The YES case lacks conviction

Around the edges, advocates for the YES campaign say the Voice to Parliament is:?

1. practical;
2. it will do no harm;
3. it is a generous offer;
4. it is not racially divisive; and
5. it is a vote for hope over fear.

This hides the uncomfortable realisation that at it’s heart, there is no conviction and certainly no substance. There is no clear coherent reason to vote YES.?

As the emotional bullying escalates, it is important to keep grounded.

There are five reasons we should not blindly trust that the Voice will make the grass-roots impact that is needed. And why we need the courage to withstand the moralistic coercion and vote NO.

Will the constitutional reform lead to practical change?

The Referendum is about inserting words into the Constitution. Recognising indigenous Australians as the first Australians is accomplished by making the amendment.

However the Voice advisory body has to be set up at a later point by legislation. Whether that body will make any real impact naturally depends on its constitution, the representatives, their conviction and ability to work with each other and the Voice’s unknown powers and functions. And importantly, the will of Parliament and the Executive arms of government and the political climate at the time.

On the evidence available to us, that the Voice is a structure and system capable of making a practical impact is an unknown. Right now, it is the exact opposite of practical, it is merely words.

Is the Voice a generous offer?

For it to be a generous offer implies that the advocates compromised down from a harder or more favourable position. You cannot assess this without the context of what other proposals could, hypothetically, have been put forward.

We can speculate that whether it is generous depends on what is ultimately desired by the lead architects. To understand what the architects might really be working towards, you need to read all of the pages of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The long-form Uluru statement is a document setting out the outcomes of a process that key leaders have run for some 15 years. ?

From it, you can glean the Voice forms part of a journey to “treaty” and “truth telling”. Even campaign leader and Founder of the Cape York Partnership, Noel Pearson, has publicly declared that the Voice is the first step. It opens the door. To what, nearly all other Australians – except the advocates and lead campaigners – are blind.? Other prominent advocates have also declared that step two is a treaty.

The Uluru statement says that Makarata is another word for “treaty” or agreement-making and that “it is the culmination of our agenda”. It goes on to say that “…a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resource issues…”

In the context of the words of the lead advocates and the longer-form Uluru statement, that the Voice is a generous offer is a lie (and at best a noble lie). The available evidence demonstrates that it aims to be a stepping stone, a carefully crafted entry point, to secure the real political outcomes.

Is there “no harm” to the reform?

No reasonable person observing the public discourse and campaigning from all sides can deny that the Referendum itself has been socially divisive and damaging. Calling those who earnestly want to understand more about the reform “conspiracy theorists” and “racists” is regrettable and shows the sheer desperation and lack of care to engage in meaningful public discussion. But grossly mismanaging the expectations of a vulnerable community, and exposing them to this hurtful process, is inexcusable and shows the advocates and “leaders” are not up to the task.

But more to the point, how can one claim what the benefits or harms of the Voice will be when we do not know what powers the body will have, who will sit on it and how it will go about making change. If nothing eventuates from the constitutional reform, then perhaps the harm will be “minimised” to the damage caused by the Referendum. However if the Voice becomes a dysfunctional bureaucracy (like past bodies) then it could result in the permanent diversion of funds and resources away from those who are truly in need. And this could just be the start.

This is not fear mongering or misinformation. This is a potential reality based on evidence, past experience and history. After the Voice is enshrined in the Constitution, what happens next could be beneficial or harmful.

That the Voice is not racially divisive?

In an ABC QandA episode, on 2 October 2023, Noel Pearson argued that it is not racially divisive because Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander peoples are “first Australians” and not a race. The Director of the Centre for Indigenous Training, Wesley Aird, a man of aboriginal heritage, rebutted that regardless of them being the first Australians, they are still a race.

This is the biggest lie at the heart of the YES campaign.

Of course ATSI peoples are the first Australians AND they are also a race or races.

This artful charade is necessary to deflect attention away from the indisputable fact that the Voice will grant a preferential legal right to a group based on their race. In principle, the Voice is racist. How this all plays out in practice will largely be a social experiment that could end up being racially divisive. Wesley Aird made the insightful comment that by enshrining a permanent Voice, it could also be enshrining permanent ATSI disadvantage, because the implicit assumption is that the body will need to exist in perpetuity.

Is voting YES a vote for hope over fear?

When all else fails, the case hones in on aspirational motives. Is it a vote for hope, optimism and positivity? No doubt this is a very subjective thing.

Is it hope or stupidity to trust the same people who, by their own admission, have failed over and over again, with something as big as this? ?Is it optimism or delusion to vote in favour of a constitutional change that, on the evidence available to us, suggests that it will make absolutely no difference to the lives of the those most disadvantaged? Is it positive or patronising to think that you can miraculously make, or somehow compel, Parliament and the arms of government “listen” to you when we are told they have failed to listen for decades?

Is the Voice a real and practical vehicle for self-determination and grass-roots empowerment or a phoney, all talk and no action, political junket of the elites?

We all know that we have to balance our heart with our head, our emotions with our intellect, hope with preparation and dreams with planning.

If we don’t, it’s delusion and irresponsible.

We need conviction to make real change

There is a reason that many turn to emotional blackmail and name calling. It’s because they cannot make a reasoned case. There are many “moral” calls to action to vote Yes, an ironically well-funded corporate public relations and marketing campaign and high-energy chest-beating.

But all of this hides that, at its heart, the affirmative case lacks conviction.

The lack of conviction alone is evidence enough that, should the Referendum get up, there is a real risk the Voice will fail as a vehicle for self-determination and empowerment and potentially enshrining permanent disadvantage.

If the Referendum fails, then there is a need for fresh people, thinking and ideas to make real change on a “needs basis” and create a brighter and united future for all Australians including the most disadvantaged.

New voices and leaders are emerging in our midst.

Prath Balasubramaniam is a lawyer and the Managing Director and Founder of Capital Five Partners

The views expressed in this article are his own

This article was first published in Issue 7 of The Hoodies Magazine