[Theme Music Starts]

ANGE:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ange McCormack. This is 7am.

Anthony Albanese concedes support for the Voice to Parliament has slipped.

Polls taken around this time last year had support for the Voice at above 60 per cent, now the most recent polls suggest as little as 41 per cent of Australians will vote ‘Yes’.

Meanwhile, each side of the referendum has published their official argument for voting ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ - which every Australian household will be mailed ahead of the vote.

Today, columnist for The Saturday Paper, Paul Bongiorno, on why the Prime Minister says the ‘Yes’ case needs to be made more strongly, just as it’s being printed and mailed out to millions.

It’s Friday, July 21.

[Theme Music Ends]

ANGE:

Paul, this week the Prime Minister took his pitch for the voice into some hostile territory, doing long one on one interviews on commercial radio and TV. One of those interviews was with Ben Fordham on 2GB.

Archival tape – Ben Fordham:

“He's taking part in the Prime Minister's spelling bee. And he tells me last year that he was beaten by a 12 year old. Prime Minister, good morning to you.”

Archival tape – Anthony Albanese:

“Good morning. No, no, no. That was a private conversation, Ben.”

ANGE:

How did that go for him?

PAUL:

Yes, This is quite a combative interview. It ran 38 minutes.

Archival tape – Ben Fordham:

“So no…”

Archival tape – Anthony Albanese:

“And I’m the Prime Minister, no Ben”

Archival tape – Ben Fordham:

“Okay, Thomas Mayo…”

Archival tape – Anthony Albanese:

““And people know the idea… No, Ben, what this is about…”

Archival tape – Ben Fordham:

“No no, hang on, you’ve answered that, I’ve got a few more to get through…”

Archival tape – Anthony Albanese:

“Can I make this point?”

PAUL:

And the fact that it ran that long is an indication that Ben Fordham and his producer were thrilled to bits with the controversy they were stirring, because, as we know in the media, being noticed is the main thing, not being noticed is death. Well, Fordham approached the whole issue of the referendum from various points of view. He picked up on the criticisms of it, that the voice would do too much, that it was risky and a threat.

Archival tape – Ben Fordham:

“Are there going to be reparations?”

Archival tape – Anthony Albanese:

“No, Ben. I'll make this point…”

Archival tape – Ben Fordham:

“Wouldn't it stand to reason…”

Archival tape – Anthony Albanese:

“Can I…”

Archival tape – Ben Fordham:

“No, I'm on a flow here.”

Archival tape – Anthony Albanese:

“Well, when you're finished.”

PAUL:

Fordham alleged the Voice could lead to the payment of expensive reparations to indigenous people. By the way, every time somebody wants to do something for Indigenous Australians, the first cry is “they're going to claim millions or billions in compensation” and so far that hasn't happened. Albanese did get a bit fed up - he accused Ben Fordham of taking his questions directly from the ‘No’ pamphlet. That rankled the interviewer.

Archival tape – Anthony Albanese:

“Can I make this point - because I know where you are reading from. You're reading from the ‘No’ pamphlet.”

Archival tape – Ben Fordham:

“No I'm not. Excuse me, Prime Minister.”

Archival tape – Anthony Albanese:

“Well that quote is in the ‘No’ pamphlet.”

Archival tape – Ben Fordham:

“Excuse me.”

Archival tape – Anthony Albanese:

“Well it is.”

Archival tape – Ben Fordham:

“I am not reading from the ‘No’ pamphlet. I'm reading from my own questions that I have written.”

PAUL:

But he was, in fact, doing just that. If you take Fordham at the words he was using, for example, he was using old comments out of context by Voice campaigners like Thomas Mayo and Professor Megan Davis.

Archival tape – Ben Fordham:

“Professor Megan Davis says “the Indigenous Voice to Parliament will be able to speak to the Cabinet, to ministers, to public servants, and the Reserve Bank.” Yes or no? Will the Voice be able to speak directly to the RBA?”

Archival tape – Anthony Albanese:

“Well, I can't talk directly to the RBA.”

PAUL:

By the way, the Reserve Bank governor gets hundreds of emails directly sent to him by Australians virtually every day. The Prime Minister's frustration as the interview went on became obvious - he accused Fordham of knowingly focusing on red herrings.

Archival tape – Anthony Albanese:

“You know full well that when, if this is successful and there's a Voice, you know it won't have a right of veto.”

Archival tape – Ben Fordham:

“I understand that. I'm worried about it failing PM.”

Archival tape – Anthony Albanese:

“Well get on board, Ben!”

