While the media have been snaffling up soundbites from the various No camps for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, the brains behind the Yes campaigns have been getting on with it.
Key figures in the push for a Yes vote are spread across several groups with overlapping membership and goals: From the Heart, the Uluru Dialogue and the Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition, as well as the First Nations Referendum Working Group advising the government on the mechanics of the referendum.
These groups are made up of a diverse coalition of academics and activists, many of whom have been battle-hardened by years of fighting for Indigenous recognition in the constitution. They’re complemented by several hard-headed and savvy political operatives, some with much more conservative backgrounds than you might expect.
Here’s a snapshot of some of them:
First Nations Referendum Working Group
Professor Marcia Langton: the academic and longtime activist co-wrote the Indigenous Voice co-design process final report with Tom Calma. She first came to prominence in 1976 as the co-founder of the Black Women’s Action Group and has since written several books and countless articles. Langton has been difficult to categorise — over the years she has sparred with News Corp’s Andrew Bolt and Eualeyai/Kamillaroi academic Larissa Behrendt with equal ferocity.
Further, she surprised many with her — as The Monthly put it back in 2011 — “immediate support for the Howard government’s intervention in [Northern] Territory communities, announced just ahead of the federal election in 2007”.
She says most Indigenous people she’s consulted favour the model she and Calma propose, and has criticised what she calls a “relentless scare campaign” waged by opponents of the Voice.
Professor Tom Calma is an elder of the Kungarakan people and member of the Iwaidja people. Before his time working with Langton on the senior advisory group of the Indigenous Voice to government convened by Ken Wyatt, Calma was a senior diplomat in India and Vietnam during the latter half of the 1990s.
In 2003, he served as senior adviser on Indigenous affairs to Philip Ruddock, then minister for immigration, multicultural and Indigenous affairs, before spending five years as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission from 2004 to 2010. He has held leadership roles across a variety of health and social policy agencies and in 2014 became the first Indigenous man to be appointed chancellor of a Australian university when he took on that role at Canberra University.
The Uluru Dialogue
Professor Megan Davis: the Cobble Cobble woman was key in developing the Uluru Statement from the Heart, designing and leading 12 “dialogues” across Australia in 2017 that informed the statement. She was also a member of the working group that negotiated the final wording of the proposed constitutional amendment with the government, with Langton and Calma.
Davis has been one of the faces of the Yes campaign, doing media across the country insisting the government of the day would not be able to “shut the Voice up” and that the Voice represents structural change in a way that moves such as the push to change Australia Day don’t. She co-chairs the Uluru Dialogue with Pat Anderson.
Pat Anderson is an Alyawarre woman and Uluru Dialogues co-chair. She was also chair of the Lowitja Institute and, with Davis, consulted hundreds of Indigenous people to deliver the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2017. She, Davis and Salvation Army national reconciliation action plan coordinator and Cobble Cobble woman Lucy Davis chair “Start a yarn” sessions, online meetings which allow Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians to ask questions about the mechanics, meaning and history of the Voice.
“The Voice is about getting grassroots Voices amplified and feeding into Canberra, representing the views and Voices of their communities,” she told the parliamentary committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice referendum last month. “The really important message from the dialogues was that there is no Voice that exists now that represents who we are and what we want.”
From the Heart
Dean Parkin is the Yes Campaign Alliance director, and is from the Quandamooka peoples of Minjerribah (aka North Stradbroke Island) in Queensland. Formerly an investment analyst at Tanarra Capital, and a member of the Business Council of Australia’s Indigenous engagement taskforce, he worked on the Uluru Statement from the Heart and subsequently became director of From the Heart, an “education project” aimed at keeping the Voice on the agenda after its initial rejection by the Coalition. In an example of the overlaps between these groups, From the Heart operates under the auspices of Noel Pearson’s think tank the Cape York Institute.
Parkin was in the news when the Yes campaign launched its first ad last month, a 30-second spot steering clear of the specific Voice debate and focusing on constitutional recognition.
“This campaign, right from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, has always said that this is about both — it’s about recognition, but it’s about that recognition having to be meaningful,” he said at the time. “That’s why Indigenous people have said it’s got to be through the Voice.”
Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition
Noel Pearson: a fixture in public debate around Indigenous issues in Australia for several decades, the Cape York leader, writer and academic was one of the key architects of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and is on the board of Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition (AICR).
