Just four years ago, Tim Fischer called on the National party to put One Nation last on its how-to-vote cards.
The late Nationals elder and former deputy prime minister had long held the line against One Nation’s divisive rhetoric from Pauline Hanson’s first entry into parliament in 1996.
Fischer was joined by fellow Nationals members such as former Queensland senator Ron Boswell, who in his farewell speech told parliament that his efforts to defeat Hanson and her party were his “greatest achievement”.
Current Nationals have had less clarity on One Nation, in spite of the party’s history of singling out groups for their heritage or religion, whether it be Indigenous Australians, Asian Australians or Muslim Australians.
Barnaby Joyce told his constituents in the 2022 election that One Nation had changed, that the party of 10 or 15 years ago was “not the party of today”, as he justified his decision to preference the One Nation candidate.
But it was a step closer when Joyce joined Hanson, broadcaster Alan Jones and former Labor minister Gary Johns for an event on Friday in his New England electorate, advertised as helping people to “understand why you should oppose the voice to parliament”.
The reality was it placed Joyce on stage with someone his own Indigenous constituents accused of using racist talking points and “really dehumanising” language.
Held in Tamworth, it was the first regional event of the Recognise A Better Way group, one of the most high-profile organisations campaigning against the voice.
The group is led by Nyunggai Warren Mundine and its committee has Indigenous and non-Indigenous members, although none of the Indigenous committee members spoke in Tamworth that night.
Whatever you think of the protagonists or the Indigenous voice to parliament, the speaker list promised controversy. In doing so, it provided an audience to hang a lantern over the no campaign.
The purpose of that spotlight in a rural community is to show those wavering that there may be a critical mass against the voice, who may be people they know – people who have influence within their own social circles.
So with First Nations people in the audience rather than on stage, regional Australia got a taste of what might lie ahead as we debate the proposed Indigenous voice.
The political strategy boiled down to this slogan: if you don’t know, vote no – reminiscent of the republic referendum and designed to sow doubt. But the idea was bedded down with spurious claims from the speakers and long forgotten terms like “intermarriage”.
It is likely these people will lead the no campaign in regional areas with Joyce as a key protagonist. Indeed Joyce told the audience, which was a mix of constituents and visitors from as far as Western Australia, that he was “passionate” in his opposition.
It is four months since the Nationals leader, David Littleproud, fronted the cameras with Country Liberal party senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and most of his party to reveal the decision to oppose the voice, claiming it would not close the gap for Indigenous people.
The Calare MP Andrew Gee quit the Nationals days later to support the voice and sit as an independent in a seat with a rising tree-change demographic.
Since then, the Nationals as a party have avoided front-running the no case. But in contrast with Littleproud, Joyce is keen to take part and is arguing on different grounds from closing the gap.
“If one group has a right based on their DNA, another group does not have that right,” Joyce told the Tamworth crowd.
Price is the other key voice of conservative MPs, as the face of the Fair Australia campaign against the voice. She has argued her consultations with people in remote areas show they either didn’t know about the voice or didn’t want it.
This will leave Joyce and Price as the two rural MPs most associated with the no case.
And what is clear in regional areas is the desire for detail flagged by audiences that both support and oppose the voice – a fact that Joyce is using. He described the proposal as “sneaky” for lacking detail, even if he then painted a very detailed and dire picture of what the voice may become.
Just weeks ago, the first regional forum was held with Labor senator and special envoy for reconciliation Pat Dodson in Ballarat. The audience appeared to be in favour but they were also hungry for the practicalities.
“People who live in the regions are far more practical,” he told Guardian Australia.
“They want to know how things work. Whereas we’re talking about a principle here, which is significant because it’s about the constitution. In a moral sense and an ethical sense, is this a good thing for us to do?”
Other campaigns are rolling out, including one from the folks who bought you the Voices For movement – with a series of kitchen table conversations. Under the banner Together, Yes, these groups are designed to promote quieter, respectful conversations inside homes that fly under the radar of the noisy media debate.
The voice process has been a long time in the making. The list of community groups consulted during the co-design phase of the voice is long.
Yet for all that consultation, it is clear from the Tamworth meeting that anti-voice forums could get a willing audience in regional areas. While that is sometimes the nature of democracy, the key questions is how voters in 2023 will react to divisive politics and how politicians write their own legacies.
