Many of Australia’s First Nations people seem to have interpreted the majority “No” vote at the 2023 Voice referendum as a rejection, not just of their proposed Voice apparatus, but of their aspirations more generally for a better deal in Australian society, and even of them as a people. Regrettably, this has resulted in deeper and more severe mental trauma than might be expected from the rejection of a mere political proposition.
The tragedy is that this interpretation is based on what I consider to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what the referendum was about. Ostensibly, the referendum was about recognizing Australia’s First Nations people in the Constitution and providing a mechanism for them to be heard at the highest levels of government. And indeed, for those who voted “Yes”, this was exactly what the referendum was about. While these voters were in the minority, it must not be forgotten that they formed a substantial minority. Even now, they represent a huge fund of good will that should serve as an antidote to total despair and that could well be tapped for support in the future.
For the “No” voters, on the other hand, the referendum was not simply about whether or not to give a Voice to First Nations people. Rather, it was about them feeling that they themselves were not heard. And while ever that was the case, they’d be damned if they were going to confer special privilege on some other group, no matter how deserving they might be. This was not so much about Australia’s First Nations people, or about race, as it was about a distorted view of justice. The same attitude would have prevailed had the proposal been to enshrine in the Constitution a voice for any minority group seeking to improve its lot in Australian society. Of course, if there was even a hint — and the campaign was not without its share of apocryphal ones — that with such privilege could come the potential for the exercise of power denied the rest of the population, that was all the more reason to oppose it.
There are probably many reasons for this attitude, but its prevalence is mainly due to poor timing. Populist politics is on the rise globally. Fewer people vote on principle anymore. Everywhere they look, there is reinforcement of the view that they themselves are hard done by and disadvantaged. They’re not interested in other people: they’re only interested in themselves. This self-centered outlook has been exacerbated by pandemic restrictions, climate-induced natural disasters, high interest rates, scarcity of affordable accommodation, and rise in the cost of living generally. People see themselves as powerless in the great scheme of things. Anyone who holds out the promise of helping them “reclaim” power will get their vote. Anyone who tries to secure special privilege will not.
In the face of such sentiment, it is all the more remarkable that so many people recognized (as undoubtedly almost all “Yes” voters did) that past injustices — indeed, atrocities — should not simply be ignored and that people in the present day can play a meaningful role in addressing the ongoing consequences. Such recognition is by no means universal, though, with many preferring to ignore the past, deeming it irrelevant to the present and certainly to their own sphere of responsibility. No matter that they might be the beneficiaries of cruelties perpetrated, condoned or ignored by their forebears. Regret and redress are just not on the agenda for the self-centered. Their self-righteous exculpation is frequently coupled with a “just get over it” mentality that covers a multitude of sins, lest others’ trauma somehow come to be visited upon them also. Such a convenient morality!
While the Labor Party is to be commended on their listening to First Nations people and instituting the referendum, they were lamentably naïve in its design. So long as the actual machinery of a proposed Voice was not specified in detail in the Constitution but instead devolved to the whim of future Parliaments, it remained an intangible. Consequently, it provided an easy target for those seeking political advantage rather than statesmanlike reform or anything approaching reconciliation. The nebulous nature of the Voice lent itself to the trite but nonetheless persuasive slogan, “If you don’t know, vote no.” Marketing experts on the side of the “Yes” campaign should have predicted this fairly obvious ploy from the outset and countered it more vigorously and effectively as soon as it appeared — something they failed to do.
While it is not a necessary condition for a referendum to pass in Australia, support from the dominant political parties, on both sides of the Parliament, is highly desirable in ensuring passage. This is particularly so in the current financial and political climate and whenever a campaign is susceptible to the stirrings of such undercurrents of prejudice as may exist in the society. Example situations might revolve around race, sex, religion and the like. Interestingly, these very issues form key components of human rights codes — something that, to its shame, Australia lacks in its revered Constitution. And so it proved that racist elements were practically granted licence to give more public and vociferous expression to their hatred than is normally the case. Even so, I consider that, despite being the most distasteful aspect of the referendum campaign, such sentiments were largely swamped by those relating to perceived disenfranchisement of the financially stressed.
