The Voice to Parliament is a battle for Australia’s soul but where will it end?

The October referendum: A defining moment for Reconciliation

The Voice to Parliament referendum has been set for October 14, 2023. This referendum proposal, which has been in the pipeline for nearly a decade, evolved from a unified and bipartisan starting point and has morphed into a conservative-led contentious and polarising issue within the nation’s political landscape. At its core, this referendum is not just a vote on a legislative change; it’s a litmus test for Australia’s stance on race relations and just how serious it about the pathway towards Reconciliation.

Put simply, the “Yes” campaign appeals to a positive and better future, not just First Nations people, but for the country as a whole. On the other hand, the “No” campaign appeals to a myopic inward-looking past, a historical attribute that we wished had been pushed to a far-distant time, but has been easily retrieved by a hate-led Liberal Party and mainstream media that is based on fear, insecurity and, in many cases, outright racism.

How is it that a relatively small and insignificant amendment to the Constitution – and a largely immaterial change for so many people in Australia but could provide great symbolic and practical change for First Nations people – has been whipped up into an irrational media-driven frenzy of racism and hate?

It’s an easy answer: mainstream Australia has great difficulties shedding its racist past and, despite the success of the Mabo decision in 1992, the great white experiment of terra nullius still continues up to this day, a concept that many seem to be resentful for giving up for fear of losing their ill-gotten gains acquired during two key dates: 1788: the original invasion; and 1901: the date the conquest was officially signed-off into one of the most racist and exclusionary Constitutions devised by a team of old, white, bearded men, who had no intention of including anyone of colour, especially the First Nations people.

Initially, the concept of a Voice to Parliament enjoyed bipartisan backing in its inception in 2015, when it was presented to then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, and supported by then Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten. Both sides of the political aisle recognised the importance of addressing the concerns of Indigenous communities and advancing Reconciliation efforts. However, the narrative surrounding this proposal took a sharp turn when certain elements within the conservative faction of the Liberal Party decided to exploit the Voice to Parliament for political gain. What began as a shared commitment to progress soon devolved into a divisive issue driven by political opportunism and, as we have seen historically, whatever actions are adopted by the Liberal Party, are soon followed and supported by the mainstream media.

For many Australians, particularly those of First Nations heritage, this referendum carries profound significance. It signifies more than just a checkbox on a Reconciliation “to-do” list. It is a chance for Australia to take meaningful steps toward addressing the historical injustices faced by Indigenous communities. While it may not fully meet all expectations, the referendum represents a blend of powerful symbolism and a substantial stride toward practical solutions.

The significance of this referendum extends beyond its legislative implications. It presents a challenge to the broader Australian community – a challenge to reflect on their commitment to Reconciliation. Over the past few decades, words advocating for Reconciliation have been spoken frequently, but the extent of genuine commitment has often been questioned. How many businesses and organisations create Reconciliation Action Plans, but then leave them withering behind, gathering dust in the corporate board rooms? The referendum provides an opportunity to demonstrate whether these sentiments will be translated into action.

However, the outcome of the referendum remains uncertain, with some individuals expressing skepticism about its success. While it won’t achieve the remarkable 90 per cent support garnered by the 1967 referendum, it is essential to acknowledge the factors influencing public sentiment, and the role of political leaders cannot be overlooked in shaping public opinion.

The Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton’s stance on the referendum exemplifies the intersection of pure political opportunism and a lack of principle. His choice to prioritise political expediency over the “right thing to do” has fuelled doubts about the referendum’s prospects. Instead of embracing the proposal as a bipartisan initiative and expressing the Liberal Party’s commitment to its core principles, Dutton’s approach has been marked by political calculation.

Moreover, this referendum has not escaped the broader trend of right-wing extremism influencing Australian politics. The takeover of the Victorian Liberal Party by an extreme right Pentecostal faction illustrates the impact of radical ideologies on political decision-making. Dutton’s alignment with these elements reflects a growing trend of political pandering and ideological compromises.

At its core, the referendum debate reveals a disturbing undercurrent in conservative Australian politics, where winning elections is pursued at any cost, even if it means sacrificing principles and causing damage to the social fabric of the community.

