There’s still some way to go until the referendum on establishing an Indigenous Voice to Parliament — it will reportedly be held in mid-October. Yet polling shows the chance of the constitutional amendment passing grows slimmer by the day.
I will leave to others the critiques of the Yes campaign, the contextualisation of Australia’s possible historical rejection of constitutional change, and the theft by the cost-of-living crisis of the required generosity of spirit from Australians required for it to prevail.
Instead I’ll consider what happens to this country if the Voice goes down. In particular, what happens to the movement for Indigenous rights, Australia’s international reputation, and the health of our democracy.
The modesty of the Voice proposal, and the generous and conciliatory tone with which it’s been advanced, is a triumph for the Indigenous Elders and other moderates campaigning for Indigenous rights. Yet as seen in independent Senator Lidia Thorpe’s exit from the Greens due to their support for the Voice, some seeking Indigenous empowerment — many of them younger and thus the future of the movement — see treaty, not a Voice, as the priority.
If Australia rejects the Voice, the hit to our international reputation will be profound, similar in scope to the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States, and the UK’s decision to “Brexit” the European Union. Indeed, the loss of the Voice referendum will be seen in broad strokes as a slap in the face to this country’s Indigenous peoples.
No prizes for guessing how the Coalition and its media partners will weaponise such judgments, especially when paired with the inevitable and deserved tut-tutting by international human rights organisations, to stoke the indignation and grievance of No voters, a move that will further polarise the electorate and undermine democracy.
Australian democracy has some advantages when compared with that of America, including mandatory voting, a parliamentary governance system, and an economy that hasn’t suffered its second credit downgrade in just over a decade due to a “steady deterioration in standards of governance”. But the success of the No vote will embolden conservative media outlets, allowing them to further ignore their obligation to inform voters rather than dividing, confusing and inciting them.
The amplification of such bad-faith “alternative facts” — as well as the unregulated threat of artificial intelligence — is a problem we share with the US. Which is why if the Voice referendum fails, I hope Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will have learnt something about the vulnerability of our people and institutions to the damage caused by hyperpolarisation, and act to mitigate its toxic effects on Australian democracy.
If he won’t hold a royal commission into the Murdoch press, or the Australian media landscape more broadly, he must at least ensure that journalists, media organisations and media owners understand and fulfil their obligations related to the essential role they play in democracy, and are held accountable when they do not.
Expanding and refining our capacity to restrict the spread and impact of misinformation and disinformation across the media ecosystem must be pursued, including ensuring that much-needed AI regulation prevents the data used to train AI tools from containing falsehoods and misinformation.
Rather than the Voice referendum being the “unifying Australian moment” Albanese wanted, it has instead proved the ability of morally bankrupt conservative leaders and their toxic media partners to hyperpolarise the Australian community, and weaken democracy.
Fair enough. The same arguments were debated by those who produced the Uluru Statement before they decided to put the Voice first. What I cannot see, now that we are here with the Voice proposal, is how voting against the Voice would in any way help the cause of seeking a treaty. A treaty less likely, not more, if the referendum goes down.
Who would the government treaty with if there is no Voice first? Pass the Voice referendum and then there will be a group to negotiate a treaty.
There are already state treaty processes underway
There are about 500 different Aboriginal peoples in Australia, each with their own language and territory and usually made up of a large number of separate clans.
So there would potentially be many treaties.
Or one umbrella treaty, if indigenous people were open to organising their representation as a form of federation.
If this sounds complex, that’s because colonial disruption, which had 200 years in which to scramble the old order, made it so. Those children were taken and relocated for a reason – to make it hard to unwind.
Our Indigenous people come from approximately 300 separate nations.
Treaty can be negotiated with the elders from these nations.
A treaty is unlikely if Voice gets up for the same reason Compensation was put off the agenda when Rudd said Sorry. The symbolism is a ruse to stifle debate and pretend the issue has been addressed.
If Voice is defeated, perhaps the 49% who want it will get mad enough to run a 3 year campaign to push for real change. To get there, and bring ordinary Australians with them, will require social upheaval and the stomache for a fight, or at least the willingness to tell the truth and move the discussion and the plan beyond symbolism.
Or perhaps Voice will get up, and nothing will change.
I cannot believe that for a moment. If the Voice referendum fails no government for the foreseeable future will touch either voice or treaty proposals with a barge pole. Once bitten, twice shy; if the relatively simple and unthreatening first step of a Voice is too much to swallow, the chance of getting a meaningful treaty over the line is a lot less than zero.
