Second Referendum: Peter Dutton supports indigenous recognition but not the Voice body

Do you like referendums? Do you enjoy the current campaign that is waging over the Voice in social media, television, and in newspapers? Are you enthralled by the advertisements, street walkers, and door knockers from the “yes” campaign telling you how to vote?

Well, if so, you’re in luck. It seems we are set to have a second referendum.

The current voice referendum looks set to fail. Australians have soured on the idea of a race-based body that can make representations to parliament and the executive on any matter whatsoever. This body is not merely advisory; it has access and funding and can litigate to slow government if it does not get its way, something that ‘yes’ campaigners have warned us will happen. It will push for treaty and as part of treaty a financial payment, likely in the form of a proportion of GDP. Australians sense that the Voice is outright racist on its face. This is why it is polling so badly.

However, Australians are lukewarm to indifferent it seems on recognizing Indigenous Australians in the constitution. This presumably would be a symbolic recognition in the preamble. But, that is to be determined.

Peter Dutton has now promised that if and when the Voice fails, he will seek bipartisan consensus on indigenous recognition.

Peter Dutton is trying to say to everyone that Indigenous Australians deserve recognition. It is symbolic. And, symbols matter. But, everyone in Australia is equal and no race should get more powers than any other race. But, the messaging is flawed and Peter Dutton must be more articulate in his presentation.

Strategically, this is a misstep.

First, it muddies the waters and confuses Australians. Australians might wonder what the difference is. If Dutton wants a referendum, why don’t we just vote “yes” for this one. The messaging is unclear. He has not made it clear what the difference between his proposal is and what Albo’s proposal is. If you think about it, the difference is obvious: he simply wants words in the preamble and does not want the voice. But he needs to articulate this.

Second, some people might interpret this as a threat to have to deal with the whole referendum issue again if the current one fails. People might face referendum fatigue and just vote yes to avoid the whole thing in the future.

Peter Dutton should have said that we are currently voting on the Voice. The Voice is a bad model. However, he would like to see recognition and he will commit to finding a bipartisan way to make that happen, which can include a referendum to put words in the preamble. But, we must focus on the current referendum that is before us.

As it stands though, Peter Dutton’s advisors should help him improve his communication.