The Prime Minister clearly knows very little about the history of referendums in this country if he thinks stoking bipartisan division over the Voice is a winning strategy, writes Georgina Downer.

Australia’s longest-serving prime minister, Robert Menzies, had the unique experience of being leader of a political party during both a successful and unsuccessful referendum campaign. In later life, Menzies observed that getting ‘an affirmative vote from the Australian people on a referendum proposal is one of the labours of Hercules’. Australians are naturally inclined to vote No, especially when there are doubts about the change. Menzies surmised that for a referendum to succeed, the proposed language and reasons for the change needed to be ‘crystal clear’ to remove the possibility of ‘misinterpretation or absurd fears’.

Based on Menzies’ experiences and looking at the declining support for the Voice in the polls, things do not augur well for the Yes campaign. Whether you are in favour or against the change, a look at the history of the successful 1946 social services referendum and the unsuccessful 1951 Communism referendum during the Menzies era presents four reasons for why a No vote looks inevitable.

First, never let a referendum become a partisan issue. One of the many problems for the Voice is the lack of bipartisan support. History shows that no referendum in Australia has passed without bipartisan support. Menzies did not have this in 1951 when he sought to ban the Communist Party. People will not necessarily vote along partisan lines in referenda, but it all helps. Staunch Liberals and Menzies supporters such as John Howard’s mother Mona and my paternal grandmother Mary both voted against Menzies’s wishes in 1951, while voting for Menzies’s Liberals in federal elections. In contrast, in 1946, Opposition Leader Menzies supported Labor Prime Minister Ben Chifley’s proposal to change the Constitution to give the Federal Government power over social services. With bipartisan support, the referendum succeeded.

Second, making a referendum proposal too ambiguous or complex means defeat is likely. Menzies overreached in the Communism referendum. After the High Court had struck down Menzies’s attempt to ban the Communist Party through the Communist Party Dissolution Act, Menzies sought the one solution available to him – changing the Constitution to give Parliament the ability to make laws relating to Communism and Communists. Menzies wanted to ensure Parliament’s powers in relation to Communism were as broad as possible. This allowed Opposition Leader Evatt to lead a campaign accusing Menzies of trying to become a ‘dictator’ through constitutional change. Fast forward to 2023 and we can see the same problem. By failing to clearly demarcate what the Voice will advise on (and what it will not) and how it will be constituted, Albanese’s proposed change is open to accusations of overreach and uncertainty. Too much room for doubt? Best not vote for it then.

Third, if Prime Minister Albanese had reflected on the historical record, he would have been less stubborn about compromising on the Voice proposal. Ceding no ground to the opposition set up a partisan battleground. In 1946, Prime Minister Ben Chifley conceded to amend the social security referendum requested by then Opposition Leader Robert Menzies to prevent the conscription of doctors, i.e., potentially forcing doctors to work for a public-only health system. Once Menzies secured this concession, he supported the referendum and it passed. In 1951, Menzies refused to remove a reverse onus of proof on those accused of being Communist Party members. Opposition Leader Doc Evatt opposed the referendum and naturally it failed.

Fourth, referenda succeed when the argument for change is self-evident. In 1946, the High Court had struck down the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act on the basis that it was not supported by a head of power under section 51 of the Constitution. The concern was that the High Court might find that other welfare payments which the Commonwealth was providing, such as widow’s pensions, child endowment, and unemployment benefits, would be found unconstitutional too. The Constitutional change ended up being about preserving those welfare payments that the public was already receiving rather than advancing an abstract concept. This presents another useful lesson for the Albanese Government. Why the rush to put the Voice in the Constitution without a proof of concept? Why not legislate the Voice first, get people used to the idea, prove its efficacy and worth, and then, once the public is comfortable, ask Australians to put it in the Constitution?

So, fast forward to a day in October this year. What happens the day after Australia votes No? Defeat of referendum does not mean the issues around indigenous disadvantage go away. Albanese may have sought to make the Voice referendum part of his legacy, but its potential failure is far from likely to be the death knell of his leadership. In 1951, communism was still a major concern for both the Menzies Government and the public more broadly. Deputy Opposition Leader Arthur Calwell called for the government to resign given Menzies had pinned his political stripes to the Communism ban. But Menzies, statesmen-like, responded to the result that ‘as a democrat, I respect and recognise the popular voting.’ He quickly recovered and went on to serve a further 14 years as prime minister leaving at a time of his choosing. If Albanese faces a similar loss in October, he might take note of the lessons from the Menzies era. Ditch the abstract dogma and return to reality.

Written by Georgina Downer. Originally published on Skynews on 06 August 2023.