?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#UluruStatement</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/StayTrue2Uluru?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#StayTrue2Uluru</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/YoureTheVoice?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#YoureTheVoice</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/VoteYes?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#VoteYes</a> <a href="https://t.co/4ujYd9gk0M">pic.twitter.com/4ujYd9gk0M</a> — ulurustatement (@ulurustatement) <a href="https://twitter.com/ulurustatement/status/1698260272165875951?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 3, 2023</a></blockquote> <h2>The grain of Farnham’s voice</h2> Thompson was not at all convinced at the time Farnham <a href="https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/music/why-john-farnham-was-nearly-rockblocked-from-youre-the-voice/news-story/9e048f2d4550a8b4c1a28e2eba4909f6">could do the song justice</a> when he requested it for inclusion in his album Whispering Jack. And yet the particular qualities of Farnham’s singing is also arguably crucial to the song’s success, then and now. The music’s combination of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentimental_ballad#Power_ballads">power ballad</a> tempo with <a href="https://music.amazon.com.au/playlists/B078H6J6BF">pub anthem</a> singability calls for a kind of full-throated vocal performance that takes more than a little inspiration from African American gospel traditions. Singers drawn from these traditions include giants of popular musical culture like James Brown, Tina Turner and Aretha Franklin. It is not exaggerated praise to suggest Farnham here delivers a performance that stands with their best. And it was career changing for him, helping Farnham to put to rest his earlier image as a clean-cut purveyor of sentimental pop songs like <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0c55lXRAeg">Sadie the Cleaning Lady</a> and relaunch his career. Farnham’s singing here exemplifies what Roland Barthes famously described in <a href="https://courses.lsa.umich.edu/jptw/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2017/08/Barthes-ImageMusicText.pdf">an essay from 1972</a> as the “grain of the voice”: the element of a singer’s individuality which helps convey the sincerity and authenticity of what is being sung. You’re the Voice further highlights the grain of Farnham’s singing via the exclamation “oh, whoa!” regularly punctuating the song’s chorus. In a powerful moment of sonic symbolism, the exclamation is eventually taken up in the advertisement (like the sentiment of the song itself, it is no doubt hoped) by a chorus of supporters. <h2>You are the voice</h2> Indeed, if it is to succeed, the referendum will need to convince an especially broad coalition of Australians to vote for “yes”. The song supports this goal from its very title: you are the voice. It asks each of us, individually, to consider how we can act for the common good. <blockquote> We have the chance to turn the pages over We can write what we want to write We gotta make ends meet, before we get much older. </blockquote> The song’s explicit call to action has now been connected to the forthcoming referendum: now is the moment to use your voice at the ballot box to give, in turn, a constitutionally enshrined voice to indigenous Australians. The “yes” campaign’s appeal to collective responsibility is one aspect of the referendum process that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/16/lidia-thorpe-calls-for-referendum-called-off-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-no-campaign">concerns some Indigenous critics</a>. The very enterprise of constitutional reform, after all, presumes the legitimacy of the Australian constitution which in turn presumes the legitimacy of the original act of colonial dispossession. But the bigger threat to the “yes” campaign arguably comes from those who see the idea of an <a href="https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/the-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-has-the-potential-to-be-divisive">Indigenous voice to parliament itself as divisive</a>. Yet, as the song goes: <blockquote> This time, we know we all can stand together With the power to be powerful Believing we can make it better. </blockquote> The use of You’re the Voice here reinforces the view that supporting the Voice to Parliament is a positive act of national reconciliation that we, as a nation, can take together. It is an injunction to take personal and collective responsibility for the history and character of the country we all share. <h2>Politically inclusive</h2> The advertisement is the work of Mark Green of <a href="https://themonkeys.com.au/">The Monkeys advertising agency</a> and historian <a href="https://www.clarewright.com.au/">Clare Wright</a>. It focuses on a family as they watch key moments which shaped Australia’s collective identity. It looks at key moments of reconciliation, Indigenous achievement and Indigenous protest; but also broader moments in collective action. In a particularly astute move, the advertisement overlays images of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/01/john-howard-port-arthur-gun-control-1996-cabinet-papers">John Howard’s 1996 gun reforms</a> in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre as Farnham delivers the lines: <blockquote> We’re all someone’s daughter We’re all someone’s son How long can we look at each other Down the barrel of a gun? </blockquote> Implicit in this conjunction is a reminder to us that support for the “yes” vote, like any nation-changing political act, can come from any side of politics. <h2>Democratising the message</h2> There are many more layers we could tease apart in You’re The Voice. Its extended bagpipes solo originated as an homage to AC/DC singer Bon Scott, connecting it to the egalitarian, <a href="https://www.popmatters.com/141796-let-there-be-rock-2496022409.html">working class culture</a> Scott’s music addresses. Then there is the way the bagpipes, combined with the song’s use of side-drum rhythmic patterns, evoke the sound world of a military tattoo or march. This simultaneously elevates the register of its message. The song – and now the ad – is an implicit call to arms. The inclusion of You’re the Voice in the “yes” campaign thus provides powerful support for its central message. Farnham himself recognises this. Upon release of the advertisement, Farnham <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/john-farnham-backs-voice-permits-his-anthem-to-front-yes-campaign-ad-20230901-p5e18t.html">spoke about</a> how, when it was first released in 1986, the song “changed his life”. Generously, he concluded: "I can only hope that now it might help in some small way, to change the lives of our First Nations Peoples for the better." <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-tregear-825">Peter Tregear</a>, Principal Fellow and Professor of Music, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/it-was-written-for-nuclear-disarmament-but-today-youre-the-voice-is-the-perfect-song-for-the-yes-campaign-212769">original article</a>.

