Arguably the Albanese Government is routinely tied up trying to explain their way out of a dilemma of their own creation. A recent example is the brouhaha around the potential Census question regarding how Australians identify themselves sexually. When some equivocation was displayed by the government, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton donned the hob-nailed workboots and strode into the debate decrying the ‘woke agenda’ of the Government on this issue. The Government explained their concerns were a response to the issue potentially becoming divisive, something that wasn’t an issue until the government accidentally made it one.

As The Conversation discussed late in 2023

Typically, “wokeness” and “woke ideology” are terms of abuse, used against a variety of practices that, despite their diversity, have a similar character. Often, what is dismissed as “woke” is a new practice that is recommended, requested, enacted or enforced as a replacement for an old one.

The talking heads on ‘Sky after dark’ along with their print stablemates are also expert at throwing the ’woke agenda’ claim at anything that seems to offend their particular world view. The UK’s Nigel Farage, the USA’s former President Donald Trump also seem to be expert at levelling the claim.

According to The Conversation’s definition, being ‘woke’ is discussing and implementing change to the status quo. We all know the status quo is far more comfortable than an uncertain future, the problem being the status quo is full of accidental and deliberate measures to actively disadvantage groups of people within our larger community. In the ‘rose coloured’ nostalgic view of some time in the past it’s easy to ignore that communications, health care and technology we all use and ‘need’ today were not as developed – if they existed at all.

If we want to go back 30 years, your mobile phone would have been the size of a small overnight bag and cost a fortune. Unsurprisingly not everyone had a mobile phone. Go back 50 years and computers were large devices that need climate controlled rooms. Rather than a keyboard and mouse, instructions were typically given to computers on punch cards. Nearly all of the safety, efficiency and convenience technology on new cars was only commercialised in the past 30 years. Even though Apollo 11 took three men to the moon in July 1969, the technology behind the mission is levels of magnitude behind the smartphones in common use in 2024. Those conservatives complaining that others promoting change have a ‘woke agenda’ seem to have no qualms in using social media to promote their cause, travelling in vehicles with far more inherent safety, convenience and efficiency than available in the past or even carrying and using mobile phones.

Yet the same people are resisting change in community opinion, insulting those that are suggesting change as being ‘woke’. Governments generally reflect the views of those elected to Parliament. Over time it has been realised in most countries around the world that all citizens should be equal regardless of ethnicity, religion or any other characteristic. Those resisting change, such as Opposition Leader Peter Dutton when he talks about the next census or opposing the issue of humanitarian visas to those fortunate enough to be able to escape war zones around the world seems to be hiding behind claims that the proponents of the change are pursuing a ‘woke/dangerous agenda’ without detailing the reasons for their concerns. In the case of the Albanese Government, the ‘woke card’ seems to have some magical power that ensures weeks of public introspection.

Given that there is general agreement that everyone should be considered equally in our society, why go and hide when the cards claiming the policy is some combination of ‘woke’, ‘a threat to national security’ or ‘people stop me in the street and say’ is played again? The majority of Australians don’t seem to have a problem with the multi-cultural society that exists today. Typically the LNP’s claims have no actual detail or specific concerns raised – rather (to borrow a term from a classic Australian movie) ‘it’s the vibe, your honour’.

The best form of defence is frequently to attack. To demonstrate, the effective campaign to vote against ‘The Voice’ referendum’ was based on the concept that if you don’t know the detail – vote no. While some detail was publicly available, those in opposition were asking for increasing granular detail that was impossible to provide. The Albanese Government should look at this and model their behaviour on the concept. Rather than retreat into a self made shell of deference and defeat, when the ‘card’ is played ask for more detail of exactly how the proposed change, be it questions on the census, issuing of visas or any other matter, will adversely affect the majority of Australians. If a response is made, ask for more granular detail.

A similar strategy seems to have been effective recently in the USA Presidential campaigns. While the Biden campaign was trying to defend his age and mental ability, Trump was allowed to promise to appease the concerns of all without question despite the failures of the Trump Presidency from 2016 to 2020. With Governor Tim Walz labelling the Republican’s as ‘weird’ due to some of their policies and providing examples, the momentum shifted. Not because the claim of weirdness is especially insulting or rude, rather some took an opportunity to consider the statement by Walz, think about the actions of Trump and the Republicans and realise he was correct.

If Albanese’s Government was to ask the coalition what the problem actually is when words like ‘woke’ or ‘national security’ are used, it falls on Dutton to demonstrate that there is a valid criticism or just rhetoric. More than likely there will not be a criticism that resonates with the majority of Australians. It is likely that, like Trump in the USA, the LNP’s claims will become more shrill and unbelievable. This should, if the American example is replicated, give evidence for a reasonable proportion of the population to either confirm or come to the opinion that the LNP don’t have any substance behind their increasingly ridiculous claims.

To provide a solution, the problem needs to be defined. Generalist claims such as ‘woke agendas’ or ‘national security concerns’ don’t define the problem, so no genuine solution can be offered or implemented. To solve a problem, you have to know what it is.