Archival tape – Ben Fordham:

“Guess what…”

Archival tape – Anthony Albanese:

“Guess what you're in a position to make a difference, to help it succeed. As are other people in the media. By talking about what it's about, not by raising things that are not going to be relevant…”

PAUL:

So I haven't claimed to do too much. He ensured the Prime Minister that it would do too little, be ignored by the government, particularly with the government already ruling out that it would have a say on January 26th, Australia Day, the date and how it would be characterised.

Archival tape – Ben Fordham:

“I'll give you an easy one to finish on as you prepare for the spelling bee. How do you spell ‘yes’?”

Archival tape – Anthony Albanese:

“Y-E-Yes.”

ANGE:

What do you think this interview says, though, about Anthony Albanese's performance and how he's approaching this debate and upcoming referendum, though?

PAUL:

Anthony Albanese made this referendum a promise of his election campaign and on election night, you might remember, it was the first thing he'd said he'd do. He would put the Uluru Statement of the Heart to the people. So he has invested a lot in it. It is coming from his heart more than his head, according to some of his colleagues. And he is prepared to get out there and argue for it. I do know that senior ministers and the Prime Minister have been urged to be very positive about the referendum, to be confident about it, and to state the sentiment that you might remember was widely embraced at the beginning, that this could be a historic moment of unity and reconciliation in the country. There was support there for it, above 60% at one stage as high as 80%, and there's no doubt that that support began to collapse when Peter Dutton decided that he would formally make it the position of the Federal Opposition to oppose the Voice.

ANGE:

And earlier in the week Paul we saw another decline in support for the Voice in polling. It's currently sitting at 41% support, according to Newspoll. And Albanese said that the ‘Yes’ campaign needs to be stronger in putting the case forward. What does it mean that the Prime Minister is sort of distancing himself from how the case for ‘Yes’ has been put forward?

PAUL:

Well Ange, I wouldn't quite put it in that way. I don't think he's distancing himself from the way in which it's been put forward. He said that we need to be stronger in putting the arguments. I suppose you can say, well, if he's saying that, it must mean he thought it was weaker. I think he means that at this juncture, at this point of time, those arguing for change need to argue with conviction and to make the arguments very clear. We did hear in one of those interviews we were talking about earlier on Sky that the Prime Minister said he wouldn't be announcing the actual date at Garma. The reason for this is under the Constitution, the minimum period of time for a campaign — an official campaigning — is 33 days.

And Albanese is of the view that that's as long as the people can stand. There's a little bit of, if you like, referendum fatigue out there and he's of a view that the people of Australia have got enough to put up with without a, you know, full on bells and whistles, people yelling at each other over the referendum for any longer than necessary. So the expectation is that Albanese will announce a date mid September for a mid October referendum.

ANGE:

We’ll be back after the break.

[Advertisement]

ANGE:

So Paul, as we approach the referendum, Australians will eventually all be mailed the official case of both the 'Yes' and the 'No' campaign, so they can think about their decision. Can you tell me a bit about how the wording of these pamphlets get decided upon, and what's going on as each side nails down their talking points?

PAUL:

Well, historically, referendums have always had an official 'Yes' and 'No' pamphlet of 2000 words, paid by the taxpayers of Australia, and mailed out a couple of weeks before the referendum poll, to every voter. I think to characterise what was in the Yes and No pamphlets, I can't go any better than Professor George Williams, the constitutional expert. He says that what both these pamphlets reveal is a polarised Australia, characterised in the Yes case by hope and unity, and in the No case by risk and division. And you know, Professor Williams thought that the No case in its pamphlet goes for the jugular. While he thought that the presentation in the Yes pamphlet was a bit waffley, but there was quite some controversy in the way in which the No pamphlet used quotes from Professor Greg Craven. Now, Greg Craven is a conservative constitutionalist, but he supports the Yes case, and earlier in the discussions he felt that some of the words being proposed were fatally flawed. But he says that in light of other experts disagreeing with him, he has come on side, and he thinks that the disposition of indigenous people in this country, makes Australia a morally failed state that needs to be remedied through the referendum. But, you know, I think the core of the No case is the refusal to accept that there are peoples among us that have a special connection to 65,000 years of the lived history of this continent, and that there's a tragic gap between them and their well-being, and that of the majority.

ANGE:

Okay Paul, so, talking about the official Yes and No cases which will soon go out to millions of households - now, the Yes case, it actually took quite a bit of input from the Liberal members of Parliament in drafting its official case. Why is that, and who's involved?

PAUL:

Ange, I think it's interesting that the Liberals involved in the Yes case have been treated with a lot of respect by the government. Julian Leeser showed a lot of integrity when he quit the frontbench after Peter Dutton decided he would campaign against the referendum.

