Mark Riley: Yes camp’s big mistake, accusations of racism and hatred turn off potential supporters

The campaign to ingrain the principles of the Uluru Statement into the Constitution has shifted from the heart to the gut.

And that is turning voters away.

What began as a polite, emotional request is now too often becoming a confrontational, visceral one at the hands of some of the leading advocates.

An appeal to what Abraham Lincoln described in his inaugural speech as “the better angels of our nature” can now sound more like an aggressive demand on non-Indigenous Australians for atonement.

That demand is valid. There is much to atone for. First Australians have faced constant and shocking discrimination since colonisation.

And that continues today.

Too many of the policies and programs “assisting” Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders are well-intentioned in theory but in practice appear paternalistic, wasteful and woefully ill-directed.

But trying to convince mainstream Australians to back the Voice by accusing a significant proportion of them of being racist and hateful won’t work.

Indeed, it is counter-productive.

But that is what co-chair of the Voice design group, Professor Marcia Langton, did at a Yes23 event in Melbourne on July 23.

Professor Langton was rightly critical of Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s decision to walk out on Kevin Rudd’s apology to the Stolen Generations in 2008, something Dutton now says he regrets.

But she suggested that Dutton is again turning his back on Indigenous people by campaigning to defeat the referendum.

“Clearly, he’s appealing to that 22 per cent of the Australian population who are deeply racist and for some reason irrationally hate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people,” she said.

One in five Australians “hate” Indigenous people? Really?

That comment resurfaced this week after Professor Langton’s appearance in Bunbury on Sunday in which she accused the No campaign of running arguments seated in “base racism… or sheer stupidity”.

Langton’s combative, accusatory approach plays right into the hands of the No campaign.

Professor Langton is angry about the way those comments were construed by Dutton and others in the Opposition to suggest she was accusing No voters of racism.

On that, she has a legitimate argument. But other recent comments undermine that legitimacy, like declaring that the lack of Aboriginal history courses is because teachers “live in the soup of their own racism”.

Professor Langton’s passion for the cause is admirable. And her boiling frustration at the continued mistreatment of Indigenous people is understandable. But her combative, accusatory approach plays right into the hands of the No campaign.

It swept most of the other positive messages from Yes23 out of the news cycle for three solid days.

It also overshadowed stories of the egregious tactics of the No campaign, whose online tutorials encourage volunteers to ignore facts and exploit people’s fears and doubts to turn them against the referendum.

Those tactics are reprehensible.

Now, it has taken a couple of luminaries from the footy world to show Yes23 how best to communicate its message.

Dockers captain Alex Pearce put a compelling, personal case in Rebecca Le May’s exclusive story in this newspaper yesterday.

“If you want an Australia that’s more united, more together, more equitable — this is our chance,” he said.

And Bombers legend Michael Long echoed those sentiments yesterday, alongside Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, as his latest Long Walk reached Parliament House.

“This is not about rage, it’s about love,” he said. “It’s about listening, it’s about giving Indigenous people power over their destiny.”

The past week has shown that the Parliament is the worst place for this national conversation to be conducted.

The one positive for Yes23 is that yesterday was the last sitting day before the referendum.

The discussion can now return to where it should be conducted — in the lounge rooms and shopping malls, the clubs and pubs and community groups of urban, regional and remote Australia.

And it is a discussion that must be conducted from the heart, not from the bile duct.