When the Liberal Party finally settled on its No position on the Indigenous Voice referendum earlier this year, Pearson said it was a “Judas betrayal of our country” and called Opposition Leader Peter Dutton “an undertaker preparing the grave to bury Uluru”. It is not the first time he has been disappointed by the Liberals. When then-prime minister Malcolm Turnbull rejected the initial 2017 proposal for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament — thus, according to Pearson, reneging on a commitment made before he became PM — Pearson wrote a long essay in The Monthly called “Betrayal“.
Mark Textor: yep, seriously! One way or another, AICR has a significant get in Textor who, as part of Crosby Textor (now known as C|T Group), has been one of the most influential pollsters and strategists in hard-right conservative politics for the past two decades. Further, AICR has former Kevin Rudd press secretary Lachlan Harris. Harris came to public notice when he was forced to apologise to Brendan Nelson when he and another Rudd staffer joined the crowd that turned their back on the then-opposition leader during his response to Rudd’s apology to the Stolen Generations in 2008. The AICR board also features longtime John Howard adviser Tony Nutt.
Nothing says “we’re not messing about” than the engagement of some hard-headed political messaging experts from both sides of the aisle.
Thomas Mayo: a Kaurareg Aboriginal and Kalkalgal, Erubamle Torres Strait Islander man, Mayo is a union official with the Maritime Union of Australia. He is chair of the Northern Territory Indigenous Labor Network, advises the Diversity Council of Australia, and is an executive member of the Northern Territory Trades and Labour Council.
Mayo has written six books, including Finding Our Heart, subtitled “A Story about the Uluru Statement for Young Australians”, and with journalist Kerry O’Brien The Voice to Parliament Handbook: All The Detail You Need. Further, he’s had articles and essays advocating for the Voice published in Guardian Australia, Griffith Review, the Nine papers and right here in Crikey.
Please don’t think I’m ungrateful for this article but this word limit doesn’t allow Charlie to do justice to the contributions some of these people have made over the years or the calibre of the lives they have led.
Take Marcia Langton as just one example. She grew up in rural QLD and lived in the bush outside of town with very little money. Came into school every day and excelled despite the racism and lack of material things. Made her way to uni and contributed seriously in workplaces outside academia. In academia she has been highly regarded all over the world for decades. Her work ethic is amazing and her generosity valued and admired by many.
Good stuff. The biggest problem will be making inroads in the conservative resistance. Seen in microcosm in the resistance to truth-telling at the Australian War Memorial about the Frontier Wars. Voice/Treaty/Truth-telling
Surprised to just read that Joe Hildebrand presented the Yes case verses Tony Abbott in a forum held by lnp member for Hughes.
I understood that Hildebrand was interviewing Abbott, not opposing him.
Our local rag is a NC rag and we get all the NC hacks’ opinion pieces. Joe Hildebrand wrote a piece supporting a Voice last week. It was a very basic piece but very clear.
Sorry. My bad. Just went back and re-read the article and Hildebrand was presenting the Yes case.
If not a remake of that entomological classic, the Human Caterpillar, it would be the Worm Ouroboros.
I will no doubt be in the minority on this forum, but here goes:
Both sides so far have put their cases poorly: the YES “case” consists entirely of sentiment and scorn, the NO case have chosen a stupid and embarrassing slogan.
I will be voting NO, and my thoughts are just crystalising now.
Paragraph 1 of the Voice states that it will be an advisory body. And yet paragraph 3 states that its “powers” are yet to be determined. What “powers?” “Powers,” PLURAL???? What possible “powers” could a purely advisory body need other than the “power” to “advise?”
These are my thoughts so far. The NO case is just getting started as we all get up to speed on legal and constitutional matters. I still have more to learn, but it seems clear to me that the Voice is a Trojan Horse. It is not the end of a process, an end in itself, but the beginning of another process. I have been accused on Twitter of beign a conspiracy theorist. But the nature of a Trojan Horse is that you cannot see inside of it. I cannot see clearly what legal dangers may await, and I doubt the YES case are going to tell us what specific litigation they have in mind.
Aboriginal people have a special place in Australia historically, culturally, artistically and, if you are so inclined, religiously. But they do NOT have a special place in our Constitution and neither does anyone else.
Ok, have at me.
