A poor showing for civics

Preliminaries:

• I will be voting Yes. My reasoning is at the end – you can skip there if you like.
• I believe 90% of the polis engages in conversation in good faith. I believe 99% of people want to do the right thing by Indigenous Australians — we just disagree on the how. It is, as Norm McDonald put it, “good versus good”.
• It seems highly unlikely that there is a particular policy, or even suite of policies, that a single government could deliver to close the gap. The more probable path is that closing the gap will take time.
• Constitutional recognition is doesn’t seem particularly contentious, but The Voice does. Anecdotally, I think I see ‘The Voice’ in the news more than ‘the referendum’ — which suggests that the Voice is the sticking point. What’s below reflects that impression.

Both sides have botched it

Neither campaign has painted a cohesive picture of their vision for the future.

First, the No campaign.

The No campaign’s biggest problem is looking like racists. I doubt all people who vote No are racist, but I do suspect that every racist will vote No. Do not equivocate here — all apples are fruit, but not all fruits are apples. How could No have gotten around this image problem?

One way would be to clearly signal intent that they care about the issues The Voice seeks to redress, and release policies or visions that aim at the same outcomes that the Yes campaign wants, minus The Voice.

This might include more immediate submissions to parliament or motions to recognise Indigenous Australians in more meaningful ways.

For example, I struggle to take seriously the office-bearers who say ‘I oppose the voice, but I would support recognition.’ The obvious retort here is: then why haven’t you done something already? If the voice really poses the constitutional threat that many No campaigners say, then why not immediately lobby parliament to sign into effect legislation which creates a voice-like body without the constitutional messiness?

I think there are credible arguments to be made for the No campaign (outlined below), but it has a serious image problem.

Second, the Yes campaign.

I picked up a Yes campaign leaflet the other day. On one page it says “Saying Yes means…” and offers a list of claimed benefits. At the top of that list is “real, practical improvements”. I think that if this referendum fails, one reason will be that the Yes campaign has relied too strongly on feeling.

I suspect most people want to close the gap and many jump at the prospect of a Voice. In name and in form, it appeals to notions of empowerment and justice. I fear that these notions are so appealing that they make it difficult to scrutinise without immediately being accused of malintent. Today’s discourse seems so associate criticism of the process with criticism of the outcome. It is possible to be pro-fruit consumption, while believing pineapple has no place on pizza.

It seems that the Yes campaign has failed to make it sufficiently clear in peoples’ imaginations exactly how The Voice will lead to “real, practical improvements”. I think this is a reasonable criticism. The reply from the Yes campaign may well be ‘it will be up to the parliament to decide’ — but this does not do enough to make it clear to the people how the voice will work. It risks leaving the Yes campaign as being represented (unfairly, in my eyes) as being too much about feeling without a sufficiently clear path the practical advancement clear. And to be clear: we are talking about the most fundamental, difficult-to-alter document in the country: changes to it do not merely deserve vigorous discussion, they demand it.

Credible representations

The No campaign makes some credible arguments.

First, it is argued that The Voice is legally unnecessary. These arguments are similar in flavour to those who opposed the same-sex marriage postal survey in 2017 on the grounds that parliament could, with total legitimacy, simply legislate same-sex marriage / The Voice into existence. According to proponents of this argument, there is simply no necessity for The Voice to be an issue for a referendum. (Views diverge: some support the outcome but reject the process, others reject both.)

Secondly, there is a reasonable argument to be had that The Voice is simply the wrong way to go about reconciliation. There are a several arguments in this bucket, ranging from ‘The Voice doesn’t do enough’ to ‘it does way too much’. One argues that The Voice is too soft a proposal and is ultimately a case of rolling over to colonial injustices, the other that enshrining such a body in the consitution is unheard of runs counter to idea that all citizens in a polity ought to be treated equally. I hear both of them.

To each of these, the Yes campaign has replies available.

Legal necessity is hardly a prerequisite for a constitutional amendment. It would be preferable that issues are resolved at the lowest level available, but this isn’t requisite. I think there’s a sensible argument to be made that constitutionally providing for the voice is a good way to make sure that it is given priority treatment by governments, and not left to the slings and arrows of the political agenda of the government of the day.

To the arguments that The Voice is the wrong way to go about reconciliation: I hear them and their replies. 99% of the discussions are being had by people who I earnestly believe are acting in good faith.

My vote

I will be voting yes. My thinking is twofold.

First: The Voice is the only way to show constitutional recognition. Including a preamble in the constitution is a positive step, but I fear it is simply lip-service. Establishing a voice, even if that voice does little more than issue advice on policies which are ignored by parliament, is the way to seriously reckon with with our past.

Second: The Voice provides the right kind of recourse. Justice intuitively requires a levelling of some sort. This is why courts are punitive and why Lady Justice brandishes a pair of balance scales. Moreover, what is offered up must be something in kind — this is why we intuitively feel that the grieving family can never truly receive justice, no matter how large the settlement payment. The things that were taken and the wrongs that were visited upon first nations peoples are difficult and in many cases impossible to repair or level. But what is possible is for sovereignty to be meaningfully recognised by offering recognition at the highest level.

I hope that these comments are received in the spirit in which they are offered.