This year’s vote on whether to insert “the Voice” into Australia’s Constitution isn’t just a referendum on the Constitution. It is also arguably a referendum on the future of the Liberal Party.
In last year’s Federal election, the Liberal-National Coalition’s vote share fell significantly among the younger cohort of voters, with only about one in four voters under 40 voting for the Coalition.
Indeed, according to the Australian Election Study, “at no time in the 35 year history of the AES have we observed such a low level of support for either major party in so large a segment of the electorate.”
This is hardly news, you might say: it is an established fact that the Liberal Party has “a problem” with younger voters.
While it is true that the Liberal Party a long-term problem with younger voters being in general more left-wing, this problem has worsened recent years with not just Gen Z (born 1997-2012) but now also an increasing understanding that Millennials (1981-1996) are not as likely as previous generations to “turn conservative” and vote Liberal as they age.
This phenomenon isn’t just limited to Australia, it’s also been observed in comparable Western democracies including the United Kingdom and the United States.
While the reasons for this are complex (declining home ownership among younger voters being one likely factor, and the pervasiveness of social media another) the practical implications for the Liberal Party are not.
In simple terms, it means that over the next decade or so the electorate as a whole is likely to get more “progressive”, making it harder for the Liberal Party to win elections purely on its traditional policy strengths.
This is where the Voice referendum comes in.
According to the most recent research (Newspoll) support for “Yes” was highest among young voters (18-34 year olds) with 70 per cent support, followed by 60 per cent support for 35 to 49 year olds, and 53 per cent among 50 to 64 year olds.
Interestingly, support for the Voice was seven percentage points higher among women than men, with female voters being another area of recent weakness in the Coalition.
In contrast, support for the Voice among those 65-plus was just 40 per cent.
Now, one of the number one rules of politics is always “dance with the one that brung ya.” Which is true – unless those that brung ya are gradually dying off and being replaced by a more progressive cohort of voters.
No doubt, the Voice is a proposal worthy of close consideration, and most of those advocating for it are doing so with noble intention.
But the Liberal Party should not be so naïve as to think that the Labor Party won’t play politics with this issue.
In fact, they already are. Over recent weeks, we have seen advocates of the Voice from the Prime Minister down variously calling on the Liberal Party to “get on the right side of history” and support it, and implying that to oppose the Voice is a racist act.
It’s clear that Liberal Leader Peter Dutton see this threat, and he is taking as long as he can to lay the ground-work for his eventual formalised position. The problem with this is, if you asked most voters today where the Liberal Party stood on the Voice, they’d most likely say they oppose it.
Which, regardless of the outcome, will serve only to further distance the Liberal Party from the Millenials and Gen Zs they so desperately need to win future elections.
You get the feeling that the Prime Minister thinks he’s on a winner either way. Either the Voice passes, and it’s a glorious victory for Labor. Or it’s defeated – and he can blame the Liberal Party and tar them as out of touch racists for the next decade.
In contrast, here in Tasmania, Premier Rockliff has rushed out to support the Voice, even signing a document with every other Premier and the Prime Minister endorsing it.
As I have said on the Fontcast, in many ways Jeremy Rockliff is the Liberal leader for our times, reaching out to Gen Xers and Millienials with his more progressive views.
But like virtually everyone from the Prime Minister down, he’s failed to explain why he supports the Voice, which has done nothing to manage the Party’s base.
Most bizarrely, it’s not even clear if it’s his personal support only for the Voice, or a formal position of his Government. I’ve asked around, and not even Government Ministers seem to know.
Presumably, the Premier isn’t seeking to lock every member of his Government into supporting the Voice, but it would nice to see some clarity so that while “Brand Jeremy” can campaign for the Voice, other more conservative members of the Government are publicly able to put a different position.
The Liberal Party is after all supposed to be a “broad church”, and the party of free speech.
Personally, I’m inclined to support the Voice because I can see no compelling reason not to. But I’ve got to say, the current arguments in favour to date are weak and specious at best, and those who are genuinely interested in it passing would do well to treat voters with some respect and explain exactly how the Voice will be structured and chosen, and how it will actually work.
If not, we could well see a situation where the Voice gains more than 50 per cent of the vote nationwide, but fails in the more conservative states such as Western Australia, Queensland and potentially even Tasmania, and is thereby defeated. Along the way, severely damaging the Liberal Party and putting indigenous reconciliation back a generation.
- Brad Stansfield is a political and campaign strategist and a partner at Font PR and Font Publishing, owner of the Sorell Times.