I’m not going to “have at” you as you have acknowledged that you are learning and I admire that. I’ll just suggest a few points to help you continue your learning journey: 1. Check out what the 1967 referendum questions actually were, 2. Check out the 1962 referendum, 3. Check out the 1984 referendum, 4. Read the constitution for the race powers and 5. Check out how the race powers have been used – you’ll find positive and negative implications for First Nations so have a little look around for both.
So what points were you making with regard all this?
Once you’ve checked out the 1984 referendum, have a look at the work the AEC is doing to try to make it physically possible for all First Nations people to vote. 1962 and 1984 have happened but the AEC has still been finding it impossible to give everyone the opportunity to vote. Fingers crossed it will get there for this referendum.
And, don’t forget to explore how the race powers have been used for First Nations people. There’s good and bad it their application so it’s a useful thing to know about.
It is interesting that, in this referendum, it is not proposed to remove the race powers from Constitution
Well, firstly… nah, actually, why bother?
Well done. Straight to scorn.
Because the reasons you give for wanting to vote “No” are the exact reasons we need to vote “Yes”
Exercise your intellect and tell me why.
You put the No case very well. 1) The original Constitution should have featured Aboriginals as the original owners from way back. As well as being citizens as a matter of course. The 1967 referendum promoted them from nothings to actual people. It has done nothing in the 56 years since to improve their health and welfare, which, as the Gap shows, is still behind the 8-ball. 2) Where justice is ignored litigation is the only answer, as ever. Frivolous litigation is kicked out of court with costs to pay, so raising this as a serious point is misguided in my opinion. 3) There are, as you say, many organisations advocating for aboriginal people. But to have an effect they must be heard and consideration given to their views. As things are these organisations are ignored by the government and its departments, which collectively have no respect for aboriginals and their spokespersons, never have had, and look like never having in the future, as things are now. 4) Everything necessary for aboriginal welfare can theoretically be done now through legislation. The point is that although it could be done, it has not been, and never will be under present circumstances. And 5) It is entirely appropriate to have the world’s longest existing society proudly front and centre in our Constitution. In my opinion. It would not make me fearful, it would make me glad.
1. Matters “Directly affecting” aboriginal people obviously means matters which mainly affect them, but affect others less so. The Voice will have nothing to say on the vast majority of matters which are decided in Parliament. Its powers will be its right to exist, its right to advise and its right to be heard. Along the lines of the various lobbyists, but hopefully without the bribes. (In that respect I expect it to raise the average standard.) It is interesting that you raise the idea of the Voice being a Trojan horse. From an aboriginal point of view it is Parliament which is the Trojan horse, defeating all their attempts at improvement. The PM apologised to them for the way they have been treated: shot down by police, children stolen, health problems ignored etc, etc, etc. And yet they are treated the same way now, in 2023. We as a nation criticise other countries for their poor treatment of their minorities, as you are aware, but such opinions are meaningless and stupid in the face of our treatment of our own.
Governments spend much time and effort inducing fear in their citizens, it sometimes seems that’s all they do. Fear of China, fear of an aboriginal Voice, fear of bin Laden, fear of everything. Fear of inflation (so lose your house with a shrug and an, “Oh well, mustn’t grumble”. In my fairly long experience the main thing to be afraid of is the government and its mismanagement which has created all our ills over a long period. I am firm in my belief that an aboriginal Voice would speak more sense and honesty and wisdom than our bunch of shysters have ever done.
And I’m not having at you at all. I think you are wrong, that’s all. I trust and respect the people described in this article to a very great degree. I trust them to improve their lot by slow degrees, the next step being to have a Voice to Parliament, followed by whatever they see as appropriate at the time. Self-centred, morally blind and ignorant people tell me that aboriginals are given everything, whereas in fact they are given nothing. To vote Yes for the Voice will certainly begin to change things for them and, incidentally, us, for the better. A National No will guarantee we go on with more of the same for the forseeable future. For the worse. I can’t imagine us doing that.
Well articulated, drastic.
Thanks for the considered reply.
and honesty and wisdom than our bunch of shysters have ever done.” I’m afraid I do not share your faith. Remember ATSIC?
Thanks for the civilised discussion.
I’m expecting that the Voice will impact on all people that are living in poverty, you’re point that Albo overlooks these people is from my perspective all the more reason for a Voice. While it could be said that Aboriginals /ts Islanders have had plenty of money spent on them, it hasn’t worked they haven’t started an incursion ever the frontier wars was in defence, retaliation rarely.
This mob are an intuitive gentle mob collectively overall, in comparison to say.. us, our collection.
