Dwindling majority

I have had a range of interactions that have provided insight into the thinking and feelings of some of those who voted No in the Meaningful Recognition Referendum last year.

Observation

It is interesting (to me) to see how their belief that the Referendum was about voice, truth and treaty (and for some, reparations) is critical to their view of the outcome of the Referendum and of a range of actions that have occurred since the Referendum. To be more explicit, there is a significant cohort of No voters who believe that the No vote was a "No" to voice, truth and treaty. This then leads them to believe that any actions being taken in any of the States or Territories to advance voice, truth or treaty are contrary to the express wishes of the voting citizens of the relevant State/Territory and are regarded as "backdoor" attempts to proceed, contrary to these expressed wishes.

Responses

I am not surprised at this situation. Nor do I blame them for holding such beliefs. The extent of misinformation and disinformation that prevailed through the course of the journey to the Referendum means that it was very difficult for people to have confidence as to the essence of the proposed changes to the Constitution and the rationale for those changes. As people start to become more aware of the core intent of the request embodied in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which made a clear distinction between seeking meaningful recognition in the Constitution by requiring our Parliament and Government to listen to the First Peoples of Australia and pursuing truth and treaty through a Makarrata Commission, they are likely to have a range of thoughts:

• Why was there such confusion?
• Who caused the confusion?
• What was their motivation?
• What does this mean for the future?
• How should I think differently about actions progressing in various States and Territories?

And various feelings:

• Outrage at being misled
• Disappointment at a missed opportunity
• Dismay that a majority is dwindling to become a minority

Support

As I said, I do not blame people finding themselves in this situation. For many, it was not of their making. We need to have compassion for their mixed feelings, their outrage, their regrets and be ready to support them to more openly and honestly engage in:

• Exploring how Australia can best move to accepting Indigenous sovereignty that has never been ceded and the subsequent sovereignty that has evolved through the formation of our nation and our journey to the present day
• Supporting the exploration of past events and present circumstances, which in some cases, mean that systemic injustices continue to be caused by key societal systems
• Developing their own journey whereby they can walk alongside First Nations people to advance a more inclusive, just, equitable and reconciled nation of Australia

What was the essence of the Referendum question?

There has been a long history of seeking recognition of First Peoples - see https://ulurustatement.org/history/the-journey-so-far/ The most recent process for establishing recognition in our Constitution commenced with an Expert Panel in 2012, the Referendum Council in 2015, the issue of the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2017 as the output of the process initiated by the Referendum Council, and ultimately the conduct of the Referendum in 2023.

In essence, this was about establishing enduring mutual recognition of First Nations people (who have never ceded sovereignty) and the sovereign nation of Australia. The proposed changes were to incorporate wording which was proposed and supported by 97% of participants in the First Nations National Constitutional Convention seeking meaningful recognition through establishing the principle of an enduring voice to Parliament.

Did the Referendum seek acceptance or rejection of engaging in voice-giving, truth-telling and agreement-making with First Nations People?

Any Referendum only seeks agreement to changes in wording to our Constitution. Each voter decides on the merits and may have numerous reasons for accepting or rejecting the proposed changes. It is not possible to infer what reasons motivated the Yes or No vote for each voter.

It is on this basis, that I expect there will be a growing realisation over time that the Referendum result did not and could never indicate the degree of support for advancing voice, truth or treaty.

Each of these elements (even voice) are subject to introducing suitable legislative arrangements. There were and are voters who support a legislated Voice but not one enshrined in the Constitution. Each piece of legislation, for voice, truth or treaty will be subject to decisions of Parliament and will proceed through the normal democratic processes. In all likelihood, just as is occurring with the Truth and Justice Commission Bill at present, there will be opportunity to make submissions in relation to any proposed legislation. Ultimately, Parliament will decide the final details of the legislation that underpins each of these elements.

Moving forward

It is important for us to continue to engage with our fellow citizens in developing a deeper understanding of the manner in which we can realistically and respectfully establish recognition, voice-giving, truth-telling and agreement-making with First Nations people in our States, Territories and our Nation.