In the face of these political challenges, the Australian electorate is left to grapple with the implications of their vote. It is not merely a question of supporting a legislative change but also a consideration of the broader consequences for the nation’s political landscape. In this crucial moment, the responsibility rests with both politicians and citizens to contemplate the values and principles that underpin their decisions.

The Voice to Parliament referendum in Australia is not just a vote on a legislative proposal. It represents a critical juncture in the nation’s history, where political opportunism clashes with the imperative for Reconciliation. The referendum tests the commitment of Australians to addressing historical injustices and offers an opportunity to bridge the gap between words and actions. The outcome remains uncertain, but the implications for Australia’s political landscape are profound, underscoring the need for thoughtful consideration and principled decision-making.

The historical First Nation struggle for justice in Australia

The road to Reconciliation in Australia has always been a challenging journey, marked by resistance and reluctance to address the historical injustices endured by Indigenous peoples. Throughout history, initiatives aimed at returning rights, land, and dignity to First Nations communities have faced formidable obstacles: the Land Rights Act of 1976 to the Mabo decision in 1992; the creation of the Native Title Tribunal; the National Apology to the Stolen Generation in 2008; all were met with significant resistance and each historical step towards justice has been met with fierce opposition and skepticism. Even attempts to repatriate culturally significant artifacts, such Yagan’s head from England, have faced resistance.

The Voice to Parliament referendum is no exception to this pattern. While Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s words have echoed a message of unity, opportunity, and Reconciliation, there remain significant challenges on the horizon. The promise of “a more unified, reconciled Australia with greater opportunities for all” is a compelling vision, but it is not without its detractors. Current opinion polls suggesting a surge in support for the “No” campaign remind us of the divisive nature of this issue.

Opposition to the referendum is fueled by powerful conservative interests, whose tactics often rely on misinformation and misrepresentation. At times, this opposition reveals an underlying strain of racism, and it appears to be motivated by a nihilistic desire to obstruct progress for the sake of obstruction, with racist rhetoric and unfounded claims clouding the debate, diverting attention from the core issues.

Dutton’s recent claim that the ballot is “being rigged” due to the distinction between ticks and crosses by the Australian Electoral Commission, is a prime example of the misinformation campaign surrounding the referendum. Such baseless allegations undermine trust in public institutions, and this divisive rhetoric mirrors a troubling global trend, reminiscent of tactics employed by former U.S. President Donald Trump. While Dutton’s actions may be seen as a poor imitation of Trump, they reflect the unsettling state of affairs within the Liberal Party.

The challenges posed by these tactics highlight the critical need for informed and thoughtful discussions among the Australian populace. Conversations within workplaces, sports clubs, faith communities, and among family and friends are essential for countering misinformation and promoting a clear understanding of the referendum’s purpose and significance.

The history of Indigenous rights and reconciliation in Australia has been fraught with resistance and struggle. The Voice to Parliament referendum represents another pivotal moment in this ongoing journey, offering the promise of a more unified and reconciled nation. However, the path forward is not without its challenges, including a well-funded opposition fueled by misinformation and, at times, racism. The responsibility now falls on the Australian people to engage in meaningful conversations and make informed decisions that reflect the values of unity, justice, and progress. Only through such engagement can the nation hope to overcome the obstacles and achieve the promise of a more inclusive and reconciled Australia

What comes first: the Voice or the Treaty?

One of the central arguments by some Indigenous advocates against the Voice to Parliament proposal is the notion that it should come after the establishment of a Treaty, a subsequent step in the Reconciliation process, rather than a precursor. This viewpoint acknowledges the intertwined nature of these initiatives and the difficulty of achieving a Treaty without the foundational support of the Voice. It’s a complex, chicken-and-egg scenario, where the order of implementation remains contentious.

But very few in the “No” campaign are proposing a Treaty: if they are so vehemently opposed to the simple proposition of the Voice to Parliament, it’s highly unlikely that they would support the steps that are considered to be more complex, such as a Treaty. And for conservative politicians, more complexity just provides a greater option for political opportunism and race baiting.

The lengthy process leading up to this referendum has, understandably, generated frustration. Indigenous communities and their allies have waited for 122 years for meaningful change since Federation in 1901, and the prospect of another decade or so before a Treaty is realised is understandably disheartening. However, embracing the Voice to Parliament now brings the nation closer to the eventual Treaty, preventing further delays that could extend for decades beyond.

