The Nos have it - but where to from here?

I was heavily invested in Yes, but the vote is clearly No. The Australian people have spoken.

So where do we go from here in Australia’s relationship to its colonial history and First Peoples? To be honest, I do not know. But I often find it helpful to write things down as an aid to clarifying my thoughts.

On being a fellow traveler with First Nations

I do not and cannot speak for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island individuals, communities, or organisations. I have, however, been engaged as a fellow traveler for 20+ years. My family involvement goes back much further. I have visited remote communities as a volunteer and in a professional capacity. I have also volunteered with, and consulted to, Indigenous organisations in urban, regional, and remote areas and engaged in peer-to-peer business projects with First Nations professionals. I have informally mentored several Aboriginal leaders and managers. I believe my actual contribution through these experiences has been minimal, but I have learned a great deal.

In fact, providing solutions and solving problems is not the point of being a fellow traveler. Fellow travelers have a relationship, they walk together, side by side, each bringing something to the journey. My white fella[1] mentors in working with First Nations counselled me to shut up, observe, to listen and to learn. They drummed into me the imperative of not leaping to quick, easy judgements. They stressed that it was important I did not see my role as solving alleged problems, issues I likely did not understand anyway. And if those matters were important, they were not mine to address.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures have successfully solved problems on this continent for 60,000 or so years before we arrived. Yet repeating failed First Nations’ policies has a long and distinguished history in Australia. This leads to frustration, blame – including blaming First Nations communities who often have solutions imposed on them – disillusion and disengagement.

Feelings of both disenchantment and hope provided the background to the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the October 14 referendum.

Where to now: seek first to understand, not to allocate blame

One way to continue the momentum for reconciliation, a fairer Australia or whatever we call it, is to set aside blame allocation for the referendum’s failure and seek to understand why people voted the way they did.

Voters always have reasons - rational, irrational, informed and ill-informed - for their views. Such reasons are important whether one agrees with them or not.

The 'Big P' Politics

It is worth dispassionately examining the big picture politics. I am not a member of any political party and never have been, but some understanding of the political context is essential.

Coalition leaders backed self-interest and took the risk that their voters would back No

The Nationals and Liberals placed a high-risk political bet on No. You can say it was a cynical bet, you can argue that they walked away from 10 years of bipartisan negotiations and collaborative work with First Nations, and all that may be true, or partially true. But in the cold light of day, it is apparent that Liberal and National electorates generally supported the No case made by their respective party machines. Sure, there was misinformation and even lies from the No side, but that always happens in political campaigning. (The Yes campaign also skirted with the truth. I suspect that the claim that ‘80% of remote First Nations voters support the Referendum’ will continue to be disputed even as polling booth data seems to prove 80% was not far off.)

National Party Leader David Littleproud's electorate delivered the biggest No in the country as I understand it. I am making a political not an ethical statement here, but if Littleproud had gotten this issue wrong, he would have been unceremoniously dumped by his Parliamentary colleagues. Instead, he went with career self-interest. Self-interest is a strong human motivating force. Self-interest constantly battles with higher human aspirations like love, equity, and self-sacrifice in me as much as anyone else.

In Coalition circles, cum the morning after, so to speak, Mr Littleproud’s status is enhanced as no doubt is Peter Dutton’s. There are those that argue that what the Coalition has gained from the No campaign will only benefit them in the short term, but only time will tell.

Outer urban Labor seats did not support Yes

Coalition electorates may have backed their parties but in Labor-held electorates, except for the inner-city enclaves in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, voters did not follow the lead of their sitting Labor members. What’s more, it looks like voters in general were not swayed by messages of Yes from Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community leaders, sportspeople, or popular, well-loved musicians. They also did not listen to business leaders from enterprises that advocated for Yes. To muddy the waters further, once Liberal, now Teal electorates, including that of former PM Tony Abbot, went strongly for Yes. There are indications that several electorates with large numbers of voters born outside Australia also showed higher levels of Yes support than the general population.

Whatever the nuances, rural and regional areas and the outer ring suburbs of major cities voters did not buy in to Yes for whatever reasons. And they carried the nation.

Other factors

Factors like the very real cost of living crisis came in to play but I doubt these were a key reason for No. In the medium term, voters may be indicating by their lukewarm Yes response that there could be painful follow-on consequences for politicians who do not re-focus on the cost of living and housing. All politics is local. It was a Democratic advisor to President Bill Clinton who suggested that the answer to all political questions is: ‘It’s the economy, stupid!’

