The Voice Referendum - some thoughts on the NO campaign

The Voice Referendum

some thoughts on the NO campaign

Why is it important that the Voice referendum succeeds? Some thoughts I’ve collated in response to what I’ve seen in recent weeks (these quite incomplete views are my own, and I don’t pretend to represent anyone else; in fact I feel uncomfortable having to do this as I am not a member of any FP group, but the propaganda I’m seeing taking root in people’s minds is very distressing). I started referring to the official pamphlet, but the shameless lying by the NO campaign was as aggravating as arguing with a creationist.

Firstly, it’s important to understand that if NO wins, there will almost certainly not be another referendum on First Peoples (FP) issues for generations (consider that not even a hint at another referendum on becoming a Republic has been suggested in 24 years since that last one; that’s an especially long empty period as Australia has had a total of 44 nation-wide referendums since 1901).

To a large extent this would be because politicians will feel giving FP more enshrined rights is political suicide. This would also have much wider ramifications than any future Voice equivalent; it means proposing a Treaty is also unlikely as politicians will assume community hostility towards that as well (right wing media would easily whip up even more fear mongering for a Treaty about land rights than they already do for the Voice). 

In case you doubt the opportunistic and power-focused Peter Dutton has literally admitted that he’s only against The Voice because Labor is in power; he said once he’s in power, he’d give it another go - but it’s hard to believe anyone would think he would. 

 

So, what are the NO concerns, and why are they mostly BS:

 

“Some First Nations people are against it”

Of course, as they are not a homogeneous group, and from dozens of distinct nations. So there are various and strongly different reasons. Yet between 80-90% of them are in favour of the YES vote. And the reasons for FP to be against it are also highly varied:

Many have not received enough information due to remoteness, some haven’t even heard about it when the date was announced (this just speaks to the fact that the systems in place right now are not working). 

Many are (understandably) suspicious of government; but a Voice is unlikely to make things worse, and much more likely to improve how FP issues are listened to and work on.

Some worried their community won’t be represented (largely unfounded, as the selection process explicitly calls for representation of most, if not all groups). 

Some are ideologically tied to “Treaty First”, which is fair as this should have occurred decades ago. But this is not necessarily an “either or” situation, as a YES vote will indicate strong community support for FP issues, and make it much more likely for politicians to ‘dare’ push a Treaty in parliament than if NO wins (see above)

Some are opposed to inclusion into the Constitution, as they view it as a colonialist document, and thus illegal in their view. This is completely legitimate and fair view to have, but also quite unrealistic, as there is currently no realist scenario in which Australia will create a system of greater FP recognition that is completely outside of the colonialist legal system’s frameworks. It may be something to work towards, but essentially impossible in the ideological makeup of current Australian society (very conservative, just look at the polls for this referendum).

Some are grifters such as Jacinta Price (who literally says FP are better off from colonisation, and there exist zero problems from it) who says the Voice is racist and discriminatory in heated speeches, yet when held to tell the truth is on record for stating the exact opposite. Such populist methods are outright harmful to FP issues. It’s not clear why some members of minority groups can be in favour of policies that are so destructive of their own communities.

 

“There are already local community equivalents that work”

True, and these must be nourished, encouraged, and learned from. But while they work well on a local level, they generally only work for that specific community; what about the dozens of others that don’t have the luck of all the right circumstances (e.g. heavily relies on personalities to make it work)? Such local groups also find it nearly impossible to get the ear of federal politics, especially over more well-funded and connected lobby groups. It is also a piecemeal way to achieve things that require broad and consistent implementation. 

There will be broad representation of communities elect from local communities by FP.

 

“Why in constitution, not just laws”

Because history shows that laws are frequently abolished, watered down, ignored, reinterpreted by next elected government.

 

“It adds too much bureaucracy / red tape”

why draw line here? Most things require some government regulation and funding, our society is way too complex by now to function without it, no matter what the libertarians and communists tell you.

Jacinta Price is quoted “What we need in Canberra is ears, not a Voice.” – I have to assume she’s playing a 4chan level prank on everyone: what’s the point of ears if there is no voice to talk to them.

 

“It adds too much Government interference in our lives”

This makes no sense in this context, can someone explain?

Unless it’s like in the pamphlet: “If the Voice is not satisfied with the way it has been consulted, or a decision that is made, it could appeal to the courts. How long would this take?” I mean, this would literally be a good thing, rather than powerful industry and ideological lobby groups being able to rush their pet projects through, finally the FP might have an inkling of power to force everyone to think of them before another cave painting is blown up or a birthing tree cut down.