I’m looking forward to fundamental logic emanating from the first nations that walk the parliament halls and have a seat at the table. To quote Elmore James completely out of context but in reference to our native environment that can only benefit from the Voice, ” the sky is crying, look at tears roll down the street” yes emotive guff.
I think you are greatly underestimating how much this move will benefit all of us, I expect they will take us to new levels of understanding the human condition and what it is to live in this country.
At the end of point 6 I meant to say NOT with sentiment.
The Voice, as proposed in the current wording most definitely WILL have a say in any or all legislation.
No it won’t. It can’t, unless legislated to, which:
a) could be equally legislated without the Voice; and
b) can be “un-legislated” by a future Government
So the issue of concern there is completely independent of the Voice itself. It can (and therefore should) exist regardless.
Makes you wonder what the Voice proposal is for then, doesn’t it?
By the way you called my fears of litigation “paranoid” earlier. Well here’s Megan Davis (quote under her photo) saying “possible future challenges should not be feared.”
In a march 3rd AFR article Mark Dreyfus is quoted as saying “possible constitutional litigation should not put anyone off.”
And again here:
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.afr.com%2Fpolitics%2Ffederal%2Fthe-high-court-judges-split-over-the-voice-20230227-p5cnzq
Megan Davis says High Court challenges would “be a straightforward part of the law.”
So I can assure you, people, that High Court challenges are being prepared even now, should the Voice referendum pass.
I think First Nations people do have a special place in Australia, and my thinking has two elements.
First, the First Nations were invaded by the British and First Peoples were oppressed by violent and administrative means including genocide. Even the South African government considered QLD’s oppression of First Peoples when it was deciding how to set up Apartheid. The impact of that history is causing enormous hardship today.
Second, I am here because I come from people who were victims of the Potato Famine, other people who were little better than serfs in northern England and Scotland and people from Eastern Europe escaping persecution between the two world wars. My ancestors only found refuge and built better lives in Australia because of the invasion of First Nations.
I do think everyone who benefits because First Nations were invaded and First Peoples oppressed to create a modern Australia do “owe” First Peoples. I do think First Peoples hold a different position from the rest of us.
I do not. What I do recognises is the “gap,” and I am perfectly happy for legislation to provide the funds to close that gap and bring the worst of Aboriginal lives closer to the rest of us.
Isn’t that the San/Saan/Bushmen of Southern Africa?
I agree with this assessment of the “Yes” case, but the biggest problem with the “No” case is that it’s almost entirely lies and paranoia being pushed by people whose track record means they simply lack credibility.
The other thing that bothers me a lot is that nobody – on either side – seems to want to talk much about why what is supposedly just an advisory body requires Constitutional recognition (though we all know it’s so the Coalition can’t simply remove it the next time they’re in power).
You argue there is a problem with giving Aboriginals special recognition in the Constitution, and that if they are then other groups “logically” should be as well, yet then explicitly state that they have a “special place” in Australian history. This is inconsistent, and you have answered your own question why not those other groups – because they were not the native inhabitants displaced by colonisation (or invaded if you prefer).
If you are going to argue a vague threat of “litigation” then provide a source. Don’t tell people they need to go looking, especially since, I’ll wager, a certain level of “interpretation” is required to reach that conclusion.
#4 comes back to the point made above – the reason the Voice needs to be in the Constitution is so that it can’t simply be removed by the next Coalition government (they can ignore what it says, but they cannot silence it).
As I said, I do not find the “Yes” case particularly compelling, but the “No” case is so horrifically bad it’s nearly enough to sway me the other way on its own.
I will not be surprised if the outcome is “No”, and be very surprised if a “Yes” outcome is more than a thin margin.
You address only some of my points.
And right out of the stalls you revert to one of the rhetorical devices used by the YES folk – guilt by association. For the record, I loathe Abbott, loathe Hanson, Loathe Dutton; but I find myself in their company on this matter. It is dishonest to dismiss my points because they too make them
I take pains not to contradict myself over Aboriginals’ place in Australian society; I specifically state that that place is not a special mention in the Constitution but belongs in other arenas.
Unfortunately I do not have a source for the Marcia Langton quote in which she stated that litigation will occur “as was their right.” I am hoping she repeats it, or that quote turns up in the next few months. I believe she said it in the past few weeks. But remember, not one legal source has ruled litigation out.
