It’s time to bust some myths around what it means to change the constitution

With the referendum date now set, how can we better understand the history of the constitution in relation to our moral positions on the Voice? 

The referendum is scheduled to be held on October 14. Of 44 referendums held since Federation, just eight were successful. Referendums have a high threshold for passing, compounded by a very human psychological tendency to stick to the status quo. 

Eight years ago, almost a third of Australians were unaware we had a constitution. The last referendum was in 1999, so this will also be the first referendum for 6.4 million voters. The No campaign for that 1999 referendum capitalised on this unfamiliarity, with the slogan “If you don’t know, vote no”, which is also in the current referendum booklet.

History of constitutional change

One view of the Australian constitution is that it is a practical and legalistic instrument of government, and that because it lacks declarations or human rights, it is value-free. However, constitutions are created by humans with values — and ours was drafted by wealthy, white, settler men.

Hansard shows that those men exhibited strong commitments to empire, capitalism and white supremacy and the patriarchy, so it’s important to consider the era in which the constitution was drafted, and how it’s changed in relation to First Nations peoples.

Initially, the Commonwealth was precluded from passing laws with respect to First Nations peoples under s51 xxvi. This ensured the states could continue racially discriminatory practices. “Aboriginal natives” were also not to be counted in the census under s127.

It was not until 1967 that Australia amended the constitution through a referendum to remove these two discriminatory elements. This change represented the flexibility of the constitution to accommodate attitudinal change among the citizens to which it applies — and move with the times.

Compared with the Voice referendum, the 1967 Yes campaign was hugely successful, with 91% voting Yes nationally and a Yes majority in all states. However, there was no official No campaign to contend with.

Recent polling indicates support for the Voice referendum Yes vote has been steadily declining, with estimated support at approximately 45% nationally. So why was support for the 1967 referendum almost unanimous, but we are almost split down the middle in 2023?

How moral psychology influences political positions

Moral foundations theory proposes that we take moral positions based on five “pillars” of morality. These are harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect and purity/sanctity. 

A simple way of understanding this is by considering the question: what makes something right or wrong? An answer such as “whether or not someone was hurt” stems from a harm/care foundation, whereas “whether or not someone did what they were told” stems from authority/respect. 

The first two pillars are termed “individualising foundations”, reflecting our concern for individuals, and the latter three “binding foundations”, intended to keep social groups together. These foundations are known to shape our political beliefs. Research shows liberals tend to base their positions on the individualising foundations, whereas conservatives do so on both individualising and binding foundations.

Australians’ political preferences, shaped by these moral foundations, have been found to predict their organ donation intentions.

Moral psychology and the Voice

The reasoning behind the Voice is an attempt to right some of the wrongs of colonisation, and provide agency for First Nations peoples who have been historically disempowered. We can think about these two aims and their broader goals as very relevant to the individualising foundations, but less relevant — potentially challenging — the binding ones.

Put another way, while the Yes argument may resonate strongly with two of the moral foundations, those on the No or undecided side may consider them alongside three more.

Research shows our political preferences tend to align with our endorsement of the moral foundations. If we consider referendum polling by voting intention, we can see the Yes proportion share increases as parties become less conservative.

A referendum in the misinformation age

Something else that has changed since 1967 is the rise of misinformation, much of which may resonate more strongly with No voters as it appeals to the binding foundations. 

Concerningly, repeated online exposure to one’s opposing political ideology has been found to reinforce conservative beliefs on social issues. This may be why the No campaign has been steadily gaining ground.

So for the Voice referendum to succeed, its supporters might need to consider arguments that can persuade those who rely on a broader set of moral pillars.

For instance, one way of interpreting a constitution is that it is a “living force”. This charges its inheritors with ensuring it can adapt to modern times, as opposed to maintaining the mindsets of men who were around when it was drafted. 

Someone opposed to the Voice on the grounds that it challenges tradition may be persuaded by an argument that outlines why the tradition is to keep the constitution fundamental, yet sufficiently flexible, in order to live up to this charge.