The lead-up to this year’s upcoming Voice Referendum has spurred a number of diverse viewpoints that aim in good faith to boldly advance First Nations justice in Australia. The ANU Indigenous Department has pledged not to advocate for any particular stance on this issue, recognising that its mob and the wider ANU community hold a variety of views on the value of this year’s proposed Constitutional changes—largely in line with that shared goal of advancing First Nations justice. Instead of campaigning for one side in the referendum, the Department is committed to engaging in an extensive educational outreach effort on campus to ensure that ANU students can engage in this year’s referendum with accurate information that will enable them to confidently cast their vote.
Unfortunately, in sharp contrast to any constructive effort to promote Indigenous reconciliation based on accurate information—certain right-wing oppositional elements toward the referendum have deliberately engineered scare campaigns to stoke anti-Indigenous fear, prejudice, and division within Australian society for their own political gain. Their brazen use of demagogic populist tactics to scaremonger voters has no factual basis whatsoever and actively harms the ongoing struggle of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples for true justice on their lands. There are clear facts that must be restated in spite of dog whistles and concerted disinformation campaigns:
- Altering the Constitution to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament does not take away any rights from anybody
- No special rights would be granted on the basis of race; the status of Indigenous peoples, as having been the original inhabitants of (what is now) Australia for tens of thousands of years before Britain’s invasion, is not designated based on race
- The proposed Voice to Parliament would explicitly be an advisory body towards the federal Parliament and Executive Government; it would not be a third chamber of Parliament in any form
- The Solicitor General, the Australian Government’s leading non-partisan law officer, has explicitly rejected the notion that a Voice to Parliament would halt the government functioning; this completely contradicts claims that the Solicitor General agrees that it would
- Criticism that voters are unaware of hypothetically nefarious details in the Voice to Parliament plainly misses the point of the referendum; voters are being asked to approve the principle of a Voice to Parliament existing—its form and composition would then be subject to regular decision-making processes of elected Parliament
- Floated alternative ‘legislated regional and local voices’ proposals have not been the subject of any meaningful consultation with First Nations peoples, either through processes that resemble the Uluru dialogues or alternate communication with other Blak sovereignty groups; regional and local voices would also be allowed within the proposed Voice to Parliament framework, as reiterated by the Calma-Langton report
It is evident that much of the disingenuous posturing on this year’s upcoming referendum is based on populist sensationalism and harmful attitudes towards broader efforts for First Nations sovereignty. Accurately informed discussion on campus about this year’s referendum from any perspective that seeks to uplift justice for First Nations peoples is fully encouraged by the ANU’s Indigenous Department; in contrast to constructive engagement in that vain, baseless fearmongering and damaging rhetoric around the referendum must be strongly rejected in every regard.