One of the fundamental disagreements, of course, is precisely over the fact that it cannot be removed once in place; the YES folk say this is a plus, while us NO folk say that this is the whole problem with it. I’m not sure how we overcome that.
You say that the NO case is “horrifically bad.” Well the YES folk have been at this for eight years and their only “case”is sentiment. The NO folk are just waking up to this and have not gathered their wits about them yet. I can see no YES “case.”
So, are you going to vote YES?
I did not.
I said the No case they present has little credibility both a) because it is so terribly prosecuted and b) because those people have demonstrated they are shamelessly dishonest.
That is a judgement of the public No case, entirely independent of anything you wrote.
You state it but you do not justify it.
The question you ask is: “If we allow one group of modern Australians (less than 3% of the population) to have a special mention in the Constitution, then why not others? The disabled, for example? Or women? or anyone else you can think of? Logically, why not?”
And the answer is, as you highlight later, because Aboriginals are fundamentally different from those other groups.
Well, of course not, because “litigation” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) can never be ruled out.
However, I can certainly remember that most legal sources have said there’s no risk like that you are alluding to.
They don’t though. The No folk say that it opens the door to a vague list of legal horrors that will destroy the country, but in reality this is a possible outcome of the legislative implementation of the Voice (which is easily changed), not the Constitutional change. The Constitutional change does nothing except establish a group of people that can send unsolicited advice to the Government about Aboriginal issues, which it has no obligation whatsoever to even consider, let alone follow.
It is, because it’s pretty much entirely reliant on dishonest scaremongering that dissipates under any scrutiny not from Rupert Murdoch media.
Don’t know. Haven’t decided yet. I am not at all convinced it will result in any meaningful and practical change, and explanations about how it will are hand-wavy motherhood statements at best. I also find many on the Yes side to be obnoxiously dismissive, but I consider that less of a problem than the No side’s aggressive dishonesty.
We disagree: aboriginals are NOT, in my opinion, fundamentally different from any other group in Australia.
I don’t understand. Litigation is everyone’s right. It is a corner stone of our democracy. If someone takes a case to the High Court, it proves our system is working. That the Yes case is very open about this is something I find really positive. If it was obfuscating or lying, I’d be worried.
A Voice could litigate for administrative errors but if public servants stuffed up there once and the high court got involved, the chances of them getting it wrong a second time are negligible. If they did stuff up again, I’d be happy to see the government in the High Court again putting them under further pressure to act legally. I reckon its excellent to keep them accountable, especially after everything the RoboDebts RC has revealed.
A Voice will only be able to advise, and neither the executive nor the parliament will be obliged to take its advice. That really is incredibly limiting should politicians seek to continue to waste our taxes on policies and programs created without sound advice that have no or limited outcomes or make the situation they’re supposed to be fixing even worse.
I like the accountability mechanism in that. It will be harder for the government to dish up useless programs and policies just as the new committee is putting transparency and accountability into the current discussion about JobSeeker and the government is finding it more difficult to pull the wool over our eyes. I’m for anything that creates greater transparency and accountability as it makes our democracy stronger and the use of our taxes more effective.
Given the fact that the Voice has things like people not having clean, safe drinking water and all the horrendous gaps to help the government deal with through offering sound advice, I can’t see it getting distracted by submarines, etc. That is one of the arguments that I do think is a dog whistle to racism that people hold and are not aware they hold it.
I don’t have any concerns about the legal issues raised by the No case for the reasons I’ve explained and because the majority of constitutional experts are in favour of a Voice as defined by the referendum question. Even Craven, Brennan and Leeser aren’t so concerned about High Court possibilities they think it’s worth voting No. They have all said they’ll vote Yes and Leeser has been prepared to give up his shadow portfolios to campaign for the Yes vote. Given the direction the Liberal Party is going in, that could very easily be the end of his political ambitions.
I think the Voice is our best chance of greater transparency, accountability and more effective expenditure of our hard earned taxes. I think it will make us a stronger democracy.
So will these “brains behind the yes campaign” be running for cover when the constitutional amendment fails to get up? Crying racists racists racists all the way home.
Or will they take responsibility for their management of the campaign?
They will continue to work tirelessly, fearlessly and with wisdom and understanding for our folly, in order to improve the lot of their people, disregarding setbacks, insults and egregious, ignorant criticism. Which is more than our own politicians do, yes? Finally they will hit us with the ultimate insult: they will forgive us.