I am not being cynical in raising these issues, but simply laying out the range of pragmatic, political and electability realities governments will need to deal with in moving beyond the referendum results. It is for others more qualified to unpick and draw lasting meaning from voting data over the coming weeks and months.

How did our First Nations vote: the 4%?

What of electorates with large Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island populations, particularly in remote areas? At the time of writing, available data indicate that they tended to vote Yes. Personally, this is a source of grief; perhaps it should be so for the nation. But it is not for me to tell the rest of my country how to think or respond. My hope is that once the dust settles, we can come to grips with the idea that our First Nations’ brothers and sisters asked more of the rest of the country than we were prepared to give.

But we are talking about 4% of the total population, 3.8% actually. And despite so much that is wonderful and good and successful about First Peoples, that 4% of our citizenship has shorter life expectancy, is less well educated, suffers from more chronic illness, is more economically disadvantaged and less connected to 21st century communication platforms than virtually any other demographic segment. This being the case, if large numbers of the ‘96%’ Non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island population are not prepared to stand with the vulnerable, less well resourced ‘4%,’ the voices of the latter will not be heard. This is not a matter of paternalism, of doing good deeds for the needy, but of the sheer weight of numbers.

On the positive side of the ledger, millions did vote Yes, which gives me significant cause for hope.

The journey to justice and mutual understanding continues

Let me make my position explicit. There is an element of justice for our First Nations that must be addressed by Australia. There are historical and current wrongs to be acknowledged and righted; there are truths to be told about dispossession, exclusion, and marginalisation, of murder, rape, racist beliefs, exploitation, and even systemic wage theft. Perhaps a treaty or treaties will be necessary: several States are already a way down this road.

But to get significant reform and change in Indigenous affairs in our country, the kind of changes that lead to better, fairer, longer and healthier lives for our First Nations, No-voting individuals and communities must be taken voluntarily on a journey that will likely involve varying degrees of discomfort. The responsibility for encouraging such individual and collective journeys largely sits with non-First Nations persons.

As a Yes-voting white fella, I do not believe that reconciliation and mutual understanding will be enhanced by Yes supporters such as me telling No voters they are wrong or, or that they lack compassion or that they are racist or through shaming them. But if I were asked what we should do next, I do not know, and I don’t need to know. Thankfully, we are a nation of smart, passionate and engaged people. The collective mind and heart are bigger, better, and stronger than that of any individual. But what ever the way ahead, I trust in the options that come from our First Nations.

Moving beyond symbolic versus practical action

This is a false dichotomy. In most areas of human life, we agree that symbolism and practical action are both important. For example, if someone is rude, or a child bullies another child in the playground, it is the norm to ask for both an apology and a change in behaviour from the perpetrator. After WWII the German people were expected to express regret for their actions and change the way they ran their country, including the symbolism of what was written in their Constitution.

Yet in terms of the cost of the recent referendum, and the alleged distraction from more important matters it brought about, it is argued by some that the money would have been better spent on ‘practical programs’ for Aboriginal peoples. In contrast, as recently as 2015, Australia spend $100M on a new museum in France to commemorate our World War I veterans.[2] Just a few years later the government set up a Royal Commission into veteran suicide. [3] Yet no one is arguing that $100M to commemorate a war that finished 100 years ago would have been better spent on preventing veteran suicide now. Why not? Why was erecting an expensive ‘vanity project’ half a world away not critiqued as a distraction from the crisis in veteran mental health?

Action can be an easier option than reflection and self-insight, particularly if it is the morality of aspects of our nation’s past that are under consideration. What present day Australian wants to grapple with historic massacres of innocent Aboriginals if the alternative is instituting a tough audit of spending in the Indigenous Affairs portfolio now? The murderers, rapists and land thieves are long dead…surely an audit will fix things.

Symbolism matters. Practical action matters. It is not one of the other. If constitutional reform is now off the agenda, other symbolic gestures must be explored in conjunction with practical action.

Under what conditions might views be changed

Levels of education are another dividing line between the Yes and No camps. I fit into the over-educated, over-qualified, Yes-voting bucket. Many will not doubt put me in the ‘Woke’ bucket too - but as a self-employed business person and company director, and practicing Christian, I don’t quite fit the Woke archetype.

In the past when I have changed my views on big issues there have invariably been three conditions in play:

·???????? Time to reflect

·???????? A safe environment to explore different options; and:

·???????? Direct contact with those who held views different to mine

It is almost impossible to set these conditions to set in place on a national scale. It will take localised, bespoke, but coordinated action.

