Revealingly,none of those who attacked Dutton could point to any of the 15 questions he asked as irrelevant. Understandably,because it is simply not possible for a rational person to dispute that,when considering a complex and novel proposal,more information about how it will work is better than less. The attack was upon Dutton’s motives. Rather than accepting his inquiry as a request for information in a discussion clouded by uncertainty,it was immediately condemned as a devious ruse to defeat the Voice.
To give one example among very many,the former director of Reconciliation Australia,Ken Henry,was anything but conciliatory;his article in this masthead was belligerent and abusive. Dutton was slammed for “negative,wrecking ball tactics … contrived political game-playing for self-serving personal advantage … disingenuous political opportunism … about as crass as it gets”. Henry simply presumed Dutton was acting in bad faith.
I was once given some very wise advice:before you attack a person’s motives,answer their arguments. With Dutton – who was not even making arguments,merely asking questions which nobody claimed were not relevant – the opposite happened.
The increasingly belligerent advocates for the Voice ignore that Dutton is in favour of Indigenous recognition in the Constitution,as has been every Liberal and National Party leader since John Howard in 1998. The question is not that,but whether the Voice is the best way to accomplish it.
Dutton had not even expressed opposition to the Voice as a concept;he has thus far been punctilious in reserving judgment,subject to further information – and been pilloried by right-wing commentators such as Andrew Bolt for doing so. His position is hardly an unreasonable one when,as this masthead reported a fortnight ago,only 13 per cent of Australians said they understood the proposal. Presumably,the other 87 per cent would appreciate more information.
Tiernan Brady,the director for the Yes campaigns on marriage equality both here and in Ireland,was recently back in Australia,and offered his views on the reasons for their success. One of the key strategies of the campaign here (and I remember this very well,having had many discussions with him at the time) was to avoid creating an atmosphere of hostility towards those who did not support change.
As Brady told this masthead:“The tone you set is the tone you have to live with … There is no other side;there is just one society where you’re having a conversation and trying to persuade people … Listening to why someone disagrees with you is the only way that good social change happens.”
Brady understood perfectly well that the angrier the argument became,the more difficult it would be to get across positive messages,and the greater the risk that undecided voters would turn away. So he kept it positive and sweet:an appeal to goodwill,not grievance.
Loading
One of the main attractions of the Voice is not intellectual but emotional:that this is a way to expiate past wrongs to Indigenous Australians. For a critical section of the electorate – those undecided but leaning to Yes – their support depends not on the arguments of constitutional lawyers,but on generous optimism.
The more angry and discordant the debate becomes,the greater the risk that this optimism will evaporate,as people conclude the referendum is not the moment of national unity it was promised to be,but a thing of divisiveness and acrimony. If so,it will fail.
The only way to avoid that is to ensure the debate is conducted with civility. That means listening respectfully to the opinions of those who do not believe the Voice is the appropriate approach to constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians,and persuading the public that they are wrong.
It means not assuming that critics are acting in bad faith or for devious reasons,but addressing their concerns and answering their arguments.
Loading
If the Yes campaign is not conducted in that spirit,I expect it will fail. If that happens,those who ignored the wise advice of the last successful Yes campaigners should not blame Peter Dutton. They should look in the mirror.
George Brandis was federal attorney-general at the time the marriage equality legislation was passed.
The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge,champion and inform your own.Sign up here.