While governments often lose referenda – 36 of the proposed 44 questions since Federation have been defeated – the historical precedent indicates that an unsuccessful referendum outcome does not necessarily lead to an electoral defeat. Nevertheless, predicting the political fallout of this particular referendum remains challenging. The divisive nature of the campaign and the persistence of the “No” campaign’s tactics make it difficult to foresee the ultimate impact on the upcoming election.

In this context, the figure of Peter Dutton emerges as a central and controversial figure and his approach to the referendum debate has been marked by racism and a failure to demonstrate leadership. While divisive strategies have found support in the past, there is a growing sense that such tactics are losing favour within the broader community. The referendum outcome will be a litmus test of whether these divisive strategies still resonate with voters.

The one-Elder strategy

Additionally, the Liberal Party’s adoption of the “one-Elder strategy”, where individual MPs claim to have consulted with one Indigenous leader who opposes the Voice to Parliament, raises questions about the depth of community engagement and the diversity of perspectives within Indigenous communities.

One particularly striking example occurred on the ABC’s Q+A, where the Liberal MP Aaron Violi asserted that an Indigenous leader in his electorate is opposed the Voice to Parliament and, as a result, he was also going to advocate for a “No” vote. We don’t know who this Elder is – Violi claimed that if he was named, he would suffer a backlash from his community – we don’t know in which circumstances these comments were made: was it a community forum; was it a meeting in Violi’s office; was it an impromptu meeting in a café or on a street walk?

We don’t know the answers to any of these questions, yet Violi’s assertion creates doubt and flies in the face of the evidence that around 80 per cent of First Nations communities support the Voice to Parliament proposal. Such strategies risk oversimplifying a complex issue and ignoring the varied opinions within Indigenous communities. Should MPs base their decisions after consulting with just one person? Anecdotes, rather than evidence?

It also raises questions about the role of the mainstream media in these circumstances. Violi should have been interjected by the host of Q+A, and told in no uncertain terms, that because he couldn’t verify his story and wasn’t prepared to name who this Elder is, that it shouldn’t be used to push a political line: it’s one of the key tenets of professional journalism – unnamed and unverified sources cannot be taken to be truthful, and his commentary should have been closed down. But such are the standards that exist at the ABC, who in general, seem to be fueling the public scepticism towards the Voice to Parliament, purely because it’s been presented by a Labor government.

As the referendum campaign intensifies over the next six weeks, it is likely that the “No” campaign will continue to employ similar tactics – statements based on the experiences of one unnamed individual, disingenuous commentary, and even outright lies.

We all lose under a “No” campaign driven by fear and division

Regardless of the referendum’s outcome, it is unlikely to significantly alter Peter Dutton’s political standing. His divisive and polarising approach has garnered both fervent opposition and indifference. If the referendum were to result in a “No” vote, it would be a narrow one, and unlikely to transform Dutton’s image or attract newfound support. The public perception of Dutton is deeply entrenched, and this referendum alone is unlikely to substantially alter his political fortunes.

Looking beyond the referendum, the changing landscape of Australian politics and society comes into focus. While there are still elements of racism within the country, they no longer hold the same sway as in previous decades. The voices of those espousing racist views may be growing louder, but their influence is diminishing. Australia has made significant strides in combating racism, although there is still work to be done. The end of the era represented by figures such as Dutton appears imminent, as their divisive tactics find fewer receptive ears in a more inclusive and enlightened Australia.

As we approach October 14, the future of the Voice to Parliament referendum remains uncertain. But what is clear is that the nation is watching – and the international community – and the choice made on that day will reverberate through Australia’s history.

It is a testament to the resilience and determination of First Nations people and their allies, who continue to push for a more inclusive and equitable Australia. Irrespective of what happens on October 14, and despite the antics of the destructive and demeaning “No” campaign, Reconciliation in Australia will continue: it’s too important to give up just because of a group of conservative and nihilist Liberal Party MPs who are just too far gone down the rabbit warren to know any better.

And it’s also essential to remember that the day after the referendum, Australia will still exist as stolen land and there are large tracts of territory that have never been handed back to the original owners. It is the land of First Nations people: always has been; always will be. That will never change.