How do we heal and move forward without ‘the Voice’?

The aftermath of the referendum.

The last referendum we had was 24 years ago, on a very similar question – recognition of Aborigines in the constitution’s preamble. It failed. The Voice referendum didn’t test the passage of time on that question – it went further. Rather than voting on the preamble again, which has broad support even among No campaigners, the Voice sought both recognition and a new body attached to parliament in the constitution. Yes campaigner and NSW Liberal MP Julian Leeser referred to this as ‘over confidence’ (Insiders, Voice Referendum Special – Richard Marles and Julian Leeser [15/10/2023]).

The proposal was relatively straightforward, but it raised a range of social issues about fairness and integration that got little airtime. The No campaign used this to accuse their opponents of hiding details. In truth, Australia has been having trouble conducting a civil and calm discussion about race and multiculturalism since the White Australia policy was dismantled.

At least this time the vote was helped by not running alongside another major proposal, as happened at the last one. That was on whether or not to ditch the monarchy and become a republic. It failed, too.

It would seem that patience and compromize [sic] is lacking, not to mention a sense of continuity. Why? Is it because a whole new generation has been born since 1999? Or is it that, of the extra 8.4 million Australians there are now, two thirds have come from overseas with little memory or experience of the country’s past? Or is it cultural amnesia, particularly among those who prosecuted the referendum? Perhaps it’s all three.

Continuity and compromise in a process of evolutionary change are hallmarks of British political culture. They were well-understood conventions when it was at its height of Empire and for some time afterwards when elites cooperated with each other. Whitlam, when visiting China in 1973 told Chairman Mao, “We believe in evolutionary change. You believe in revolutionary change.”

The ALP won govt in 2022 with only 33% of the popular vote and yet it put up an ambitious referendum. No referendum that proposes a major change to the constitution has a hope in hell of passing without bipartisan support and a long period of broad agreement that it is long overdue. (A minor change with bipartisan support can pass in relatively short time, as was the case with the rules for Senate appointments after The Dismissal.) As Robert Menzies said, changing the Australian constitution is a ‘herculean task’. It seems the wisdom in our political inheritance has been lost on those who put the proposal up.

Instead, the culture wars ensue in the news, with, for example, commentator Waleed Aly echoing Hillary Clinton’s ‘deplorables’ by pointing out that “those in seats with high levels of tertiary education were ‘at the very top end’ of the Yes vote.” The contrast perhaps only highlights the difference between ‘intellectual’ intelligence and ‘emotional’ or ‘intuitive’ intelligence.

The ABC “understands some Aboriginal leaders appointed to the government’s First Nations Referendum Engagement Group were extremely concerned that the government chose to proceed without a compromise on the model, and without bipartisan support.”

So why did it blunder on? Rejecting the Voice is being compared to Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump. Australia, like much of the developed world, is in what complexity scientists call a disintegrative phase, characterized by growing wealth disparity and – due to the increase in a small wealthy cohort – greater discord among elites. Polarization and radicalization become more rife as society destabilizes. For example, radical Marxists have been at work in various minority groups (including the so-called LGBTIQ+ ‘community’), convincing them they should feel aggrieved and stoking a sense of victimhood. Having failed to get ‘the workers of the world to unite’ they are trying to ‘overthrow the captains of industry’ one minority group at a time. Lydia Thorpe personifies this in her call for cessation.

How do those who were deeply invested in a Yes outcome process the result in a positive way? What message is the Australian people sending them?

Victorian Yes campaigner Marcus Stewart told ABC news “They have not voted No because they’re racist. I categorically reject that. They have voted No because I think there’s a better pathway than constitutional enshrinement.”

In light of the referendum result, the process of reconciliation will no doubt evolve in one form or another. Marcia Langton stated that “a No vote would mean the end of ‘Welcome to Country’”. Whilst this sounds inflammatory, it could in fact lead to a more mature, inclusive ritual.

Acknowledgements and Welcomes to country began in the early 1970s among Australia’s counter-culture movement and have since become a common feature across the social landscape from local community associations’ monthly meetings to, since 2008, the ceremonial opening of the Parliament of Australia after each federal election. There has been a feeling on both sides that the ritual has developed a perfunctory quality. Expectations may change in the coming years that give the ritual more meaning to more people. For example, it may be considered appropriate for a Welcome to be performed only if and when an individual who has a legitimate connection to the descendants of the local tribe is both present at the time and willing to do so. Acknowledgement to Country may be reserved for important occasions, such as official, public anniversaries, which give us reason to express gratitude to those who went before us. On these occasions it makes sense to also acknowledge not just First Australians, but also the early settlers and founders of the Commonwealth.

Australia is experiencing the characteristics of a destabilizing society; falling real incomes, skyrocketing housing costs and a high level of immigration that both feeds the wealth pump and fragments the cultural landscape. These complicating issues tax the ability of people to focus on learning from the referendum.

For example, the referendum highlights the shortcoming of our two-party-preferred electoral system that gave government to a party without an adequate mandate to prosecute a major constitutional change. There is a valuable lesson for us here. The Hare-Clarke system of a single-transferable vote method of proportional representation would make an unrepresentative government outcome more unlikely. New Zealand adopted something similar in 1996 (a mixed-member-proportional system) and as a result enjoys better representation of smaller parties that are often included in government as coalitions. However, nobody seems to be talking about this.

---

28 October 2023 By Simon Cole