It was a few days before the Referendum and I was wearing my badge when someone asked me, ‘So, why are you voting Yes?’
Well, after all those months I had a whole catalogue of answers to choose from, depending on the circumstances, the time I had, the demeanour of the person, the mood I was in. My first go-to was usually, ‘Because when governments listen to people about issues that affect them, they make better decisions, get better results and deliver better value for money.’
‘But,’ the questioner might ask, ‘why do we need it in the Constitution?’
‘Because all the past advisory bodies have been abolished when the government of the day didn’t like their advice, and this one can’t be.’
‘So why should Indigenous peoples have this special access anyway?’
In fact Indigenous peoples have had special treatment since 1788. Special massacres, special confinement to camps and reservations and missions, special wage theft. Special policing, charging, conviction and incarceration rates – and special rates of deaths in custody. Special rates of child removal. Special suicide rates. Special, low life expectancy. Why not special access now? (I never got to use that one but might have, if pressed).
But that day last month I was all out of puff. What came out was, ‘Because it’s not much, but it’s better than nothing.’
I realise now how true that was. The question we were asked on 14 October was whether we should enshrine a Voice, an Indigenous advisory body, in the Constitution. An advisory body. The government would not need to act on its advice. Heck, they wouldn’t even have to listen, despite a claim I made on these pages in May. It wasn’t much.
Not much, but better than nothing. And nothing was what the ‘No’ side was offering, and the ‘No’ side won, so nothing’s what we’ve got.
Where to from here? As devastated as I am about this lost opportunity, the next question for me now is the threat to our democracy exposed in the Referendum campaign. In general terms, advertising in Australia must be truthful. Whether you’re selling cars, vitamins, toothpaste or tomato sauce, you’re not allowed to lie. But when it comes to political advertising, that rule flies out the window. You can say what you like to capture a vote, whether it’s to install your candidate in a seat or knock down a perfectly reasonable change to the Constitution.
I’ll now be writing to our local Federal Member, Kristy McBain, to ask the Government to introduce legislation that outlaws lies in political advertising, because the Federal Opposition will be emboldened by how easy it was to sway the vote using misinformation and sowing fear and confusion. The ‘No’ campaign’s tactics have been labelled ‘Trumpian’. God help us.
This piece was first published in The Triangle community newspaper in November 2023.
It wasn’t better than nothing; it was always a weak proposition and assimilationist in its intent. The debate also exposed every Aboriginal person in the country to an unrelenting and unforgivable wave of racism that was predictable from the outset. All for a mere advisory body that could be defunded or restructured at will by an incoming government. All up it was a major distraction from Treaty, self-determination and land rights. The claims of the body’s powers were deliberately misrepresented by both official campaigns – yes and no. The only group telling the truth about the powers of Voice was the Black Sovereign Movement but they had no resources to run a campaign:
https://elink.io/p/black-dissent-and-the-voice-91c1a0a
Serena, I agree that Aboriginal people were exposed to ‘an unrelenting and unforgivable wave of racism’ but this was because the Coalition decided to oppose it. Until then, it was not predictable at all. Dutton politicised it, destroying it for the sake of advancing his own career.
Albanese did what Aboriginal people asked him to do, nothing more, nothing less. It would have been the seed from which Treaty could grow.
I totally agree with everything you said Jen, and particularly appreciate your paragraph about “special treatment” for Indigenous peoples. You are welcome light in a darkened room.
Thanks Tony. Yes I really let loose with that one.
Jen, I completely agree that misinformation in political advertising is a threat to our democracy. Could the letter you write to your local member to legislate against this be a template for others to send to their local members? Your arguments are always so clear and well reasoned. I’d love to send it to my local member as well. Let’s hope something good can come out of this awful result.
Actually Libby I took the end of this post and retrofitted it (I’m a lazy writer and a keen recycler). If you’d like to use it, you’re welcome, here it is:
Dear Ms McBain,
As devastated as I am about the lost opportunity of the Referendum result, the next question for me now is the threat to our democracy exposed in the Referendum campaign. In general terms, advertising in Australia must be truthful. Whether you’re selling cars, vitamins, toothpaste or tomato sauce, you’re not allowed to lie. But when it comes to political advertising, that rule flies out the window. You can say what you like to capture a vote, whether it’s to install your candidate in a seat or knock down a perfectly reasonable change to the Constitution.
When will the Government introduce legislation that outlaws lies in political advertising? Because the Federal Opposition will be emboldened by how easy it was to sway the vote using misinformation and sowing fear and confusion. The ‘No’ campaign’s tactics have been labelled ‘Trumpian’.
I believe that, for Albo, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain in this pursuit. Labor could lose the next election if nothing’s done — an idea that would have been laughable just six months ago.
Excellent article Jen. I agree totally. Thank you.
Thanks Vicki. It was great to have this forum (in the Triangle) although I fear I was mostly preaching to the choir.