 

“We cannot trust government"

OK, sure, but even more reason for extra independent checks and balances.

 

"Governments are incompetent”

Even more reason to have a group of people who are experts in this field advise the “incompetent” governments.

 

“Not enough detail”

This was complete rubbish from the start, and apart from the fact that there’s been ample detail if you just cared to look a bit, more importantly: because it’s in the constitution, there can’t be as much detail as in a law. 

 

“Worried that it will cause major change, that First Nations people will get too much power”

So what? Isn’t it about time they obtained some actual power to control their culture and lives? Are whites just worried that with extra power, FP will turn around and treat them the way whites have treated FP this whole time? These fears were promoted every time FP were given more rights, and none ever came to be. 

And those people who are concerned about the possibility that this may open the possibility for FP to initiate real and significant changes to the fundamental way our country and society functions: that's a really telling admission that you are among the privileged class who benefit from systems that (by design or not) keep large parts of the population in a disadvantaged state. This is a good time to do some self-reflection on what your real values are.

 

“It’s only advisory, and has no actual power”

This conflicts directly with the above claim it might cause too much change, though I’ve unironically seen both conflicting issues raise by the same people. Which is it?

Of course, there’s more truth to this ‘concern’ than the one about too much power. But even with no direct enforceable power, The Voice will still set up a much more effective and consistent avenue to advise and raise issues and concerns to government agencies than anything that even remotely exists now. It might stand a chance against the lobby groups of multi-billion dollar industrial and ideological groups.

 

“It’s racist and divisive”

Ah yes, this little shit nugget. This is the most vile piece of gaslighting in this campaign. The pamphlet for NO has “Voice would permanently divide Australians, in law and spirit“ – where the dark irony is that this is literally what exists now, and what much of the NO campaign wants to maintain. Nobody can deny we that FP are, and always have been, treated separately from everyone else.

Plus this sounds like when affirmative action was accused of being sexist because it was seen to unfairly favour women, rather than look for merit. But it is just a tool to get to a point where past inequalities are undone and the whole system is much fairer. Yes, in a utopia we do not need any laws that encourage, let alone enforce equality; but while inequality exists and is tenaciously a part of the system, we need other systems that push it in the right direction.

Also: how on earth is just having a consultative group for FP enshrined in the constitution “racist” by any definition of the term? Of course we must initially base this on the “racial” (I guarantee none of the NO campaigners can actually define that word well) group that has been irrevocable impacted by the establishment of the country of Australia in order to be able to work through healing as much of the mess as we can. Not a single alternative given does not also in some way include “racial” aspects in order to work (and no, “just get over it” is never an option).

The accusation of it being “divisive” is also ironic, considering how very little most people usually care about FP in any practical sense, until they are asked to help out. Then it’s suddenly lots of yelling using “They” and “Them” (in this context essentially othering FP – literally divisive)

 

“It treats FP as victims”

Another one that makes less than no sense. Australia has constantly made it hard for FP communities to improve themselves, while demanding they pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Either by prioritising industry (mining and developers) in any decision, or cracking down on crime much harder than would ever occur in a white urban area (starting and perpetuating the prison cycle), or underfunding, or or or…. The list goes on.
The thing that stood out to me when going to FP communities where they were given control over their country (e.g. Budj Bim in Victoria or Ngaut Ngaut on the Murray) was the hopeful look in their eyes, the subtly proud way they lived, thriving rather than surviving. Giving All the FP nations a Voice is a tiny step to achieve that for all.

 

In many ways this ‘debate’ feels like same sex marriage vote all over again: the vast majority of this minority wanted it (even if you can find the odd member who was against it), while the Pauline Hansons and SkyNews are vitriolically against it - guess which side was on the wrong side of morality and history. That campaign opened the doors for people to openly vent their dislike or distrust of an oppressed group much more freely under the guise of “democratic debate”. Meanwhile that minority group saw their human rights questioned - sometimes their literal right to exist. Depression, anxiety and suicidality skyrocketed. An unacceptably high price for something to become reality that should have just happened.

It’s also quite clear that most NO campaigners have a very careless attitude towards the effects of what they say can have on the people they’re talking about, while demanding mountains of unemotional facts from the YES campaign - when actually it should be much more the other way round 

 

So even if there are both FP and anti-FP are worried about what might go wrong if the Voice becomes real: Not a single legal or constitutional expert has raised any concerns about the Voice being enshrined in the constitution; But even if it goes wrong (whatever that might look like), at least something new was tried, because what’s being done and has been done sure hasn’t worked. 

 

I have a lot more to say, but I'd never finish this, so comment if you feel you want to.