The following are personal reflections about The Voice referendum, which took place here in Australia 14 October 2023.
Last Sunday morning, I was apprehensive about checking the result of the referendum, but when I finally did it was demoralising and confusing. While lately, political outcomes often seem to be split finely on one side of a thin line, this referendum was resoundingly defeated. The electoral areas that voted “yes”, were small islands of urban areas situated in a sea of outer suburban and rural areas that voted “no”. The further away from urban centres, the more resolute the division was.
The referendum asked us if we agreed to a change to the Australian constitution that would recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and establish a “Voice”. The Voice would be a group of First Nations Peoples who would advise the Australian parliament on matters relating to indigenous Australians. The Voice would act as a body to address critically important matters such as the relatively poor living standards and health outcomes, and high incarceration and suicide rates of indigenous peoples in Australia. These are important concerns which hinge on a roughly two-century history of brutal injustices towards the non-European inhabitants of this continent.
My own personal view of the capacity of the current political institutions addressing matters of inequality and social justice are far from straight forward. While highly complex and replete with contradictions, the political establishment clearly prioritises the market and the economy over other aspects of human concern. It is clear that unimpeded growth of economic capital is an unquestioned “truism” that is even widely accepted by those whom this state of things negatively impacts. Further, political decisions are increasingly driven by backroom advocacy and lobby groups who act on behalf of business and industry, while elections are hinged on and seem to favour the side that best knows how to throw mud and make it stick. Then there is the division of communities along any possible line. Those with common disadvantage are cleverly disconnected and atomised; impeded from collective action that might address their needs. The politicians themselves, ostensibly representative of the interests of the general population, are increasingly privileged and insulated from the everyday concerns and pressures of most of us.
However, placing these doubts aside, there was a symbolic dimension to the question of this referendum that eclipsed any differences I have with current political process. Despite its ultimate capacity to change things, it was important as a step towards reconciliation and a move forward from the past. It was a way for the country today to signal a genuine acknowledgement of past (and present) injustices against indigenous peoples in Australia. To put it another way, while I believed the proposal wasn’t perfect – nor the political framework it would be situated within – the overarching principle and symbolic weight of supporting the Voice surpassed these concerns and paved the way forward for some kind of constructive change for indigenous peoples. It was a simple yes or no question.
Now that it has failed, many will and are saying that Australia is a racist country. From an international perspective, this is quite concerning. Added to this country’s dubious standing regarding its inhuman treatment of refuges, it will likely lead to a very negative impression. However, singularly calling the result out as an expression of racism is overly simplistic and does not acknowledge other factors that contributed to this.
In the days leading up to the referendum there was a concerning sense that those opposing the Voice had swayed the masses. It became confusing to hear prominent indigenous leaders, such as the independent Senator, Lidia Thorpe vehemently opposing the Voice. Misinformation was rife. Even the official Australian Government pamphlet on the referendum, which included arguments for both sides, projected accusations which were unfounded and intended to cause fear, such as a Voice would “open the door for activists”. There was overt misinformation, too, such as: “There is no comparable constitutional body like this anywhere in the world”, when in fact, for example, such bodies have been in place for the Sami people in Scandinavia since the 1980s. More concerning than this, I heard that there were ridiculous claims being circulated on social media, such as: agreeing to the Voice could result in the loss of one’s home, or voting yes would lead to increased mortgage interest rates.
Perhaps we will never know exactly how damaging the lack of accord between various groups has been. In a climate of uncertainty, people chose the conservative option. They stuck with what they knew. Perhaps they were more concerned with self-interest, but likely also overwhelmed by unrelenting cost of living pressures. While there are undoubtably backward elements in any society – including proponents of racism – I do not believe it is reasonable to conflate the intentions of all of those who voted no under this banner. The principle itself, and what it represented was undoubtably used as a political weapon by those with other agendas; and misinformation and other divisive tactics were summoned to nefarious ends.
What I regret now was not doing more. I felt passionate about this referendum, but objectively felt that people’s better sense and sense of fairness would shine through. We might not have another chance to have a say about these matters, but already there are signs that this defeat has sparked renewed motivation for positive change. But I would maintain that the best chance of really meaningful change for all who are oppressed is a collective approach to address the underlying root causes of inequality: the political and economic system which is currently pulling us all towards war, greater social polarisation and climate catastrophe.