Thoughts on the referendum…
For a simple approach, should you not yet know how to vote, take the question of harm–no harm or even harm–good, and ask yourself:
Could ‘yes’ do me harm? 1. No.
Could ‘no’ do harm to another? Yes.
Could ‘yes’ do me a potential good? Yes.
Could ‘yes’ do someone else a potential good? Yes.
Therefore: ‘yes’.
If you want to approach the substance of the referendum question further, you might consider the arguments to follow more closely. But first the proposal, also known as ‘The Voice’, on which we are being asked to vote yes or no…
That the Australian Constitution be amended to include the following:
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
The process was transparent and clearly documented for anyone willing/wanting to engage with the primary source. Third party interpretation (including this) is refreshingly non-essential to follow the logic and see the potential good in proceeding with the proposal. If you’d rather self-interested actors didn’t think for you, see for yourself:
https://ulurustatement.org/
https://ulurustatement.org/the-voice/what-is-the-voice/
Still unsure or all the more curious? Then perhaps you want to go deeper, better your knowledge and challenge your thinking in order to reach an informed and enthusiastic yes.
Australia lives by the rule of law. Contrary to concerns raised by some “self-interested actors”, that isn’t changed by a yes vote in this referendum. A yes vote does not limit any individual’s existing rights under Australia’s rule of law, as it is today, as decided by the politicians that we currently and will continue to elect every three years (ie. statute law, which is in addition of course to common law which comes from judicial interpretation and evolution of case law as exercised in the courts). A yes vote, however, does expand opportunities for engagement – a ‘Voice’ – for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups, previously dispossessed and under-served by an occupying authority.
A yes vote recognises peoples whose long history of caretaking of this land afforded new peoples countless opportunities. A yes vote also recognises the well-documented disparities of fortune wrought by colonialism.
Yes is a vote for progress and optimism. And it is only the person, peoples and countries that can adapt that will prevail in the coming years as we face increasing inequalities and climatic imbalance. This is a comparatively small ask, a minor adaptation, but one with significance for peoples whose very survival could and should be a source of immense pride for Australia.
I’m ‘lucky’ to be Australian. And being born, growing up and living in Australia has helped me achieve a great deal. Seeing other people suffer definitely doesn’t make me feel better about what I’ve achieved, my good fortune. Just as seeing others do well or even do better than me does not diminish those achievements.
The fact that my grandparents, great grandparents and those before them who made their way to Australia (whether fleeing or seeking: debatable) faced difficult conditions and worked exceptionally hard to build a life in this land, is not negated by the fact others had it much, much harder. Both can be true and, whether we like it or not, both are true. Even our ancestors’ darkest hours were part of another’s dispossession.
The Voice won’t mark the end of the reconciliation debate, it might not even be the optimal solution (worth mentioning as a minority of detracting voices are from members of the Indigenous community, including Lidia Thorpe for whom I have great respect), but it's the solution that’s on the table and (if we learnt anything from the referendum on the Republic…) I can’t see a single reason we shouldn’t just get going, try this option out and see what difference it might make.
I remember many, many years ago when the quasi-governmental body ATSIC (the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission) turned rotten (as most groupings do at one time or other), it was swiftly killed off. At the time, it could have, and probably should have been revived in some alternate form – after all, we’re well-accustomed to replacing our politicians and political representation regularly rather than trashing the system in its entirety (to Lidia Thorpe’s point, perhaps we should, but I lack the imagination to see it happening in my lifetime).
Instead, we went without. A negligent oversight in my opinion. An almost twenty-year absence of ATSIC (or similar function at Federal level), has created a vacuum for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representation and self-determination. Now however we have the opportunity to correct course and ensure that if in future there again comes a time things go off-track, we correct course instead of conveniently claiming “too hard”.
And who knows, maybe it won’t go wrong this time? Maybe we’ve learnt a thing or two and this will be exactly what the country needs? But resignation – to be fearful of trying, fearful of effort – is a horribly regressive attitude.
Yes. Constitutional recognition will demand that we do the difficult thing – the thing that functioning government needs and just society deserves – to do better, solve problems, improve.
Status quo will kill us.
Who knows, this evolution of form may be so successful it helps us reimagine politics and governmental bodies more broadly, and do away with some of the more grotesque and wasteful components of our current adversarial model.
Adaptation. Open minds. Optimism.
I will be voting ‘yes’.
…
I was one of 6.2 million people who voted yes. It wasn’t enough. Self-interested actors who heavily campaigned ‘no’ in the last months before the referendum will claim a win. That they acted in bad faith would be a kind assessment. That they’re racist, closer to the truth. That they showed so many others to be racist, even more upsetting.
There are many who will prefer to hide behind the most cynical of the arguments put forward for no: “if you don’t know, vote no” – those who choose the veil of ignorance troubling me most. We live in the shortest-wick, shoutiest age of opinion ever. We live in the age of easy-access information. What is this sudden cooling of wits really all about? Do they mean for me to question their suffrage? If you’re knowingly apathetic, fine, but that’s on you. If you can’t spend five minutes forming an opinion for the sake of hard-won democratic rights, then you should donkey or wear the fifty bucks.
Then there are the selfish. Another foil. Their argument has largely been something like: “this vote isn’t about me”. So what about when it is? Will you want people to turn up? Attempt to use their brains? The search function? To be minimally informed and act in solidarity?
Then there are the selfish who want to appear less selfish so deflect, saying: “what about [insert minority group], how does this help them?”. A common refrain I heard – mind you, not once from someone of Chinese heritage – was: “what about the Chinese community, why should they vote yes, isn’t this unfair for them?”.
So many people, suddenly so concerned about the Chinese community…
I heard first hand from Dean Parkin, a friend and captain of the ‘Yes23’ campaign, that the engagement with and response from the Chinese community was largely positive. But you know, facts don’t flex the way they once did. (On the subject of facts, this analysis from UTS shows: “voting results in 15 suburbs with a high proportion of residents of Chinese ancestry in NSW, VIC, and QLD revealed that the proportion of Yes votes in 14 of them were above the national average.”)
I also heard people on the left and right blame Albanese (the incumbent Labor Prime Minister). But he, like you, had one vote. Influence? Certainly, but I abhor this excuse for it belies the agency of an entire voting populace. It’s an infantalising argument in what should be a non-party political mechanism to exercise one’s will.
The most powerful piece I read in the immediate aftermath was by Sean Kelly in The Sydney Morning Herald.
“They asked for so little. In the end, we couldn’t give them even that much.”
Ufffff.
I still bristle when I think about it. But I know focus must shift to maintaining the capacity to listen, integrate and advocate for the many people (most notably mob) who are staying the course for justice.
- Harm? No. Discomfort, perhaps. But that's the work that's yours to do. ↩
- Why not? Oh yeah, we’ve ceased to recognise and trust expertise. Another complex thread to untangle another time. Social media has certainly muddied the water. Repeal Section 230.↩
- There are many ways to remain active. Here is some great work to support:
Literacy for Life
Djirra
Pay the Rent
Waddananggu: Opposition to the Adani Carmichael Mine by Wangan and Jagalingou peoples
↩