Trying to shut down debate

There are complaints in the media and elsewhere that the government is trying to shut down debate over the "Voice" to parliament. Is this true?

If you have been reading this blog in the past week you will know that I tried to explain something about the "Voice". This is the idea that there should be some sort of constitutionally enshrined body for aboriginal people to make representations to parliament.

Yes, it is an issue of "race". That alone will make it contentious. It will also mean there are many valid discussions to be had about the range of issues around the need or otherwise for such a body.

Now whether you think you might vote "yes" or "no" is your affair but there are two ways to vote. One is to vote on an "emotional" level. The other is to vote in an informed manner having taken into consideration both sides of any debate.

Currently I believe it would be reasonable to suggest the government is asking people to vote in an emotional way. The Prime Minister is saying it is "good manners" to vote "yes". He is spruiking the "yes" vote at every opportunity. He is suggesting failure to vote "yes" is "racist" and that it will "set the country back". He is asking people to vote "yes" to the proposal and saying the details about just how it would work will come after the vote in favour. He is also saying the government will be backing events in favour of "yes" and that donations to a "yes" campaign will be tax deductible. There is no such tax relief available for the "no" campaign.

In past referendums the government has provided information for and against the issue to be decided. There is no legal requirement to do this but past practice has been to provide both sides with a sort of equal status. Failure to do that is raising some questions.

As part of that strategy the government has also shown an unwillingness to provide information which would lead to informed debate. Yes, there are lengthy "reports" available but there are two things wrong with this. 

The first is that these reports are generally written by people who favour a Voice. As an example, the Langton-Calma report runs to several hundred pages and it is firmly in favour of a Voice. There are also the now discredited "voices" of people like Bruce Pascoe. The Prime Minister described "Dark Emu" as an "extraordinary" book. That will stay much longer in the public mind than the much more rigorous academic work debunking Pascoe's "research". 

The second problem is that most people won't read this sort of thing. For the most part they won't know it exists and, even if they do, they will not read it. If they do then they will very often take it as "true" even if it is nonsense.  Very few people are going to even see the report about the New Zealand experience by John Storey for the Institute of Public Affairs. It is filled with legal arguments that those without legal training would struggle to understand. Even Patrick Hannaford's much briefer review for Sky News is of little help for those who have no understanding of the ways in which the Constitution can be interpreted. Anything at all arguing for a "no" case is likely to receive only minimal publicity at best, to do otherwise will lay people open to a charge of "racism".

Yes, it is a highly emotive issue. But is that reason to try and stifle debate? It would seem clear there has been, and there will continue to be, an attempt to stifle debate. Your likely voting intentions will probably help you decide whether this is reasonable.