And sure enough,the other pattern from the marriage debate has recurred too:such insinuations are accompanied in the public sphere by wild speculation about legal consequences,with rhetoric just as absurdly overdone. The Voice will be a “shadow government”,we have been warned. And “Parliamentary democracy as we have known it will be dead”,we are told.
This past weekend marked 30 years since Paul Keating’s landmark Redfern speech,in which he told the truth about our violent history. Another recent anniversary went largely unremarked:it is 25 years since John Howard,on the ABC,held aphotocopied map of Australia up to the camera and told viewers that without his intervention native title laws would allow Aboriginal veto over development on 78 per cent of the land mass of Australia. “Now,that is a very simple message.” It was,too – he was telling voters that First Australians were coming for their land. Now we are being fed a similar line:they are coming for our government.
Loading
This is sad,tired stuff. There is a sense,in much of this commentary,that a hundred different approaches are being tried,in the hope that one will create the type of conflict necessary to inspire popular opposition to what is,in essence,a modest request:that Indigenous people be listened to on matters that affect them. Reprinting such absurdities here,even to dispute them,gives them more attention than they warrant. But there will be a referendum,and there will be public debate and media coverage,and it is important early on to consider what these might look like.
Constitutional change is serious,and arguments on both sides should be aired. But not all arguments are equal,and recent electoral history should serve as a reminder:the fact that people are loud,or nasty,or frightening,does not automatically mean their arguments should be taken seriously. Similarly,the mere fact that someone claims they speak for some large “silenced” section of the community does not mean they actually do. The experience of the marriage plebiscite should remind us that when it comes to polarising subjects,foolishness and nastiness and rhetorical overreach often accompany each other. How the Australian media chooses to treat such poor contributions to this important national discussion is a reflection of its quality. We must hope it performs better than it has in the past.
The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge,champion and inform your own.Sign up here.
More from our award-winning columnists
Sky-high cost-cutting:Do we really needtwo pilots in the cockpit? With advances in technology,won’t one pilot on a flight do? Here’s what QF32 hero and ‘Sully’ Sullenberger think -Peter FitzSimons
The tea: With 61 bills passed since the Albanese government came into power in May 2022,who – or what – wins the prize for the biggeststorm in a teacup? -Ross Gittins
Behind the power: When you write a book aboutScott Morrison,and are more than familiar with the ways the former PM has justified his behaviour,surely you shouldn’t feel sorry for him? -Sean Kelly