Just by getting up, things will have changed. If it then has little or no discernable impact on government policy and their outcomes, still things will have changed. And if it is seen to be achieving nothing it would reinforce the arguments of treaty first supporters and give all the more reason to push for a treaty. After all, if the Voice somehow fixes everything and suddenly it’s all just great (ok, not going to happen, but for the sake of argument), then you’d have a real reason not to bother with a treaty, wouldn’t you?
What did Sorry change? Certainly not anything to do with the causes of Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, or the consequences of stolen children.
The real danger is that Voice passes and becomes the voice of Noel Pearson’s Cape York development agenda, causing a rift with those who don’t benefit from the projects he wants pushed e.g. the same people who didn’t benefit from RCADC and Sorry.
What we need, SSR, is marching in the streets decrying the brutal crimes and calculated cultural genocide that 200 years of mendacious bureaucracy has wrought. But that won’t happen unless things get beyond the passive symbolism of Sorry and Voice.
Or maybe it will and I’m just impatient. I don’t know how to predict what will happen. I’m just saying I think if Voice is defeated, the minority who want real action aren’t going to fade into the background. They are going to rise up. Can they bring the rest with them? I don’t know.
Sorry shone some light which was sorely needed. It was good. It raised the possibility that people are up for the truth. When the truth gets its foot in the door the rest must follow, eventually. Killing the Voice won’t stop it changing the school curriculum. Generations bring change and if ours can’t do it we’ll look pitiful in the eyes of our kids, and they’ll do it, only better. A referendum no would just be another step along the way.
An idea cannot be killed.
but it can fade away – Can’t remember some of the multitude of ideas I thought of yesterday
They weren’t ideas, DG, they were thoughts. Not a single Eureka! moment among them. Or you’d remember it.
I’ve tried to get my head around this too.
And I don’t think an unsuccessful referendum will help gain a treaty…
But I believe where Blak Sovereign’s are coming from is that our govt is illegitimate. The land wasn’t vacant and FN peoples were never conquered, nor did they cede, meaning they retain sovereignty.
Akin to Putin setting up a Parliament in the territory siezed illegally from the Ukraine.
They believe that by voting Yes, one gives this illegal govt the imprimatur of legitimacy.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could thresh out this no argument, instead of all the conspiracy and racism laden trash that’s currently dominating the discourse.
Your description of circumstances is certainly arguable, but where in practice does it lead? Is any government likely to concede it is illegitimate?
I doubt it.
I don’t necessarily advocate for it…I’m happy to call their stance morally / ethically correct, but I think it lacks pragmatism.
I’ve just tried to understand where the Blak Sovereign movement is coming from and articulated it above as I understand it. Happy for more knowledgeable people to correct any inaccuracies I’ve inadvertently portrayed.
You’re correct JAR. It’s a question of sovereignty.
Does this referendum legitimise a false sovereignity? That’s a good question.
That argument is of course being made by various parties, but it’s based on a complete furphy because voting for the voice, or against it, or not at all, has no relevance and makes no difference to the sovereignty of the FN peoples one way or the other. It does not cede anything.
It costs a lot of energy and time.
For what outcome?
We don’t know yet.
People like me would rather put the energy and time into Truth telling first, so that ordinary ignorant people can better appreciate what crimes and tragedies happened. Most people are decent. If they knew how scrambled our history is they might have more willingness to spend resources to fix it, instead of just fig leafing it with symbolism.
The problem is that the Voice referendum elides the question of sovereignty, a central issue concerning FN political participation when a referendum necessitates public debate. This is how the Voice has already broken the narrow bounds of Turnbull’s question of what meaningful ‘recognition’ in the constitution would look like. It can only really be meaningful if both parties ‘recognise’ each other. Indigenous Constitutional lawyer, Professor Megan Davis may recognise constitutional power, but Senator Lidia Thorpe does not because the constitution doesn’t recognise Indigenous sovereignty. Of all people, Malcolm Turnbull should have foreseen this problem when he tasked Professor Megan Davis et al with the question of what meaningful constitutional ‘recognition’ looks like. Whether yes or no wins (and I’ll be voting Yes) meaningful constitutional reform is what we need. A complete rewrite that respects Indigenous sovereignty over the Republic of Australia and thereby establishes the terms of the Treaty.
Begs the question, why did the Blak Sovereign movement only emerge in 2023 around the Voice campaign and Thorpe leaving the Greens?
It didn’t.
Heard of the tent embassy? Sovereign Union? They’ve been around a while.
Lydia Thorpe was one of the 7 delegates who walked out of the Uluru dialogue in 2017, and stated the Blak Sovereign cause even then as the reasoning:
“We as sovereign First Nations people reject constitutional recognition. We do not recognise occupying power or their sovereignty, because it serves to disempower, and takes away our voice,” she said.
