THE plebiscite over same-sex marriage in this country may have awarded equality to couples previously denied it, but many have made it clear they believe the process carried serious costs. In 2017, digital youth service ReachOut said it had seen a 20 per cent surge in people seeking support for LGBTQI+ issues, attributing the dramatic spike in demand to the postal survey.
"Australia is on the threshold of something really positive but we do have to manage the risk to vulnerable people over the course of the debate," Professor Patrick McGorry, a former Australian of the Year, said at the time.
The reality in that case was that debating the rights of one group of people put them in the spotlight, emboldening critics with outdated ideas about their lifestyles.
The Voice to Parliament referendum is one that has stirred passions to a similar level. Just ask ABC host Stan Grant, who has stepped out of the limelight for an unspecified period after tirades of abuse were levelled at him over discussing an Aboriginal perspective during the coronation.
Critics may well say it was not the time, but there is also never a time for personal attacks on the basis of race in this country's public debate. While some will argue the Voice discriminates on the basis of race, it is worth remembering that equal treatment does not always ensure equal outcomes when there is a history of disadvantage on the path behind us.
Questions abound over what a constitutional change could mean for governance, and whether it could have unforeseen ramifications beyond its intended goal. There should be no shame in questioning the mechanism, or need, for a Voice to Parliament. But critics of the idea do themselves a disservice when they step away from the issues of the day to query Aboriginal identity and cast aspersions that are not subject of a national vote.
There is little doubt that those with less noble agendas may perhaps be putting their opinions forward under the guise of constructive criticism but perhaps argue in bad faith with ulterior motives. Those with genuine questions would do well to avoid the quagmire that can abound in such cases.
In casting their vote, every Australian will have a say about what they think should happen in that process that could recognise Indigenous Australia in a way this country to date has failed to do. Litigating every aspect of the Voice before then likely has ramifications some of us, to whom it may seem academic, do not foresee. But when talking about real people, their lives and their culture, the cornerstone must be respect.
Those of us who value privacy should perhaps imagine what it is like to have your identity at the centre of a national debate when we open our mouths to speak about it, whether in support or opposition. That would be a true sign of a society that can afford to put racial questions behind it.
