The Indigenous Voice Referendum: A missed opportunity for Australia to move on from its colonial past?

Brisbane Community rally in support of voting Yes for The Voice at the Referendum in Australia. Photo Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons.

On the 14th October, Australia held its first referendum in almost a quarter of a century. The Voice Referendum proposed greater political rights for Aboriginal and Torres Strait people. This demographic makes up 3.8% of Australia’s population of 26 million, and has lived in Australia for at least 65,000 years, but have never been recognised in the Constitution. The Voice would have amended the Constitution to recognise them, and also created an advisory body of First Nations people to work in partnership with Australia’s government. 

The result: a resounding ‘No’, with 60% ‘No’ votes, and 40% ‘Yes’ votes. Dreams of the ushering in of a new era of hope and progress for the First Nations people have been shattered. It is a result that was borne out of an extensive and deeply contested campaign that proved to be both polemic, and divisive, with one Australian friend of mine likening it to “basically our Brexit moment”.

Early polls in March sparked hope, and indicated a favourable stance to the ‘Yes’ campaign. However, since then the ‘No’ campaign channelled vitriolic discourse. Some of the misinformed ideas pushed were that it would lead to a South African-style system of apartheid and land seizures. Another that the new advisory body would become a red tape issue. Moreover, the rhetoric was clever: a simple directed slogan of “Don’t Know? Vote No” successfully appealed to undecided voters. Coupled with this being Australia’s first referendum in the era of social media, and parallels to an era of Trumpian misinformation are evident.

The ‘Yes’ campaign has been criticised for its lack of bite in the run up to the vote. A friend who voted ‘Yes’ admitted it was “a bit poorly run and written and it confused people into voting no”. Stan Grant, prominent journalist and part of the Aboriginal Wiradjuri people in New South Wales, offered criticism of the ‘Yes’ campaign’s strategy, saying it was “shrunk small enough to fit into politics” and that “it was determined that if the voice was made so inoffensive people may say yes. Instead, it was so inoffensive people found it easy to say no”.

A different friend voted ‘No’, saying that based on her understanding the new board would have “no more power than they already do … it didn’t make a difference for the community and seemed like a slap in the face”, adding that the referendum itself was a “waste of time and resources”. 

Additionally, the discourse between Australian politicians suggest that the referendum was more of an internal political dispute than an actual attempt to do right by Indigenous people. Current Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who led the ‘Yes’ campaign, defended the result, saying “this referendum and my government has put [the issue] right at the centre”. Opponent Peter Dutton, leader of the Opposition and staunch ‘No’ supporter, used the vote’s result to attack Albanese’s government: “What we’ve seen tonight is Australians in their millions reject the prime minister’s divisive referendum”. The subject of the referendum was in some ways not the focus: the fundamental human rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people need to be pursued in place of political gains. 

What Albanese is right in saying though, is that “we must take our country beyond this debate, without forgetting why we had it in the first place.” This is paramount to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are not further marginalised.

Opposition to Indigenous rights advancements is nothing new in Australia, a country that still needs to reckon with its colonial past and the racism that pervades its society today. The Mabo Decision in 1992 determined that before colonisation Australia had belonged to Indigenous people, and acknowledged their traditional rights to their land and waters. It also recognised their existence before British arrival in 1788. 4 years later the Wik Decision created Native Title claims to land that derives from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s traditional laws and customs. Both decisions were met with opposition and false claims, with similar rhetoric being seen in the ‘No’ campaign.

Hope for change in the near future is bleak: the Voice was proposed in 2017 and six years later, this result is devastating. What is the likelihood a vote like this will be reconsidered any time soon? At the same time, there is no easy answer to which outcome would have been the best. Some Indigenous leaders argued against the ‘Yes’ campaign, saying that it would not do enough. One question that needs to be posed to ‘No’ voters: if you voted ‘No’ because you did not think it would be effective, should that not be accompanied by a commitment to do more in support of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Australians? Alternatives must be offered. The history of ignorance cannot continue.