“We need to protect and preserve our sovereignty.”
“We demand a sovereign treaty with an independent sovereign treaty commission, and appropriate funds allocated.”
She called for the treaty negotiations to follow the Vienna convention on treaties.
https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/we-wont-sell-out-our-mob-delegates-walk-out-of-constitutional-recognition-forum-in-protest/v42y9atu4
Given the commentary on the Voice, it’s clear that some amongst us still carry a deep seated hatred of ATSI Australians.
If the Voice goes down, it will be our Brexit or Trump moment.
What happens next, who knows, but it will weaken and possibly destroy the Albo government, who are not doing much else.
We will all wonder why Albo led with this rather than take the fight forward on so many other issues, such as climate change, housing, rampart corporate profits or the environment.
Yes a ‘do nothing ‘ government when there is so much to do!! The main players still seem so traumatised by the loss in 2019 they are incapable or unwilling to re assess what is important in 2023-2024! It seems as if a Labor government will continue to follow a conservative, (LNP) government, ideological and destructive policy. Namely the Stage 3 Tax Cuts!!
when the Voice is lost and the pressure builds, Albo and his WAP Government will have little to show in the lead up to the 2025 Election. Possible slogan: ‘Albo- not as bad as Scomo!
I am starting to see why the rabids went after Bill Shorten with such ferocity – he had some ideas for modest change, and he would have overseen greater fairness in Australia.
Australia missed a great opportunity.
It seems the Labor government and movement are now castrated, terrified of any real change.
A “no” vote would be the opposite of those two because “no” would be maintaining the status quo and those two were about changing the status quo.
The fact that so many people on the “yes” side fail to appreciate that is one of the main reasons it will likely fail.
Because fundamentally the “yes” have approached this whole issue as if most people agree with them when in fact they’re the ones asking for a change.
When people disagree with them or ask questions they are then dismissed but in doing so the “yes” is actually dismissing the status quo or claiming that the status quo is somehow wrong, and worse “morally” wrong.
Which means they’re telling the people that they’re trying to convince that what those people currently believe or have is wrong or worse “morally” wrong.
And who wants to admit to being wrong or worse “morally” wrong?
OK, fair point, but look at the players in all 3 countries and you’ll see they are the same.
Same players, different game!
Same rules.
Different approach…
a NO vote means the constitution won’t change then the momentum to actually do something will continue with add traction . a YES vote will mean ,we got there , and nothing substantive will then happen. A NO vote will actually unify the nation in getting things done without fear the constitution is now corrupted by racism.
I doubt it. Once killed, it will stay killed. Australian republic, anyone?
“Rather than the Voice referendum being the “unifying Australian moment” Albanese wanted, it has instead proved the ability of morally bankrupt conservative leaders and their toxic media partners to hyperpolarise the Australian community, and weaken democracy.”
It was designed to be precisely what it turned out to be.
It was designed to be a “unifying Australian moment” for the far-right. Look at the people who steered the Liberal Party with Howard and their leaders since to the far-right fringes (eg, CT Group), and look at who is the strategist behind Albanese and the YES side of the Voice to Parliament – and you will find one and the same person.
The decision to go against precedent and deliberately let the debate descend into a free-for-all by not having official YES and NO organisations that would take responsibility for the arguments presented in the debate was the critical decision with the Voice to Parliament.
The problem with this valid argument is that it assumes that albo and the Labor party are unaware or complicit. Or that they are unable to comprehend that our conservative media have their own agenda and more say because they own how a story is presented. The government’s yes campaign managers history is truly creepy and suggests one of the first 2 possibilities.
I don’t have the full story – but I agree that Albanese (with a small clique) has to be complicit with CT Group – but they may be unaware of how or where the CT Group could be steering them and the consequences. It looks like Albanese has complete confidence in CT Group and will follow them blindly. That’s just my opinion. The attitude seems to be: If you want to win, do what I say. I have the record and the answers. Summary – it looks like Albo (Ltd) has been taken in by a confidence man.
With the history of the CT Group – it is fair to say that concern for the welfare of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities is of no concern whatsoever. The community is being used with the Voice to Parliament referendum debate for other ends. Constitutional recognition is being offered to them like a handful of glass beads, and some leaders are falling over themselves to gain the offer.
The problem with this valid argument is that it assumes that albo and the Labor party are unaware or complicit. Or that they are unable to comprehend that our conservative media have their own agenda and more say because they own how a story is presented. The government’s yes campaign managers history suggests one of the first 2 possibilities.
How could Labor and albo not see that conservation media would wreck this?
I haven’t seen any indication that “The world is watching”