As I find myself reawakening from the past few years and looking around at the lay of the land with fresh eyes, I see certain merits of the yes and no arguments for the voice.
I see many mob, on both sides, who I respect still fighting hard to have their views heard and to win popular support for their arguments. I also see the increased confidence among non-Indigenous people, especially those who would label themselves “allies”, becoming bolder and bolder about chastising mob who aren’t on their side.
I am not an active supporter of either the yes or no campaigns at the moment, just as I also have no allegiance to any political party. But I listen to all opinions and perspectives carefully and with humility as best as I am able. I see the bad-faith arguments and ad hominem attacks and try to look past them for those with sincerely held beliefs, valid questions and concerns and interesting insights.
It can be very easy to dismiss the views of those we disagree with as ignorant, malicious or ill-informed and of course, there is no shortage of those out there at the moment.
I have concerns about how the yes campaign is being run, but most of these are consistent with how all comparable campaigns are run – oversimplified responses, reliance on key talking points, complete dismissal of counterviews, and all of the other stock standard campaign approaches.
Any pollster or spin doctor worth their salt will tell you any good campaign has to be run this way (and maybe they are right), but it still doesn’t sit well with me. But I am also not going to vote yes or no on something that could have generational impacts just because there’s a few pollsters on the payroll pulling strings.
Certain reporting on the no push seems to be implying that there are only conservative-led no campaigns (being headed by Warren Mundine and Jacinta Price respectively). This is a false narrative that wilfully conflates voices who are saying no because they think a voice goes too far with ones who think it doesn’t go far enough.
Linda Burney has said a voice will help the government make better policy. As I see it, nothing has ever stopped past governments from engaging or consulting with mob to make better policies in Indigenous affairs. It is political will that has been lacking in that department, not access to Indigenous voices. If evidence and common decency doesn’t shift them, I don’t see why a voice would.
Lidia Thorpe has expressed concern that being put in the constitution would risk our sovereignty. I don’t think this would happen because Australia already fails to acknowledge our sovereignty. I also do not believe there is anything the government can do, by referendum or otherwise, that could take away our rights to sovereignty.
Warren Mundine’s calls for the voice to be a symbolic preamble is something I also do not agree with. Just like I do not support it when John Howard and Tony Abbott argue the exact same thing. Symbolic-only change is just as it says on the box – symbolising, with no impact, no outcome, no change. It’s a hell of a lot of effort for something designed to do nothing.
Jacinta Price has said the Uluru delegation was only 250 people who weren’t democratically elected and that this is grounds to ignore the Statement from the Heart, which called for a voice. It brings back the circular question: how do we get agreement on a voice without a voice? Do we need to create a system where we can have 250 democratically elected Indigenous representatives to negotiate on our behalf? I’d probably be keen on that, but somehow I don’t think that was what she was arguing for.
I don’t agree with those above points, but that doesn’t make me right about any of them either. I’m not a politician or a constitutional lawyer, but I try to be humble enough to be convinced otherwise about them and about whatever else comes up before this shitshow has run its course.
I am worried that a successful referendum will provide yet another opportunity for Australia to throw itself a “racism is over” party while failing to achieve real change, much like Paul Keating’s Redfern speech, John Howard’s “Harmony Day”, the 2000 bridge walk for “Reconciliation”, or Kevin Rudd’s apology to the Stolen Generations. I also understand Australia is going to keep looking for ways to throw such parties for itself, regardless of whether it deserves them. However, each time Australia convinces a large number of white people that racism has been fixed, we invariably end up with more racists denying racism exists – which just creates a shit-tonne more work for those of us trying to get people to acknowledge and dismantle the racism that is all around us.
I’m also worried about the steady rise in racism (including a stark resurgence of overt white supremacism) we have seen over the past decade or so becoming much worse before this whole thing is said and done. But I also understand it was only ever just under the surface anyways, and has been doing just fine resurging without the voice as an amplifier.
And I really don’t like how so many Indigenous people on every side of the debate are increasingly being described by various non-Indigenous people on the other side as a “dupe who has been tricked into betraying their own people”! Mob have agency and aren’t gullible saps being had by much cleverer white snake oil salesmen simply because they are Indigenous and not on your side of an Indigenous issue.
In the lead-up to the referendum, I will keep listening to both sides, and will continue to make my own decision for myself regardless of what criticisms or accusations are made.
I will keep calling out non-Indigenous people who feel entitled to mock, ridicule or troll mob on the other side of the debate as them.
I will keep rejecting the assertion that everyone who says yes is a “sellout” or that everyone who says no is “on the same side as Andrew Bolt”. Indigenous politics and perspectives cannot be so simply reduced into “left” and “right” dichotomies.
I’ll continue to support the idea of a representative decision-making body that can strive to build consensus among mob and can represent our views in relevant forums. Just as I’ll remain sceptical about whether or not the voice will be able to fulfil that role until convinced otherwise.
I’ll continue to support the push for treaties, but I’ll also remain concerned about who will negotiate them until I see it in action. I’ll continue to remain sceptical about the idea of governments entering such processes with good faith or honouring them after they are agreed to.
Luke Pearson is a Gamilaroi man living in NSW. He is the founder and CEO of IndigenousX. This is an excerpt of an article that was originally published on IndigenousX on 22 February 2023. You can read the full article here