As others have observed, once the Prime Minister made it his personal mission to hold a referendum and argue in its favor, without first securing the support of Opposition parties, he made himself a target and the campaign a weapon to take him down. While, on the face of it, it was commendable to elevate the referendum to such a prominent place in the Government’s agenda, in practice the pace proved far too quick. Insufficient time was allowed for persuasion of even First Nations voters, let alone the rest of the electorate. And, as I have observed, the marketing strategy for the “Yes” campaign was woefully underprepared and inadequate.
A critical, and perhaps decisive, problem lay in disunity among First Nations people themselves. I don’t think this was something that was anticipated by the Government which rushed headlong in pursuit of an idealistic (albeit perfectly reasonable) vision while paying scant regard to the political realities. The Uluru Statement from the Heart, which led to the referendum, was never unanimously endorsed by all First Nations people in the first place. Polling of First Nations voters did not indicate a consistent and practically unanimous majority (of the order of 95%, say) in favor of the referendum proposal. How, then, could the rest of the Australian population be expected to vote overwhelmingly in favor of a Voice when the very people it was touted as benefitting were so ambivalent about it? Even if First Nations people had been 99% in favor of the Voice, this fact would have been lost on the rest of the Australian population who were subjected on a daily basis to the spectacle of a few high-profile indigenous politicians campaigning against the proposition at every well-publicized opportunity. Their contention that “this Voice will not unite us, it will divide us by race”, while superficially plausible, was disingenuous in its failure to recognize that the country has been divided by race ever since the European occupation. It was not the white community that had to bear the brunt of generation after generation of dispossession, cultural annihilation, kidnapping, incarceration, infection, discrimination, slavery and genocide. Consensus across the political spectrum would largely have relegated these renegades to the background. Instead, lack of consensus gave full rein to their shrill promulgation of questionable but persuasive propositions — yet another thing ineffectually addressed by the “Yes” campaign.
It is apparent, then, that laudable though it was in its aim, the referendum was pretty much doomed from the outset. Had proponents been more realistic than idealistic, they would not have made themselves so vulnerable to the despair that set in after the votes were counted. Many factors undermined the “Yes” campaign, not least an uncomprehending and lackluster “Yes” campaign itself. While no doubt there was a measure of racist antipathy towards First Nations people, I don’t think it was as prevalent as many First Nations people might imagine. I think it is a mistake to credit it with the bulk of the vote that defeated the referendum proposal. The blame more properly lies with political opportunism in a climate that encourages populist pandering to the alleged plight of ordinary people who see themselves as lacking any influence of their own in the face of perceived threats to their own way of life. Viewed thus, the defeat of the referendum was not a rejection of First Nations people per se, or even of their having a voice of some sort. Rather, it bespoke unwillingness on the part of many people to grant to others that which they themselves were being denied. It represented less a rebuff of First Nations people and their aspirations than a reluctance to endorse an ill-defined political scheme which clearly did not enjoy consensus amongst First Nations people and which moreover was advanced by a Government that the majority of voters regarded as ineffectual in promoting their own aspirations in difficult times.
The upshot is that this referendum was an ill-conceived vehicle for bringing First Nations people the recognition and reforms they seek and deserve. The despair many of them now feel is in no small measure a product of their mistaken understanding of what the referendum was about.
A more considered examination of the circumstances provides valuable lessons for future forays into the political arena. The mistakes of the referendum campaign can be avoided. The defeat of the referendum proposal by no means precludes First Nations people from having a Voice. What’s more, alternatives to the Constitutionally enshrined Voice are not necessarily any the less powerful for not being recognized in that flawed document. Indeed, I have the germ of an idea for a Voice that is at once more authentic, more inclusive, more relevant, more noteworthy, more far-reaching and more powerful than that defeated in the referendum ever could have been.
Despair not.
Whether through my scheme or ones of others’ devising, the Voice of Australia’s First Nations will be heard.