The Voice Referendum: A personal reflection a year after the “No” result.

The Voice Referendum: A personal reflection a year after the “No” result.

It has been one year since the referendum. The Gap still exists, and in some cases is getting worse. Aboriginal people remain disenfranchised in their own land. Racism has become significantly more prevalent, particularly on social media.

Has the “No” outcome achieved anything positive? I don’t think so.

For those who voted “No”, on the basis they wanted a treaty… how is that working out? We don’t have a treaty anywhere. There is some moving of deckchairs – some preliminary discussions and work being done, for example in Victoria and NSW, but I have no faith that any Government in this country has the courage to actually propose legislation to implement a Treaty.

I am almost certain the current NT Government will not support legislating a Treaty. I doubt Queensland will either, based on the rabid demands to lock up 10-year-olds: let us be clear, people demanding “adult crime – adult time” are talking about Aboriginal 10-year-olds. While Victoria is appearing to make some progress, until a Treaty is formally implemented via legislation, there is every opportunity for the Victorian Government to stop the process. Even at a National level, with Albanese clearly backing away from his commitment to the Uluru Statement from the Heart and implementation of a Makarrata Commission, I can’t see the necessary courage to propose Treaty legislation… and even if the courage was there from the current Government, the Dutton led Opposition would make it a political issue and oppose the legislation. Dutton would use misinformation and fear-mongering tactics again, just as he did in relation to the Voice Referendum.

For those who voted “No” because they said a “non-binding” Voice was not good enough… how is the status quo going? How has not having a constitutionally recognised advisory capacity improved things? Not much seems to have changed. Communities are still not being effectively consulted or engaged in co-design of legislation and policy that affects them. The “gap” remains and is in some cases getting worse. We certainly remain a long way from effectively implementing the principles expounded by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Of course, the above to categories of “No” voter at least had semi-valid reasons for voting “No”. I can understand this perspective, even though I do not agree with the position. Then we come to the bulk of the “No” voters who really had no good reasoning to vote “No”, other than ignorance, unrealistic fear, and/or racism.

“If you don’t know, vote ‘No’” was the catchcry of the Opposition leader, who weaponised the Voice to suit his own political agenda and aspirations. By removing bi-partisan support he made a human rights issue into a political issue. This was a deliberate tactic. Dutton wants to appeal to the right wingers, the racists, and the bigots. Based on the Referendum result, there appears to be a large cohort of such people in this country.

And then of course we had those who were adamant they were voting “No” because there should be “one law for all Australians”. Clearly these people have zero understanding of Australia’s colonial history – I doubt those who were massacred, or enslaved, or stolen from their families, would consider they were treated equally under the law. Today the clear disparity in socio-economic indicators between Aboriginal people and other Australians shows that we are not “all one”. Clearly some Australians, (i.e. non-Aboriginal Australians), are faring much better under the colonial systems and structures created in this country.

When I hear people say “We are all the same”, “We should all be one”, and “We are all Australians”, I hear the promotion and expectation of assimilation. I hear the expectation that Aboriginal people will just “get over it” and “blend in” and be like every other (white) Australian. This has been the expectation since colonisation began – a Eurocentric belief that the benchmark of civilisation and culture was that of the white man.

The expectation of many non-Aboriginal Australians is that the only “solution” is for Aboriginal peoples to ignore their ancestry, law, relationship with country, and belief systems, and adopt the culture and ways of white people. Such people have never actually considered the fact that Aboriginal peoples are not European, have no interest in becoming European, and that forcing Indigenous people to assimilate against their will is a form of genocide. In many ways, the result of the Voice Referendum highlights the fact that Australia, as a nation, still instinctively adopts an assimilationist and genocidal attitude towards Aboriginal peoples.  We are not a “post-colonial” country, we remain driven by colonial ideology.

The other negative mantra that was promoted by the likes of Dutton, Price and Mundine, was that the Voice body was “divisive”. Let’s be clear – the only “division” was caused by those people and those who followed their lead. A non-binding advisory body is, in and of itself, not “divisive”. There are hundreds of advisory bodies in the country, yet nobody calls them divisive. The difference with the Voice body is that it would offer advice from an Aboriginal perspective… so apparently it is the existence of a constitutionally enshrined Aboriginal advisory perspective that would cause division?

Why should good advice from Aboriginal peoples, designed to reduce disadvantage and close the gap, be seen as divisive?

In my opinion, it was the racist, dog-whistle style political commentary, and deliberate fear mongering, of politicians like Dutton and Price, which created a false sense of division. The so called “division” was not created by the Voice proposal, it was the deliberate exploitation of a pre-existing division between those who maintain a colonial ideology of white supremacy and those who are willing to accept and respect cultural difference as an integral part of a modern Australian nation. Dutton and Co. deliberately exploited and weaponised the existing racism in this country to achieve a self-serving political outcome.

However, as disappointing as the result was, the Referendum result did offer a number of hopeful outcomes. Around 80% of Aboriginal people across the country voted “Yes”. Despite claims from Jacinta Price that Aboriginal people in remote communities did not support the Voice, most voted “Yes”, proving that Price really had no idea of the views of the particular demographic. Of those Aboriginal people who voted “No”, my experience was that the majority of this cohort did so either because they were only interested in a Treaty, and/or because they saw a “non-binding” Voice as a “toothless tiger” that had no real power.

Another positive outcome was that most younger Australians supported the Voice proposal, with older voters being more inclined to vote “No”. I have no doubt that this is because younger Australians have been properly educated about the colonial history of this country, whereas anyone older than 50 (like me) likely grew up being told by teachers that “Captain Cook discovered Australia” and that Australia was peacefully settled… basically a whitewashed version of colonial history.

