After enduring five weeks of torture, the Labor Party’s eleventh-hour bombshell drop, courtesy of Senator Penny Wong, has left many Australians speechless. It occurred after she casually referred to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament as ‘inevitable’ during an appearance on the Betoota Talks podcast. In this interview, she compared the public’s eventual acceptance of the Voice to the shift in attitudes toward marriage equality:

‘I think we’ll look back on it in 10 years’ time, and it’ll be a bit like marriage equality, don’t you reckon? Like I always used to say, marriage equality took us such a bloody big fight to get that done. And I thought all this fuss, it will become something like, people go, did we even have an argument about that?’

The message here is that over time, Australians might view the Voice as a natural and uncontroversial development or – more precisely – ‘eventually we’ll wear them down’.

This Labor slip in the final stages of the campaign says much more than just words. It is clear there has been no retreat, instead merely a rebranding of the idea and Australians need to beware of the next iteration. Like a petulant child who won’t take no for an answer, after spending over $400 million getting the answer, Labor is looking to wear down the Australian public and legislate through other means.

Speaking on Sky News Australia, Tony Abbott summed up perfectly the, likely, visceral response of 60 per cent of Australians:

‘This is a giant two-fingered salute to the voters of Australia who resoundingly said no to a voice … they haven’t given up. And if we want them to understand that no means no, we’ve got to get rid of the Albanese government.’

It occurred to me that the Labor government needs a lesson in consent. They need not go far. Australia has recently undertaken significant reforms to its (sexual) consent laws, emphasising the principle of affirmative consent. This approach demands all parties involved in the activity must freely, actively and voluntarily agree, with consent being clearly communicated through words or actions. Or a $400 million dollar referendum even.

For another example, let’s take the definition of legally valid consent taken from the Australian Immunisation Handbook: ‘For consent to be legally valid … it must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.’

Sadly, the pandemic revealed many instances where governments were not above manipulating their people when it comes to informed medical consent.

Consent is not a loophole to be bypassed when the answer is inconvenient. It is a foundational principle of a free society – one that demands our leaders listen, respect decisions, and refrain from repackaging rejected policies under a different banner. When governments disregard a clear and democratic ‘no,’ they aren’t just pushing an agenda – they are eroding the very trust that sustains our democracy.

Now more than ever, Australians must remain vigilant. Consent – whether in medicine, law, or national decision-making – is not something to be assumed or overridden. It must be earned, honoured, and upheld. To ignore that is to flirt with authoritarianism under the guise of progress. No means no – and it’s time the Labor Party remembered that.

Dr Julie Sladden has passion for sound policy and transparency in healthcare. If you’d like to support her caffeine-inspired writing, you can shout her a coffee here.