I recently outlined how I am “undecided” when it comes to the referendum on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice. I believed most Australians would have a hard time understanding why I, as an Aboriginal woman, felt this way. If I were to put it in a sentence, those reasons would include ignorance of the Indigenous rights movement, the erroneous idea that Indigenous opinion is a monolith, and the dualistic framing of the voice debate in and of itself.
There have been a number of developments since I shared my views back in May – most of which have occurred in the past weeks. For starters, recent reports of opinion polls stated that support for the voice had declined to its lowest level yet. There was also the passage of the legislation to hold the referendum in the first place through both houses of parliament. There was Senator Lidia Thorpe’s gathering of Indigenous sovereignty activists calling for a no vote in favour of more concrete actions, and counteracting claims made by both the yes camp and the conservative no camp. Finally though, there was the sheer exhaustion I noticed in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, from all sides of the debate, when it came to even broaching the referendum.
My views haven’t changed. I am still “undecided”. Despite many grandiloquent speeches from Labor MPs and senators about how the voice is the righting of a big historical wrong, the realisation finally of reconciliation after 25 years of talk, and a huge step forward to create a mature nation, I’m unmoved.
Why would I be moved? As an Arrernte woman who watched the Labor party apologise for the policies which led to the stolen generations only to deny compensation, or who saw them continue the Northern Territory intervention under another name and demonise entire communities with their “rivers of grog” claims, my trust is gone. That’s nothing to say about broken promises throughout history, such as Hawke’s treaty.
My mistrust for the ALP is surpassed only by an utter loathing of the Coalition and, by extension, far-rightwingers such as One Nation. Rather than self-aggrandising promises, they seem bent on peddling complete mistruths. Pauline Hanson’s daily Facebook posts pretty much claiming a referendum win would begin the “Blak apocalypse” would be amusing if there was not a section of the community so willing to lap these lies up. The shadow minister for Indigenous affairs Jacinta Price’s claims that the referendum will divide the country so that Indigenous people have more rights than the rest of Australia are equally erroneous. Price never actually seems to be interested in issues of racism in this country unless she perceives white people may lose something to Aboriginal people. Then there’s Peter Dutton. If the man actually does have a compelling argument against the voice, I am yet to hear it.
If any of these claims were actually true, then the final point of the constitutional amendment wouldn’t be there. That is:
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.
Dishonesty and fear have long proven to be effective vote drivers in this country. For further information, check how many times and by how many parties “stop the boats” has been used as an election platform.
What has happened already?
The Albanese government has put forward the referendum question: "A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?"
The PM also suggested three sentences be added to the constitution:
- There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
- 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;
- 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.
How would it work?
The voice would be able to make recommendations to the Australian parliament and government on matters relating to the social, spiritual and economic wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
The voice would be able to table formal advice in parliament and a parliamentary committee would consider that advice. But the voice co-design report said all elements would be non-justiciable, meaning there could not be a court challenge and no law could be invalidated based on this consultation.
How would it be structured?
The co-design report recommended the national voice have 24 members, encompassing two from each state, the Northern Territory, ACT and Torres Strait. A further five members would represent remote areas and an additional member would represent Torres Strait Islanders living on the mainland.
Members would serve four-year terms, with half the membership determined every two years.
Back to that exhaustion I mentioned earlier, though. I think a lot of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, regardless of which way they will vote, are feeling it. It has a lot to do with having to face an Australian public every day whose ears appear to be painted on. We don’t have the space to ask questions on whether a voice will indeed improve Indigenous lives because, due to simplistic understandings of Indigenous politics, we’re “siding with racists” if we do.
Yet the yes side aren’t actually anti-racist. In fact, over generations, they have benefited from racist ideas and policies. They now see promoting the yes vote as a way to perform their anti-racism without any inconvenient interrogation. Indigenous people on the yes side who I have spoken to are tired of telling scores of white people who reckon they are anti-racist what it is that they should be doing to help secure that positive outcome. In short, I think people are exhausted because, as is the usual story, there is a lack of listening going on.
I remain an undecided vote, and I feel stuck. Voting yes means putting my faith in people and systems who have never earned that trust and are unlikely to ever do so. Simultaneously, voting no feels like giving in to rabid racists so the clock gets set back generations as unfortunately, few in society appear to be listening to the very real and doable pathways forward that the sovereignty activists are promoting.
When Australia is truly interested in a fair, respectful and mature way forward, please let me know.
Celeste Liddle is an Arrernte woman living in Melbourne. She is a freelance writer, social commentator and activist. Liddle was a Greens candidate for the seat of Cooper in the 2022 federal election. She left the party in February 2023
This article was amended on 27 June 2023 to clarify that the author used to be a Greens candidate
