Small words can have a powerful, sweeping and large impact.
And, in just a few weeks, on Saturday, October 14, Australians will be asked to choose between two small words — “Yes” and “No”.
Being a volunteer at Shepparton’s “Yes” hub in Fryers St, having attended a number “Yes” events in Shepparton and worn my “Yes” emblazoned T-shirt publicly, I’m aware, acutely, that the Voice referendum is a conflicted affair.
Those two small words are now freighted with baggage which neither of them need or deserve.
And to worsen matters, both of them are being weighed down by practical, emotional and political complexities that have confused and obscured what is in reality a rather simple question.
“Yes”, by the nature of its intent, is friendly, another word for hope, opportunity, an outstretched hand of friendship and the throwing open of the welcome door, while “No” has the sense of a full stop, denial, “full house” and the slamming of the welcome door shut.
Before going any further we should be aware precisely what it is we will be voting on come October 14:
“In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
1. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”
After all the scaremongering and conspiracy theories being circulated, that’s all it is, and the detail some have argued is missing, rests to be determined with all those who sit in our Federal Parliament, people from all sides of politics, including Federal Member for Nicholls Sam Birrell.
Writing in The Guardian about what she has heard about the Voice during her travels about the country, regional reporter Gabrielle Chan said: “It has unleashed some ugly language that feels like a stepping back in time. It feels like a shrinking of sorts, back to a place that we don’t fit any more. I hope we haven’t lost the hard-won outward facing confidence we have gained.”
As for conspiracy theories, it was just last week that a senior former leader from the Coalition was on ABC radio arguing the Voice was just the first step toward Australia having shared government arrangements with Indigenous people.
Writing on The Conversation about the referendum from Griffith University Associate Professor of Law Kate Galloway said:
“The words clearly provide for only one activity to be undertaken by the Voice. The new body “may make representations” on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
“There is no express or hidden power to either take people’s land or give land to First Nations people. The Voice is a committee that may provide advice to parliament and government on issues relating to First Nations people. That is all.
“And this advice is not binding. The parliament of the day is free to ignore it, if it wishes to.”
Those who fear the idea of a Voice to Parliament should remember how University of NSW Associate Professor Mark Diesendorf pointed out that the Australian Government, of all stripes, has been captured by the fossil fuel industry, the military/industrial complex and, or course, the mining industry that supplied a lacquered piece of coal for former Prime Minster, Scott Morrison, to brandish in parliament.
Those businesses all had, and still have a “voice to parliament” as they have profited from a revolving door which allowed quick and easy access to senior politicians from the PM down and, as they retired, politicians walked into cushy jobs in industries; industries about which they had, until retirement, legislated about.
Writing recently in a personal column about the inadequacies of the media, in all it forms, with regard to the Voice, writer, academic and author who has a PhD in political philosophy and teaches at the Centre for Advancing Journalism at the University of Melbourne, Tim Dunlop, said: “It is a feature of an extractive system that ceaselessly operates in the interests of an economy not human society.”
That observation reminds us, that we invaded this country and we brought with us ideas, values, a way of life, potions and diseases, that were, in every sense, foreign to those already living here.
The idea of money, property and ownership were concepts the “locals” had never encountered and after a few violent decades when it became obvious that force was not going resolve this divide, we began throwing cash at the dilemma.
Countless illustrations could be found, even right here in the Goulburn Valley, where that hasn’t worked, even worsening the conundrum and souring relationships between many Indigenous people and an equal number of those of us who are not.
Yes, small words with giant implications and so taking advice from Mr Dunlop who argues we need to think first about human society, in this case specifically our indigenous people, and not be preoccupied by matters of money.
Still undecided, still have more questions?
Go to this article from The Conversation: “Your questions answered on the Voice to Parliament” (https://tinyurl.com/7z6bbawe).
- Robert McLean is a former editor of The News