"A no vote will ‘bring shame upon us’ and signal reconciliation is no longer viable." Noel Pearson
Dr Colin Benjamin OAM FAICD FISDS MAASW
Director General Life. Be in it.
It’s been said that The Voice is either too little, too soon, too risky or too much. However, it's NOT TOO LATE to reconsider the gulf between the various NO campaigns and accept Noel Pearson's cry from the heart at the National Press Club this week.
The media continues to claim that Indigenous voices are divided on The Voice. They consistently promote falls in support in their polls. ?This raises two key questions –
(1)?? Why were the opinions of less than five hundred indigenous voters presented by the media-managed polls to reinforce the challenge to The Voice's claim that eight out of ten ATSI had supported the YES case and why did they refrain from showing where and how they managed to poll only online with no direct interviews across local homes? The pollsters need to be held to account.
(2)?? Why are indigenous peoples expected to have one voice and be regarded as one race who are seeking recognition in the Constitution rather than diverse national communities of landowners who were never consulted when the Colonies wrote them out of the Constitution along with women and migrants? Our Constitution needs to be finalised not frozen in Colonial prejudices.
Unlike other countries that have accepted indigenous land ownership, the UN charter, the ILO and the importance of listening to first nations, the Aussie Constitution has no legitimacy as the guiderails when the votes of the people in the ACT and the NT are excluded from determination because the Colonies wanted to protect White Australia and preserve their own powers.
Yes and No campaigns have established arguments for and against the proposal.? The issues have been hijacked by political leaders seeking to confuse the case of the best PM with a vote of NO rather than offer reasons for a century of failure to address the need for change to close the gaps.?
In the interests of a greater understanding of the reasons that people are confused by the NO case, here are some of the key concerns that do not provide any solutions to the failure to listen to women, migrants, or indigenous landowners when the 1901 colonies drafted their Constitution.
Nyunggai Warren Mundine, a leading organiser of the no campaign recognises that both migrants and indigenous landowners were not given a voice in the original Constitutional Assembly, running on a slogan of “recognise a better way”, proposing to insert an acknowledgment in the preamble of the constitution, via another referendum. Mundine says “We’re talking with the migrant community as well.“It’s about recognition of all the people who have come to Australia, who have been here first and how we built this great country of ours. Migrants and refugees who have come here – recognise their story, about the circumstances of how they’ve come here and their contribution to Australia”.
The main NO campaign is backed by the conservative lobby group Advance under the banner of "Australians for Unity", supported by spokespeople Warren Mundine and opposition spokesperson for Indigenous Australians Jacinta Nampijinpa Price.? Other prominent supporters of the No case include the federal opposition, including Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton and Nationals leader David Littleproud. Mr Dutton has said he would support a measure in the constitution that recognises Indigenous Australians, but not one that creates an advisory body enshrined in the constitution. Some No campaigners have also said they want to see the legislation that would govern the Voice before Australia votes on whether to create it
Here is what we must know about the various NO cases:
The Australians for Unity No campaign has three key arguments against the Voice:?concerns about division because they believe it could create the opportunity for legal challenges in the high court. and the unknown. They see the Voice as "divisive"?between Indigenous Australians and the broader population.
There is also a secondary NO case, referred to as?the "progressive"?NO, championed by independent senator Lidia Thorpe and the Black Sovereign Movement she represents in parliament.?? The progressive?No doesn't support the Voice proposal?but has different reasons than the mainstream No campaign.
Chris Merritt, Vice President of the Rule of Law Education says: “This Referendum is not simply about “recognition”. This Voice proposal goes much further and if passed, it would represent the biggest change to our Constitution in our history.? It is legally risky, with unknown consequences. It would be divisive and permanent.?? If you don’t know, vote no to avoid placing privilege in the Constitution's heart.?It would give Indigenous Australians – and their descendants for all time – a second method of influencing public policy that goes beyond the benefits of representative democracy that are already enjoyed by all citizens regardless of race."
The leading campaign for the 'No' campaign is ‘Australians for Unity” supported by Peter Dutton, as Leader of the Opposition. ?This campaign is put forward by Shadow Indigenous Australians Minister Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Warren Mundine. In May 2023, Price and Mundine merged their respective ‘No’ campaigns, ‘Fair Australia’ and ‘Recognise a Better Way.
TOO LITTLE
The Australians for Unity NO campaign has three key arguments against the Voice:?concerns about division, legal challenges and the unknown. They see the Voice as "divisive"?between Indigenous Australians and the broader population. ’Arguments for the 'NO' vote?include that the Voice won’t deliver meaningful change for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, or that Sovereignty and Treaty should be prioritised ahead of a Voice to Parliament. Mundine argues that Indigenous Australians need “more than recognition”; they need the government to tackle “strong social problems” in their communities.
Supporters of the progressive?No believe the Voice proposal doesn't go far enough because the body will be advisory only and has no independent power or veto over the parliament. They don't want Indigenous Australians to be inserted into the constitution, which some see as an invalid colonial document.?
The "progressive"?No platform also calls for action on Treaty ahead of the Voice because they believe that process could do more to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. Their supporters believe the Voice proposal doesn't go far enough because the body will be advisory only and has no independent power or veto over the parliament. They don't want Indigenous Australians to be inserted into the constitution, which some see as an invalid colonial document.
TOO SOON
There is also a No case, referred to as?the "progressive"?No, championed by independent senator Lidia Thorpe and the Black Sovereign Movement she represents in parliament. The progressive?NO doesn't support the Voice proposal?but has different reasons than the mainstream NO campaign.
The "progressive"?No platform also calls for action on Treaty ahead of the Voice because they believe that process could do more to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians.
TOO RISKY
Supporters of the NO case also say they don't want to see the constitution changed because they believe it could create the opportunity for legal challenges in the high court.
TOO MUCH THAT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED
Some No campaigners have also said they want to see the legislation governing the Voice before Australia votes on whether to create it.
The official NO case is
?
For all who want to know more about these NO cases and the YES alternatives, it’s time to read both sets of arguments. ??Go to aec.gov.au/referendums/pamphlet.htm authorised by a majority of those members of Parliament who propose a NO VOTE and by a majority of those members of Parliament who propose a YES? vote. IF YOU DON’T KNOW read these cases to make an informed choice on The Voice.
.
?
So there's 'cases' for 'No' but only alternatives for Yes?