Archival tape – Julian Leeser:

“Being a Liberal who is in favour of the Yes case, I want to ensure that what is put forward appeals as broadly as possible.”

PAUL:

Then we have Bridget Archer in Tasmania, the outspoken Liberal there.

Archival tape – Bridget Archer:

“For our First Nations people, particularly in my home state of Tasmania, who have long been advocating for a better, brighter, and more equitable future. My answer is yes.”

PAUL:

She's adamant that she will campaign strongly for the Voice. She says that the Constitution has provisions only for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, and therefore they should have the right to have a say about those provisions. And then we have Senator Andrew Bragg.

Archival tape – Andrew Bragg:

“I believe in recognition because the Constitution is incomplete, and I think we should be looking at this referendum as a way to build on 1967.”

PAUL:

He's not quite as involved at this point of time, as the other two, but he's adamant, too, that he needs to campaign for the success of the Yes. They're hoping that they'll be able to persuade 30% of liberal inclined voters to vote yes. They believe that that's the sort of number they need to peel off to help the referendum succeed.

ANGE:

And let's talk about Julian Leeser, because before this campaigning began, he was probably the most high profile supporter of the Voice to Parliament on the conservative side of politics. What does he make of just how differently this is all panned out to how he had hoped it would?

PAUL:

Well, Ange he's appalled. He gave a speech in the regional city of Wagga Wagga in New South Wales on Monday, where he says that the No campaign is trying to make this debate personal instead of about issues and ideas.

Archival tape – Julian Leeser:

“I want all Australians to know that this is a safe amendment, that some of the barnacles and obstacles have been removed and that people can feel confident in voting for this.”

PAUL:

Leeser finds attacks on the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, appalling for calling her privileged or elite. He says it's cruelly disingenuous, and it takes no notice of her remarkable and courageous life story. He says we're seeing deeply personal characterisations made about her, that wouldn't be made about her white male cabinet colleagues. He can't remember the last time they were called privileged for somehow rising above their station in life.

Archival tape – Julian Leeser:

“I don't believe the referendum is currently at a point where it's likely to be successful. I want to see it put on a much firmer footing…”

PAUL:

Burney says that Price and the Nationals and Liberals who are opposing the voice they want typical political conflict and obstruction.

ANGE:

And Paul, the referendum has this very hopeful vision that it can be this honest moment of reflection on Australia's history and a discussion of how we as a country can move forward. But the fact is that there's now simply so much at stake politically. Do you think realistically that we can have that conversation Burney is calling for?

PAUL:

Well, I think with great difficulty, already we've seen how the whole discussion has degenerated. One of the problems, one of the realities of politics, is that fear is an emotion that motivates people in their voting in a much more powerful way than hope. And what we have here in the Yes case is an appeal to hope. And what we have in the No case is an appeal to fear. But maybe we should think about and take to heart the closing words of Julian Leeser on Monday night when he said, “this is a change we needn’t fear. It's a small change that can deliver so much. And Julian Leeser says that it's a once in a generation moment.

ANGE:

Paul, thank you so much for your time today.

PAUL:

Thank you so much, Ange. Bye.

ANGE:

Bye.

[Advertisement]

[Theme Music Starts]

ANGE:

Also in the news today…

Kathryn Campbell has become the first senior public servant to face direct consequences from the findings of the Royal Commission into Robo-debt – being suspended, without pay.

Campbell was the secretary of the department of human services – through Robo-debt’s inception and rollout.

She had been appointed as a special adviser on the AUKUS submarine project on a $900,000 salary, which she will now not be collecting.

And…

Lidia Thorpe has released her own alternative to the official ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ cases – calling for what she described as a ‘progressive no vote’.

Thorpe, who was locked out of the process of contributing to the official No campaign, said in the essay published on Thursday that the Voice is quote: “something that pretends to be a great change, but provides none”.

7am is a daily show from The Monthly and The Saturday Paper.

It’s produced by Kara Jensen-Mackinnon, Zoltan Fecso, Cheyne Anderson, and Yeo Choong.

Our Senior Producer is Chris Dengate.

Our technical producer is Atticus Bastow.

Our editor is Scott Mitchell. Sarah McVeigh is our head of audio. Erik Jensen is our editor-in-chief.

Mixing by Andy Elston, Travis Evans and Atticus Bastow.

Our theme music is by Ned Beckley and Josh Hogan of Envelope Audio.

I’m Ange McCormack, this is 7am. See you next week!

[Theme Music Ends]