Music

Modern prime ministers have typically left parliament soon after defeat. So why doesn’t Scott Morrison?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-strangio-1232">Paul Strangio</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a> With each passing month, Scott Morrison is developing into a post-prime-ministership peculiarity. Well over a year since voters cast him from power, he remains limpet-like in the House of Representatives, defying speculation that he is ready to quit parliament and trigger a byelection in his New South Wales seat of Cook. Hanging around on the backbench is generally not the way of ousted national leaders in the modern political era. It is true that in bygone times former prime ministers did not scurry to leave parliament after losing office. The most spectacular example is Australia’s leader during the first world war, William Morris Hughes. Bumped from office in 1923, the “Little Digger”, as he was known, remained in the House for another three decades, relentlessly scheming for power. Only death in 1952 brought closure to his parliamentary career. Since the 1980s, however, the habit of former PMs has been to hastily abandon politics once the mantle of office has slipped their grasp. Malcolm Fraser established this modern pattern, triggering a byelection in his seat of Wannon two months after his Coalition government was defeated by the Bob Hawke-led Labor Party in March 1983. From that time there have been few exceptions to this norm. Deposed from office by Paul Keating in December 1991, Hawke was out of the parliament by February 1992, with his seat of Wills won by the independent, Phil Cleary. Keating, too, followed the trend. After his Labor government lost power to the John Howard-led Coalition in March 1996, Keating resigned from the House the following month. For Howard, the decision was taken out of his hands, as voters not only finished his prime ministership in November 2007 but terminated his more than three decades as the member for Bennelong. Howard’s slayer, Kevin Rudd, did buck the trend after he was overthrown by caucus colleagues in June 2010. Convinced of the righteousness of his resurrection and thirsting to avenge his usurper, Julia Gillard, he stayed on for another parliamentary term, wresting the prime ministership back in June 2013. However, when electors put an end to his second government three months later, Rudd swiftly exited politics. Meanwhile, Gillard had resigned as the member for Lalor only weeks after being dethroned by Rudd. Prone to eccentricity, Tony Abbott is the clearest exception to the rule of modern ex-PMs not dallying in parliament once their reign is over. Deposed by Malcolm Turnbull in September 2015, less than two years after becoming prime minister, Abbott lingered mostly aimlessly on the backbench for the rest of that term and the next. Recontesting his seat of Warringah again at the May 2019 election, he lost to the independent, Zali Steggall. In contrast to Abbott, Turnbull left parliament with almost unseemly haste once he was unseated from power. After being dumped from the leadership in favour of Morrison in August 2018, he tendered his resignation as the member for Wentworth within a week. In the ensuing byelection, his seat too went to an independent, Kerryn Phelps. How do we explain the modern pattern of former prime ministers sprinting to the exit door once their time in office is over? In earlier times, there was a role for ex-leaders as elder statesmen in parliament. The best example is the Great Depression-era PM, Labor’s James Scullin. Despite failing health, he remained in the House for nearly another two decades and served as a trusted confidant to John Curtin throughout the harrying days of the second world war. Modern former prime ministers can be a source of counsel to their successors, offering advice both welcome and unwelcome. But there is no appetite among colleagues for them to hang around in parliament fulfilling that function. The media are quick to portray them as an unhelpful distraction or curiosity, while opponents point-score off them. Better they are out of the way. Another reason modern former leaders are impatient to move on is that, with extended lifespans and expanded opportunities post-office (for example, book-writing deals, lecture circuits, ambassadorships, business ventures, NGO and think-tank appointments), ex-PMs can now enjoy a second wind once out of parliament in a way that was not so open to earlier predecessors. Politics is now less of a lifetime vocation. Why, then, is Morrison clinging on? We can discount his declarations that he is relishing being the member for Cook. Being a humble backbencher visits daily humiliation on him. Indeed, Morrison’s post-prime ministership has been most notable for his reputation being tarnished by revelations of his bizarre commandeering of several portfolios while PM, and by the adverse findings against him by the Robodebt Royal Commission. These scandals have undoubtedly complicated an early departure for Morrison because, in going, he would be seen to be retreating in disgrace. He needs time and space from the scandals for the semblance of a dignified escape. The opportunities Morrison had hoped for following politics have potentially also thinned because of his sullied reputation. Finally, there is the political calculation surrounding his exit for his party. Stay or go, Morrison is a headache for Opposition Leader Peter Dutton. As long as the scandal-ravaged Morrison hangs around, he is damaging the Liberal brand. Yet a byelection in his electorate is also unwelcome. Though Cook is very safe on paper, the history of the seats of three former PMs going to independents over the past 30 years is intriguing and not to be lightly dismissed.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212544/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-strangio-1232">Paul Strangio</a>, Professor of Politics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/modern-prime-ministers-have-typically-left-parliament-soon-after-defeat-so-why-doesnt-scott-morrison-212544">original article</a>.

