 |
| From here |
Australians are obliged to vote, as they are in all elections. But me not -- I’m not allowed to vote, because I’ve been overseas for too long. So I don’t get a vote and living here arguably don’t have any skin in the game. Except that I since I looked at it, I came to think it’s consequential and will affect Australia for generations to come.
First up: I believe that people on both sides of the referendum, the Yes and the No, both believe in improving lives of indigenous folks. I don’t believe that racism plays any significant part of people’s motives. That’s just not right. Australians of all backgrounds are caring people and want good for all. Not to say there aren’t racists. There are; as everywhere in the world. But they are vanishingly few and don’t play any significant part in the public debate. I believe.
I first heard of the “Uluru Statement from the Heart” when it was announced back in 2017. I read the one-pager and found it rather lovely. The then PM, Malcolm Turnbull, rejected calls to implement it, saying that it would lead to a third chamber in parliament. At the time I thought he’d missed a chance to make a name for himself by listening to the Uluru Statement and doing something about it. But he didn’t.
Then we have Anthony Albanese, new Labor Party Prime Minister in May 2022, who committed immediately to implementing the Uluru Statement “in full”, via the creation of a “Voice” to parliament, made up of aboriginal (and only aboriginal) reps, in parliament, with “advisory” power to parliament on issues that might impact on the indigenous population.
And that’s what’s in train now. The lead up to the vote on Saturday, 14th October. Both the “Yes” side and the ‘No” side are frantically politicking. The Yes with way more money and the support of all of elite Australia: the in-power Labor Party; the Media; Academics; Entertainers. The “No” vote is not nearly so visible, tending to keep its head down, its major supporters in the indigenous community being: Senator Jacinta Nampijimpa Price and ex politician and activist Warren Mundine. With support from professor Anthony Dillon. The main on the Yes side: Marcia Langton, Pat Anderson, Megan Davis, and Noel Pearson, all of them also co-authors of the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
As an aside: there’s been a bit of a brouhaha of just how long the Uluru Statement is. Albanese claims it’s just the one page, that you get if you quickly Wiki it. Then Peta Credlin on Sky News Oz reported that it’s actually “27 pages”. She showed videos of the co-writers of the Statement to exactly that effect, both to the press and in important speeches. However, they later came to the PM’s rescue, by claiming that it was in fact “only one page”, ignoring their own clear earlier advice. There is indeed a much longer Statement, part of it, which has a lot more than the lovely words in the one-pager: talk of Reparations, for example, and Sovereignty over lands in Australia. One imagines that if the Voice is voted for, it won’t be long before a further 26 pages magically make a reappearance.
I first watched the Australian ABC's “The Voice Referendum explained", which I found informative and generally pretty neutral.
Then I looked into each of the cases.
What I’ve found is:
Yes side: the case is mainly emotional. Talk of the “generosity” of the Uluru Statement, the need to be “empathetic” for a Voice that will be “limited” and “advisory only”, it’s about “a fair go” and if you’re a “good person” you’ll vote Yes. I found -- to this day -- very little on the Yes side that is factual. That is: how will the Voice help “reduce the gap” between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians? What will happen that has not been tried? Mind, it’s pretty handy to have an emotional case, as people most often look at life through an emotional lens.
No side: the case is mainly on facts. It is not true that there is no representation, requiring a new Voice. There are already over 100 bodies representing indigenous community (which are then specified). What’s needed is to Listen to the cares of the indigenous in the far outback, for their needs: needs then specified and what needs to be addressed. Yet another Canberra-based elite with a new “Voice” won’t help them. There’s plenty of money -- up to $A 40 billion per year -- spent on indigenous affairs, more than twice per indigenous person as is spent on non-indigenous and what’s needed is a reckoning for how that’s been spent, and how it could better be spent.
Moreover, says the No argument: the Voice is by its nature, and design, a racist concept which will divide Australia. The No campaign, by contrast, it says, is all about reconciliation.
Simpler Summary:
YES: is all about continuing the “victimhood” narrative (and industry?). About continuing the resentment towards white settlement invasion.
NO: is all about Agency. Aboriginals can succeed in Australia. They can make it. They don’t need a “Voice” to be told that they've been oppressed and will always be oppressed.
In that way the dichotomy is a reflection of the race debates in the US. Of Victimhood vs Victory. Of the forever oppressed vs “you can succeed”.
In both the US and in Australia, in my view, the best prospects for disadvantaged communities is the one stressing agency. Which stresses possibilities. Which stresses hope. Which, yes, also stresses personal responsibility.
Jacinta Nampjimpa Price is an excellent exponent of the No campaign.
So, if I were to vote now, I’d have gone from a YES back in 2017, to a DON’T KNOW when I first started looking at it earlier this year, to a firm NO, now I know more about the arguments on either side.
ADDED:
- Jacinta Price at the Australian National Press Club (NO campaign)
- Warren Mundine at the Australian National Press Club (NO campaign)
- Marcia Langton at the Australian National Press Club (YES campaign)
- Noel Pearson at the Australian National Press Club (YES campaign)
