The other day, I got the above in my mail, and you (if you live in Australia) probably did too. It contains two things: a guide to what a referendum is in Australia and how voting will work (our last one was in 1999), and a pamphlet that contains both an argument from the Yes and No sides for the Voice, presented side by side, put together by "the majority of federal Members of Parliament and Senators who voted for or against the proposed law to alter the Constitution, and who desired to forward such an argument". Each was restricted to 2000 words. In this post, I want to spend a bit of time looking at the arguments put forward by the No side, and basically, why I think they don't hold water.
Two things first, however.
One, some reading this might not have any context for what any of this is about! So here in Australia, there is a referendum coming up to vote yes or no on creating a body called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. It would be able to make recommendations to Parliament about laws and situations that were relevant to First Nations people. Because at the moment, we don't have a specific group that does that. So that's what all this is about, and it's taken us a while to get here!
And two, I want to acknowledge that I am not a First Nations person, and those are the voices that people should be listening to first and foremost in this matter. I am presenting my thoughts, because I think I have a platform (small as it may be), and try to use it when I can to do some good; but I am still a white fella talking about black fella issues. So I'm noting that.
Alright! With that said - let's dive in.
Some general notes first. The "No" argument has clearly been presented in such a way that it's designed to scare. Titles are in all caps (the "Yes" argument just capitalised the first letter of each title), and words like risky, unknown, divisive, permanent, are front and centre. This is the sort of language that is designed to scare people who are unsure. It's targeted specifically at conservatives, to speak to them and how they think and feel, and will hit home and find a strong audience there. But, as we'll see - it feels like a lot of noise about not much.
The argument starts off with a summary of the whole argument, with headings of "RISKY", "UNKNOWN", "DIVISIVE", and "PERMANENT". It then launches into ten reasons that it gives to vote no. Let's tackle them one at a time.
1 - The Voice is legally risky.
They basically say here that we haven't changed the Constitution since 1977, so changing it now, ooh goodness, big and scary! Definitely don't do that, who knows what could happen! If anything, for me, hearing that we haven't changed our Constitution since 1977 - it's extremely concerning to me that we're still working off that same document, 46 years later. It's a different world now. A lot has changed since 1977! Since then, we've gotten laptops, cell phones, the internet, CDs, DVDs, GPS, Bluetooth, DNA testing, 3D printing, and much more. Trying to run a country based on ideas and thoughts from people that were around 46 years ago - that's what scares me. We shouldn't be scared about the fact that this is the first change happening for 46 years; we should be glad there's finally change happening! (And probably push for more, in fact.)
2 - There are no details.
This section is saying, there are so many things we don't know! We don't how many people it will have, or exactly how it will help, or how it will be put together, or anything like that; and that we should figure all of that out before we decide whether or not we're going to do this. The problem is, it's already taken us a long time to get here. Way too long. (Because, unsurprisingly, certain groups have been dragging their heels the whole way.) If we need to wait until we've figured out exactly what it's all going to look like - it's never going to happen. It will just get stuck in debate forever. (Which just wastes everybody's time.) We know that this is a good idea. We know that this is what we want to happen. Let's trust that the people who are put in charge of this will do it right, and figure out how best to make it work - right now, we need to make a decision to say if it's even going to happen.
3 - It divides us.
Here, the "No" argument says that this would create a permanent divide between First Nations people and other Australians, by putting this section specifically about them in the Constitution. After all, there isn't any specific section about other people groups! The problem is, there's already a divide. And this has been shown time and time again through statistics - that First Nations people are worse off when it comes to literacy rates, life expectancy, health, incarceration rates, and more. They're often treated as second-class citizens, and that's not okay. We need to do better for them, after all the shit we've done to them over the generations - invading their land, killing them, stealing their kids, and plenty more besides. This is such a small thing in comparison to all of that. It's only a starting point. But it's something.
4 - It won't help indigenous Australians.
This one's pretty simple. They say it's not actually going to help, not going to do anything - there are so many different bodies already representing First Nations people, and having something at a national level would really overlook smaller communities and such. But that's literally arguing against what this is specifically for. The Voice to Parliament is specifically to be a consulting group for the Government around issues regarding First Nations people. That's something that's dearly needed, and that currently doesn't exist. Does it solve all the problems that exist for First Nations people? Of course not. And there are no claims that it will. But it will help. And it will be in the exact spot to have the most potential to do the greatest change.
5 - No issue is beyond its scope.
This is what it says on the tin. They're concerned that they'll be able to have input on literally anything and everything, and that doesn't sound good, does it? Well, actually, it kinda does. Having more diverse voices in the room and contributing to the discussion when you're talking about things is always a positive. Being afraid of that, or pushing against that, is not a good sign. We don't need more decisions that are just being made by straight white men.
6 - It risks delays and dysfunction.
This is an extension on the previous. Since the Voice can comment on anything and everything, it's going to slow everything down and grind government to a halt. This feels mostly like fear-mongering, honestly (as do most of these arguments, to be fair). Yes, bringing more voices in can slow things down. But hey, welcome to democracy. That's basically what that is.
7 - It opens the door for activists.
Here they've kinda used a "slippery slope" argument; but also, this is actually pretty accurate. Just, like, I'd phrase it positively rather than negatively. Because there is still so much that needs to be done to help First Nations people. This is just a first little bit. We need to make changes happen.
8 - It will be costly and bureaucratic.
This is basically saying, we don't know how much it will cost! It could be a lot! At the same time, though, this could potentially save money, by making sure that money doesn't get wasted - instead, getting it to where it needs to be.
9 - It will be permanent.
Oh no! We can't change it once it's done! Best just to not do it, right? ...again, this is fear-mongering. This shouldn't be a reason to not do something good.
10 - There are better ways forward.
They're not really clear on what these "better ways" are. They say that the process has been rushed (it's literally taken decades), and that we could just do recognition in the Constitution without actually having change - but that's frankly insulting. It's like if there was a person bleeding out on the road, and someone just pointed out, "Ah yes, they're bleeding out," but didn't actually do anything to help. It doesn't do anything to address the issues that are happening.
Hopefully, this has felt like a good look at the arguments put forward by the "No" side - and why they just don't stack up. If it's not blindingly obvious by now, I'll be voting Yes. And I would strongly implore you to do the same. This is something that has been a long time in coming, recommended by First Nations people, and will be able to help make a change for them, for the better. Let's make it happen.