Walking with, and standing by, the voiceless

It is easy for me to ask that people be given time to explore and perhaps change their views of First Nations matters. I acknowledge that there are those in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities who feel that they have waited long enough for meaningful change and that a disproportionate share of the energy and drive for change comes from them.

This is why more of the 96% must stand by, travel with, and bear witness for, the 4%. And for as long as it takes.

Those who know their Christian bibles will know the verse below, and its context. The words were spoken by Jesus himself. They were addressed to people who said they were his followers but did not feed the hungry, clothe the naked or visit those incarcerated in prison:

'‘I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’

Interestingly, he makes no mention of whether or not the prisoner deserved to be in prison of if the hungry had gambled away that week's food budget.

This saying articulates a vision for humanity far greater and more impactful than that of a Voice referendum. It speaks to a way of life, a world view, where those of us with power, means and money - and whatever our beliefs - use their abundance, their talents, their actions, to plead the case of the poor, the powerless and voiceless. To give a voice to those who struggle to be heard.

One Aboriginal friend of mine related that when she went to her suburban polling booth to vote a woman in a hijab put her arm around her and whispered, ‘we’ve got your back.’

The weight of history: referenda in Australia are mostly unsuccessful

The weight of history cannot be over-emphasised. Of 45 referenda, only 8 have been successful. A loud message from The Big Vote is that Australians do not like changing our founding document. There is a hard-wired propensity to say ‘no’ that should warn us all to take care, and do our homework, when the nation is asked to make constitutional change.

Philip Pogson FAICD, Company Chair and Director

The views expressed are my own and do not reflect those of any organisation I am involved in. In addition, I do not speak for or on behalf of any First Nations’ community, organisation, or person.

Further reading:

From 1788 to 2023 so much to do with First Nations history and the coming of colonial settlement is contested. That is why I read widely and critically. These are some of the books I have found helpful.

·???????? Welcome to country by Marcia Langton. An Aboriginal take on place

·???????? Song Spirals by Gay’wu group of women. Rare insights into women’s roles in Aboriginal song lines

·???????? William Cooper: An Aboriginal Life Story by Bain Attwood. A remarkable Aboriginal leader whose story deserves to be better known

·???????? A White Hot Flame: Mary Montomeria Bennett, author, educator, activist for indigenous justice by Sue Taffe. The daughter of a wealthy Queensland pastoralist, Bennett spent decades of her life as an active campaigner for Indigenous peoples. This included working as an educator in remote Western Australian Aboriginal communities teaching ‘full blood’ Aboriginals to read and write when it was illegal to do so. She was a well-connected, organised and articulate 'pain in the arse' for the WA government!

·???????? Return to Uluru – by Mark McKenna. This leading historian pieces together the story of the murder of an Aboriginal man at Uluru by a non-Aboriginal police officer and the decade’s long cover up that followed

·???????? Truganini by Cassandra Pybus. I was educated in the era when we were taught that Truganini was ‘the last Tasmanian Aboriginal.’ She wasn’t, and her life was one of suffering and exclusion

·???????? The Passion of Private White by Don Watson. Watson is a well-known political writer from the left. He tells the story of Neville White, a Vietnam veteran who became an anthropologist working in remote Arnhem Land. Watson often volunteered with him on visits to Arnhem Land so has quite a degree of firsthand knowledge. The dysfunctions, frustrations, contradiction, laziness and idiocy of First Nations’ policy are revealed.

·???????? Why warriors lie down and die by Richard Trudgen. This is a controversial book by a non-Aboriginal who has spent decades in Arnhem Land. It challenged my preconceptions

·???????? Dog ear café by Andrew Stojanovski. An everyday non-Aboriginal from the East working on what were successful anti-petrol sniffing campaigns in remote Australia. He tells the truth as he sees it. This book helped me to understand why it is important to shut up and listen when visiting remote communities

·???????? The biggest estate on earth – by Bill Grammage. Uses a range of research to illustrate how First Peoples actively cultivated and shaped the Australian environment.

[1] I occasionally use the term ‘white fella’ but not its opposite, while acknowledging the fact that both terms can be used with affection and in ways that are derogatory. https://australianstogether.org.au/assets/Uploads/General/AT-Language-and-Terminology-Guide-2020.pdf

[2] https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/100m-monash-centre-to-form-entry-point-to-france-s-western-front-20180413-p4z9cg.html

[3] https://defenceveteransuicide.royalcommission.gov.au/

?