Like most humans, I have a crippled sense of empathy regarding politics. I swim along in the pleasant pool of my own opinion, assuming that most people are as sensible and insightful as I am and justice will forever reign.
But politics isn’t that simple. Working democracy requires constant emotional agility to imagine the humanity of our opponents. So I’m trying to figure out why it’s starting to feel like a vote on the Voice may swing ‘no’ in a couple of weeks. I’m trying to claw my way out of the lefty Labor bubble that so many progressives find themselves in, only to be rudely surprised by the election of a Trump, Abbott or Boris.
Politics is rarely as binary as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, which is partly why referendums feel shitty. Giving Australians a choice between ‘yes’ and ‘no’ doesn’t feel like an actual choice. The government says, ‘Please support this wholly and without question’ - and anything other than a compliant ‘yes’ is a ‘no’. That’s bullshit.
And yet, it’s the system we’ve got. Fair? Not particularly. But according to the laws of people long dead, we need a referendum to change the constitution. And why are we changing the constitution? Because those same long-dead people deliberately and harmfully excluded the First Nations people of Australia. We need to correct their mistake.
Triggered? If you’re seriously considering a no-vote (or a protest vote) and you’ve just switched off - I beg you - stay with me. I’ll get through this as quickly as I can.
Let’s address the annoying issue of why we need a referendum. And no one has explained it better, in my view, than Wil Stracke, below.
To be clear, the Voice is a body of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who provide non-binding advice to the government on issues that are related to them.
The government of the day, elected by the Australian people, decide and can change how this body is run and managed.
The Voice came about through something called the Referendum Council. This was a group of academics and politicians from across the political and racial spectrum who consulted the Australian community on this issue. It was commissioned way back in 2015 and delivered in 2017. Those on the Council were experts in Australian law and political representation.
We can’t expect all First Nations people to agree on the Voice - indeed, some of them will vote no. Expecting all First Nations people to agree on how they will be represented is a racist idea. Of course, their opinions are as diverse and multi-faceted as any other Australian group.
Most of the time, in Australian law, however, we tend to trust experts. Most of us go about our lives and don’t tune into politics much, as councils and committees, like the Referendum Council, are appointed and advise the government.
The Voice comes from just such a process. It’s an idea established by people who know what they’re talking about. I’m not an expert on constitutional law or First Nations representation, so as a citizen, I choose to take the advice of those who have dedicated their lives to those areas instead.
But there’s a larger question here that needs addressing. The idea that First Nations people need ‘special’ consideration. Australia’s sense of egalitarianism is strong, and the idea that our constitution would put one demographic above others goes against our cultural values. We believe in a ‘fair go’, and this seems like a leg-up, when so many other Australians are struggling.
I understand how that can be so offensive to some. But I’d also point out a simple truth: they were here first.
They were violently oppressed. We don't teach this in history class, but the ‘Frontier Wars’ raged across Australia, and there was - in any view of history - an attempted genocide in most of Australia. (You can check out a map of the massacres from the Frontier Wars here). According to a University of Queensland study, there was a 90% reduction in the First Nations population between 1788 and 1900.
The legacy of that oppression lives on in the First Nations people of Australia today. This has been proven relentlessly in academia, medicine and law. First Nations Australians are still more likely to be imprisoned, removed from their home, die by suicide, and have children who are not school-ready.
Every Australian must consider: can you really de-couple the idea of First Nations history from First Nations people living today? Can you look in the eye of the infants who don’t have access to childcare or kindergarten and say ‘this is because you haven’t worked hard enough to access the opportunities that we give you’?
Australians believe in fairness, but we also believe in helping our fellow citizens when in need.
The Voice enshrines in the Constitution an empowerment of the First Nations people who have been oppressed for our entire colonised history.
Some are saying - my mates included - that this isn’t enough.
And I’d agree, this is the start.
And maybe we should have a treaty first. I don’t particularly have an opinion on that. But to vote ‘no’, or to write ‘treaty’, doesn’t help that issue. It doesn’t go into a pile marked ‘next time’. Instead, it demolishes any momentum First Nations recognition has for this government.
The plebiscite on same-sex marriage was utterly imperfect. But the left side of politics rose above the process because we recognised it was more important to get the job done.
The left side of politics has faced similar hard decisions on matters such as the climate tax or asylum seeker rights and fouled the ball off. We’ve said, ‘no, that’s solutions not good enough’ and let ‘perfect’ be the enemy of ‘good enough’. In so doing, we let those issues atrophy for a decade.
I’m not into fear-mongering, but to outline a brief nightmare scenario for you: a ‘no’ vote damages this Federal Labor government severely enough that we end up in a Federal election next year. In Queensland, that’ll happen in the same year as our state and local elections. On the back foot, Labor and Lefty politicians struggle to regain momentum, and we end up with the LNP and their mates gaining significant ground. A vote for no isn’t the same as a vote for Prime Minister Peter Dutton…but it could help us get there.
Overseas, they’re comparing this to our ‘Brexit’ or ‘Trump’ moment: a defining crossroads. A vote that should be simple, a done deal, but could swing momentum to the right of politics in a way that will take decades to recover. And we don’t have that time.
I’ll be voting yes.
I’d ask you to do the same.
If you got something out of this, I’d love you to share it around. x