Younger Australians know, and are more open to accepting, the truth of colonial occupation, including unlawful dispossession, slavery, rape, massacres, and attempted genocide. Older Australians, in my experience, tend to not want to accept this history, and, if they do, immediately respond with “… but I didn’t do it, why should I feel guilty!”. I always find such a response interesting, because I have never told anyone they should feel guilty about our colonial history. Clearly there is something in the truth that makes people feel bad, and they associate this feeling as being one of “guilt”.

The reality is that anyone with an ounce of decency, knowing the true history of this country, and how despicably Aboriginal peoples were treated, will realise that much wrong was done. Any sense of empathy results in a growing understanding of how awful Aboriginal peoples and communities were treated, and I think people feel a sense of horror, shame and/or regret, but misinterpret it as a feeling of “guilt”.

Perhaps it is the knowledge that modern Australians are thriving on the back of the dispossession and attempted genocide of Aboriginal peoples may give rise to a sense of guilt, however I strongly doubt the people I am talking about would acknowledge the historical source of their modern privilege. The are usually obstinate in their refusal to even acknowledge any wrongdoing occurred… you know, the ones who say things like: “But if it wasn’t for us [British colonists] they wouldn’t have refrigerators and televisions”, or “They are lucky it was us not the Dutch”. Such people like to try to defend wrongdoing by arguing that somebody else could have done much worse… but let’s face it – attempted genocide is attempted genocide and cannot be simply ignored or disregarded because somebody else may have done it more effectively.

Fortunately, younger people these days tend to have a greater capacity for empathy, both because of their education, and because their friendship groups include people from many cultural backgrounds, and they realise that there is nothing to fear in difference. In fact, most young people I know see diversity as part of their daily lives, and they are not afraid of difference. They will happily mix with people from all cultural backgrounds, and respect and value other cultures. Unfortunately, I do not see this openness in many older Australians, who I still hear use terms like “Abo”, “chink”, “slope” and “wog” to describe those of different cultural backgrounds to their own. Sadly, these people are stuck in an Australian colonial mindset where only white people are considered worthy, and everyone else is “othered”, and considered as unworthy of full personhood and related rights.

So, with both majority Aboriginal support, and a growing level of support amongst younger Australians, the idea of the Voice was just a little before its time. It was not a bad idea, just an idea that too many Australians did not want to understand, and an idea that was thwarted by underhanded political behaviour of the Opposition and others exploiting remnant colonial racism. In twenty- or thirty-years’ time, I believe Australia will be a different social landscape, and its population will be ready to embrace genuine reconciliation with Aboriginal peoples. The motives of people like Dutton, Price and Mundine will be seen for what they were – self-serving behaviours designed to further their political careers and financial wellbeing, and not behaviours that were in the best interests of this nation.

I will probably not be alive when the next version of a constitutionally enshrined voice for Aboriginal peoples is proposed, but I have no doubt that Aboriginal peoples will continue to advocate for their right to self-determination, truth-telling, and Treaty. The issues of dispossession, attempted genocide and centuries of oppression will not simply be forgotten, or fade from our memories. Aboriginal peoples will persist in calls for truth-telling and Treaty, until justice is done, and we are able to genuinely reconcile as a nation.

I wish we could just get the necessary work done so we can all move forward together, rather than continually being told we can only achieve “reconciliation” if Aboriginal peoples pretend history did not happen and agree to assimilate. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for the political leadership capable of leading the work required to heal this nation.

Nathan Tyson, Head of First Peoples Strategy and Engagement, Uniting Church Synod of NSW and ACT.

Photo courtesy of SBS

Share

4 thoughts on “The Voice Referendum: A personal reflection a year after the “No” result.”

  1. Thanks Nathan for such a powerful reflection. I appreciate you telling it straight and being direct about why the result occurred and how it makes you feel.

  2. There is something seriously overlooked here,
    As an older person who has relatives who are part aboriginal I see both sides.
    First of all where many of us were moving closer to reconciliation just by the government proposing the referendum forced polarisation.
    Secondly, it is those who are less than 50% indigenous that seem to be pushing the barrow the hardest, these people who are as white as any European all of a sudden are jumping on the band wagon. One family I know of always claimed they were white because they were 80% white heritage then in the 1980’s there was money to be had, so suddenly they were elders.
    Thirdly, and most importantly Australians have voted down referendums that want to change the constitution, why because most of us do not trust the modern political system, the constitution in it present form offers some protection. In a change to the constitution it’s not just one issue we vote on, one issue can have a flow on to multiple sections of the constitution (eg. In 1988 Hawke put forward 4 things to vote on, this would have had a flow on to 88 sections of the constitution) in his speech to the Fabian society in 1984, Hawke stated that the constitution stopped the new world order (of which the Fabians are a part of) from achieving their goals of globalisation and that they had to find ways around that. Labor, who have been strongly infiltrated by the Fabian Society, have had it on their agenda for 70 odd years to change the constitution, so old people are aware of what the young people are not, it’s why they will always vote down changes to the constitution. It not that we don’t recognise the fact that the constitution is slightly out dated, it not that we are negative to the issues faced by our indigenous brothers and sisters. It simply lack of trust in the political system to up date the constitution.

  3. Congratulations, Nathan, on a very powerful article, which is a call to all members of the Uniting Church to speak out about the shameful result of the Referendum. You describe accurately the continuing measures of disadvantage faced by First Nations people and the obvious objective of assimilation promoted by the supporters of the No vote. But take heart that there were 40% of the population voting Yes and the proportion was greater among the younger voters. We must continue the struggle for Voice, Treaty and Truth-telling as the only way forward.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top