Treasurer Jim Chalmers has accused Peter Dutton of seeking to drip poison into the well of goodwill for the Indigenous Voice to parliament, as the politics of the looming referendum turns increasingly toxic, a month out from voting day.
The Coalition on Wednesday demanded Indigenous academic Marcia Langton be dropped from the government’s expert working group on the Voice, over her statements accusing the No campaign of spreading “base racism” and “sheer stupidity”.
The Coalition targeted Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney in question time. Alex Ellinghausen
A co-author of a report on the Voice commissioned by the former Morrison government, Professor Langton rejected claims from the Coalition and No campaign that she criticised voters opposed to the Voice, accusing The Australian newspaper of misquoting her comments to a forum in Bunbury at the weekend.
“I am not a racist, and I don’t believe that the majority of Australians are racist,” she said. “I do believe that the No campaigners are using racist tactics.”
Mr Dutton used a post on social media to highlight the controversy, prompting Professor Langton to seek legal advice over what she called a “deliberate tactic” to denigrate her.
As Labor struggles to control the Voice debate, Dr Chalmers used question time to hit back.
“This is First Nations people reaching out their hand to us and we shouldn’t slap their hands away,” he said. “It is not about the lies and the misinformation which we have seen peddled by parts of the No campaign.
“The leader of the opposition has not distanced himself from that misinformation. He has embraced it. In this campaign of misinformation and mistruths, the opposition leader is the chief propagandist.”
He said Mr Dutton was taking “the weirdest whispers from the furthest fringes of social media” and legitimising them in parliament.
The bitter tone of the debate comes in the final parliamentary sitting week before the October 14 referendum.
Labor MPs appeared downcast, despite ALP national secretary Paul Erickson telling the caucus about 30 per cent of voters, or 5 million people around the country, remain undecided or are willing to shift their vote.
Mr Erickson said the result was still “up for grabs”, despite the worsening public polls.
One senior member of the government, who remains optimistic that the Yes vote could prevail, said the national polls were not picking up younger people, about 70 per cent of whom support the Voice but don’t answer their phones.
The No campaign says while its polling reflects the trend of the national published polls, in that the No case is growing, the numbers are not as strong.
It is warning against complacency, expressing fears that if the view takes hold that the Yes case is doomed, No voters will become apathetic and not turn up in large numbers.
Deputy Liberal leader Sussan Ley denied misrepresenting Professor Langton and said the Coalition was not responsible for the No campaign’s tactics.
“She’s talking in her own words, about racism and stupidity being at the heart of the No campaign, and her defence seems to be that she is not saying that people who vote No are racist or stupid, she’s saying that the arguments they use are racist and stupid.
“That simply doesn’t cut it.”
Uluru Dialogue campaigners continue to speak to voters around the country, including answering questions about the proposal for constitutional recognition at Mount Druitt, in western Sydney.
Wiradjuri and Mununjali man Mark Gibson welcomed the information session and additional resources being made available to voters.
“A successful referendum result, I think, will unite all Australians. I think we’re moving forward,” he said. “In my opinion, I believe that it’s going to create a better feeling for everyone.”
Voice politics turn toxic as Labor MPs weigh defeat
One of the calculated myths in the campaign against the Indigenous Voice is the argument that the referendum is a contest between elite insiders and ordinary folk because the case for change is powered by the wealthy and the well-connected.
The No campaign thrives on the “outsider” status it claims for itself as a movement that speaks for those without money or power, leading a cause that challenges the establishment by mobilising voters who lack the advantages enjoyed by others.
But the No campaign has an establishment of its own, full of people with money, influence and connections as well as harbourside views. It turns out that a transport company boss and a building materials millionaire are among the donors behind Advance Australia, although their names do not show up in the disclosures at the Australian Electoral Commission.
This is important when so little is known about the peak group behind the No campaign, Advance Australia, and the activist group it has set up, Fair Australia. These groups are secretive by design, but key facts about the tactics adopted by some of their members emerged in news reports by this masthead this week about the way they coached volunteers to use fear and doubt rather than facts to defeat the Voice at the October 14 referendum. It is not suggested that any of the donors identified below endorsed the controversial tactics revealed in the news reports.
Advance is a force to be watched in federal politics. If it succeeds in halting the Voice, it could unleash its conservative activism on other fronts even when critics accuse it of peddling falsehoods.
Election laws make it challenging to find out who puts money into groups like Advance, a conservative group that is turning out to be far more active than the progressive group, GetUp, which set an earlier template for this sort of advocacy. While GetUp posts regular updates about financial support on its website – it has raised $6.5 million over the past 365 days – Advance takes the approach of most political parties, with a bare minimum of disclosure.
