The leading yes campaigner Noel Pearson says Australia must reach a point in its relationship with Indigenous people “where it is legitimate to blame us”.
Delivering the Meanjin oration at the Queensland University of Technology on Monday night, the Guugu-Yimithirr lawyer and founder of the Cape York Institute said the voice was “claiming the right to take responsibility”.
“By all means, blame us. But give us a say in the decisions that are made about us before you do,” Pearson told the audience.
“This is the message of the voice. By having a voice, we will be responsible for closing the gap. We will be as responsible as the government for the results. With power will come responsibility.”
Self-determination was hard work, he argued.
“This is a critical insight for those concerned with Aboriginal policy at the highest levels and at the grassroots in claiming the right to self determination. We are claiming the right to take responsibility,” he said.
Pearson indirectly addressed a key argument put by the no campaign – that a voice enshrined in the constitution would “racialise” the nation – by pointing out that the power to legislate on the basis of race already existed in the constitution, “so it makes sense to establish a body to advise on the exercise of that power”.
“Recognition through the voice will provide a new power for parliament to legislate the voice that is not based on race but rather on recognition of our unique position and history as First Peoples of the country,” he said.
“Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are Indigenous peoples, we’re not a separate race. Our race is human. The same as all other Australians.”
Pearson said he was a champion of “radical hope”, but understood some Indigenous people might feel differently.
“The movement for justice for our people swings in an arc from radical pessimism to radical hope. I could never live in radical pessimism but I understand the bitter mountains of evidence and arguments in its favour. I champion radical hope and I believe I share this disposition with many, perhaps the majority, of my fellow Indigenous leaders and activists. Certainly, the Uluru statement from the heart and the proposal for constitutional recognition of a First Nations voice is an expression of such hope,” he said.
Indirectly addressing the so-called “progressive no” campaigners, Pearson said there was also naive pessimism and naive hope.
“Our movement is highly susceptible to each and they should be abjured: there is never a good time for naivety. Reconciliation for the sake of feeling good disserves our movement: there must be justice. Pessimism for the sake of purity of posture is also disservice.”
He said the referendum campaign would have to transcend “the left-right binary” of Australian politics and stay above the “cruel vortex” of culture wars.
“This is not about Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton. This is about whether we are going to achieve a new Australia,” he said. “At the referendum, the question is not about which political tribe you belong to. At the referendum there’s only one tribe. The Australian tribe.”
He appealed to non-Indigenous people who would decide the referendum.
“As 3% of the country, we Indigenous people cannot win this referendum. Our numbers just don’t count. It’s your 97% that counts. It will fall upon you entirely to decide whether we seize this opportunity to make a place for the voice.”
The yes campaign had its second week in a row of 1,000 volunteers signing up to knock on doors, he said, bringing the “yes volunteer army” to 23,000 people.
Later, in conversation with the Indigenous journalist Amy McQuire, Pearson said there was “no guarantee” of a treaty after the voice was decided.
“Everything is fought for, everything requires strategy. Everything requires determination. Everything requires us to get politically organised and to prosecute our agendas. Nothing … in our affairs is guaranteed,” he said.
