Julie Bishop says no result in Indigenous voice referendum would send ‘very negative message’ to world

Former Liberal foreign affairs minister Julie Bishop has claimed a no result in the voice referendum would send a “very negative message” to the world about the openness and empathy of Australian society.

Speaking at a yes campaign event in Perth, Bishop strongly backed the voice in her role as Australian National University chancellor.

“We’ve done a great deal of research and analysis on the Uluru Statement from the Heart, the yes campaign, the referendum, and we believe that this is an opportunity to get things right,” she said.

When asked what a no vote would mean for Australia’s international reputation, Bishop said she would be “most concerned at the message” it would send the world.

“It’s not a front-of-mind issue for most people, but I know that Australia’s international reputation can be affected by a no vote. I have no doubt that it would be sending a very negative message about the openness, and the empathy, and the respect and responsibility that the Australian people have for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.”

The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, embarked on a media blitz in Western Australia on Monday, with the voice dominating many of his appearances.

The yes campaign fears its hopes of victory are fading in Western Australia, with the state’s contentious Indigenous cultural heritage laws becoming a flashpoint in the national referendum debate.

In a radio interview, Albanese described the voice as “just an advisory group so that people can listen to what Indigenous people have to say about programs that affect their lives.”

“That is all this is about, so as to get better results,” Albanese said.

“The constitutional change is really straightforward, recognition, listening through a voice in order to get better results. It won’t change the way that parliament functions, it won’t have a right of veto.”

Albanese is to officially announce the referendum date – widely expected to be 14 October – at a yes campaign event in Adelaide on Wednesday. The federal cabinet met in Perth on Monday, where it was expected to discuss and sign off on the referendum plan.

In Queensland the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, also spoke at length about Albanese’s appearance in Perth.

“I think people in WA are starting to get a real suspicion about this prime minister. They talk a lot, but they don’t do much, and when you look at what the prime minister’s doing in relation to the voice at the moment – he’s trying to deceive Australians,” Dutton claimed.

skip past newsletter promotion

Our Australian morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters

Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

after newsletter promotion

The opposition leader said he expected “a tight vote” nationwide, and was critical of the yes campaign’s advertising strategy.

“People will be bombarded with ads. People will be bullied into voting yes,” he said.

Albanese was critical of the no campaign’s rhetoric against the referendum, and urged voters to take time to learn about the proposed change.

In a press conference, Albanese claimed the no campaign against the voice was “undermined” by Dutton’s support for a legislated voice. The Liberal party position is to support a set of local and regional voices, which would be set up through legislation.

“The only difference is that we don’t think it should be able to be abolished with the stroke of a pen. Its composition and its procedures are very clearly up to the parliament,” he said.

“So, in spite of all the noise here, there is not a big gap between the positions. What there’s a gap between is what some in the no campaign say this is about,” he said.

“It’s no different from, prior to marriage equality people were told that heterosexual marriages would be under threat and that it would change a whole lot of the way that things worked.

“Guess what? We now have marriage equality. The fear campaigns have not been realised, just as the fear campaigns on the apology, the stolen generations, have also not been realised. This is all upside, no downside.”