The Voice Referendum: Can I vote Yes-ish?

 

The 2023 Australian Referendum, like most other matters in contemporary society, has been problematically reduced to two starkly opposing outcomes:

Votes yes if you are not a racist.  

Vote no if you are a racist. 

Now I understand that an alteration to the Consitution can only be resolved by referendum and that this necessarily requires a binary response system. However, the point here isn't in the content of the vote itself, but rather the blanket meaning that is almost automatically imposed by the stance taken. 

Aside from the fact that a black and white approach glosses over an otherwise nuanced political problem, the wider issue is that this attitude is vastly detrimental to free-flowing political discourse and the ability to reach effective outcomes. The truth is that nothing is black and white, and certainly no socio-political issue is void of grey-area.  

This is paradoxically, both the greatest advantage and biggest downfall of humanity. While it allows opportunity for exploration and meaningful solutions to be discussed, in practice it often results in over-simplification and division. 

Black or white. Yes or no. Right or wrong.  

There's no in between. 

Indeed, this is exactly what is exemplified in contemporary Australian society and political leadership.

The national recognition of the Indigenous Australians in the Australian Consitution, has undoubtedly been a topic of contention nationally and internationally, with many western nations such as Canada, United States and New Zealand recognising their First Nations People's in their respective constitutions. While it is a matter of debate whether this recognition has eventuated to real and continuing positive outcomes for the Indigenous Peoples of these areas, the point here is that the symbolic recognition of the colonial history and sovereignty of native communities is important. 

Needless to say, Australia has been a straggler in this regard, not only in its constitutional recognition but also in its political practice. The Howard government's strong resistance to issue a formal apology to Indigenous Australians, and the Rudd government's 'better late than never' rebuttal to this in 2008, is a prime example. 

The 2023 referendum thus, appears to come waving a white flag - a step towards the right direction. 

At least that is what Prime Minister Anthony Albanese seems to insist. 

Is it fair then, to consider all opposition to the proposed constitutional alternation as racist and anti-Aboriginal? 

While figures such as Tony Abbott, although reasonably criticised at times, have openly announced a 'no' vote, is this fact alone enough to slam them as 'racist'?

A critical analysis of the 'No' campaign reveals a valley of nuance, which its adopters claim is underpinned by a genuine desire for reform and progression in the Aboriginal Australian community. 

Now more than ever,  it is vital to recognise that the motion to include an Aboriginal Voice in the referendum signifies more than just a symbolic recognition, and actually has strong legal roots and implications. 

This potentially volatile legalistic effect is precisely where the difference of opinion lies. 

Currently, s 51(xxvi) of the Australian Consitution, commonly known as the 'races' power, allows the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate 'special' laws affecting particular races. While it no longer discriminately excludes Aboriginal Australians after the 1967 referendum, in its current practice, this power is exercised to legislate for Aboriginal People. 

While there is a general assumption that such laws will be used to 'positively' discriminate, such as protecting Aboriginal cultural heritage sites from commercial use, this isn't a game of chess; there is always a chance for the unexpected. 

The High Court's landmark decision in Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1998), highlighted this very gap in the Constitution, which leaves scope for laws that could negatively impact the Aboriginal Australian community. The case largely indicated that the power to enact laws for or against the Aboriginal community rested largely with the parliament and therefore, those elected into power. 

The crux of the pro-Voice argument is therefore:

Why should Aboriginal Australians not have a say in decisions that will impact their community? 

Given that the Aboriginal community is comparatively few in quantity and widely dispersed, does the current system of representative Parliament appropriately represent the 'voice' of the Aboriginal People?  

The opposition however comes forth with equally convincing arguments against this alteration and whether its intended goal will be viably achieved in this manner. The Liberal Party, which has historically taken a conservative political role, have summarised the proposed alternation as risky, unknown, divisive and permanent. 

Importantly, the opposing side argue that the proposal for the alternation severely lacks detail in terms of its pragmatic operation, such as its long-term effects on Parliamentary power. 

Shouldn't Australian's have the details of such a landmark change before they vote, rather than after the fact? 

How can a centralised 'voice' of twenty-four members be representative of the Aboriginal population which spreads across over 250 clans? 

Why haven't alternative avenues been considered before a radical alteration, such as a Constitutional Convention which has been the trend during previous referendums?  

According to the 'No' voters, the risk of unprecedented legislative and executive power, far outweigh the potential benefits of 'The Voice'. 

Separately, many have shunned the referendum as proposing permanent division to the united spirit of Australia. The Fair Australia grassroots movement, led by Aboriginal-Australian Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, has voiced the opinions of many, including Aboriginal Australians who deem the move as racially divisive. 

The stark opposition however does beg the question: what political motives sit behind this referendum? 

The naysayers seem to espouse the view that Albanese's heavily funded 'Yes' campaign is simply a political facade - a virtue signalling campaign that lacks the foundational strength to tackle real issues facing the Indigenous community. 

Why can't Albanese close the gap through direct measures such as increasing funding to remote Aboriginal areas or increased educational resources? 

The heavy funding of the 'Yes' campaign, and endorsement from unlikely allies such as Qantas, Coles, Woolworths, and allegedly some mining companies (which are in the business of acquiring land), raises some cause for suspicion. While appreciation of Australia's colonial history has peaked in the midst of 2023 'wokeness', it seems rather strange that million dollar companies have somehow scrapped their annual KPI's for         'Good Samaritanism'. 

The over-arching point however remains, that despite the opposing opinions, the 'yes' or 'no' vote is far more than a battle between a pro-Indigenous and anti-Indigenous sentiment. A critical view of either side uncovers a society with a similar goal for unity, respect and progression, which just happen to travel different routes towards a common destination. 

While the 2023 referendum is a certainly period of political contention, it is important to use such historically significant events as an opportunity to analyse the 'grey-area' that we often seem to ignore.

For in between the cracks of the 'Yes' or 'No' is perhaps where the true solution is to be found. 

On a balance of probabilities therefore, can I vote 'yes-ish' this Saturday?