Legal

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

An emotional Scott Morrison delivers his last speech to parliament

As Scott Morrison leaves parliament, where does he rank among Australian prime ministers?

Scott Morrison resigns from parliament

Osher Günsberg slammed for "insulting Australians" over Voice defeat

"Soulless": Stan Grant finally breaks silence over Voice defeat

Waleed Aly and Steve Price clash over damning Voice letter

Explainer: Australia has voted against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Here’s what happened

"A mean country": Stan Grant shares his thoughts on the Voice referendum

Coming to terms with the past is more important than ever. The Voice referendum is a vital first step

Kyle and Jackie O reveal their stance on the Voice

Ray Martin's scathing Voice to Parliament speech

What kind of Australia will we wake up to if the Voice referendum is defeated on October 14?

7 ways to look after yourself and your community before and after the Voice referendum

No, the Voice proposal will not be ‘legally risky’. This misunderstands how constitutions work

The ‘yes’ Voice campaign is far outspending ‘no’ in online advertising, but is the message getting through?

Cathy Freeman reveals her stance on the Voice

No, the Voice to Parliament would not force people to give up their private land

Misinformation and the Voice: how can you spot and defuse false claims?

It was written for nuclear disarmament – but today You’re The Voice is the perfect song for the ‘yes’ campaign

Modern prime ministers have typically left parliament soon after defeat. So why doesn’t Scott Morrison?

Our Partners

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

An emotional Scott Morrison delivers his last speech to parliament

As Scott Morrison leaves parliament, where does he rank among Australian prime ministers?

Scott Morrison resigns from parliament

Osher Günsberg slammed for "insulting Australians" over Voice defeat

"Soulless": Stan Grant finally breaks silence over Voice defeat

Waleed Aly and Steve Price clash over damning Voice letter

Explainer: Australia has voted against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Here’s what happened

"A mean country": Stan Grant shares his thoughts on the Voice referendum

Coming to terms with the past is more important than ever. The Voice referendum is a vital first step

Kyle and Jackie O reveal their stance on the Voice

Ray Martin's scathing Voice to Parliament speech

What kind of Australia will we wake up to if the Voice referendum is defeated on October 14?

7 ways to look after yourself and your community before and after the Voice referendum

No, the Voice proposal will not be ‘legally risky’. This misunderstands how constitutions work

The ‘yes’ Voice campaign is far outspending ‘no’ in online advertising, but is the message getting through?

Cathy Freeman reveals her stance on the Voice

No, the Voice to Parliament would not force people to give up their private land

Misinformation and the Voice: how can you spot and defuse false claims?

It was written for nuclear disarmament – but today You’re The Voice is the perfect song for the ‘yes’ campaign

Modern prime ministers have typically left parliament soon after defeat. So why doesn’t Scott Morrison?

Our Partners

Join Over60