In Rejecting the Voice, Australians Reject Grievance Politics
In rejecting the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, Australians reaffirmed the democratic principle of equality before the law.
Last Saturday, Australians recently exercised their right to vote and resoundingly rejected a proposed constitutional change. The ballot in question sought to recognise Indigenous Australians with a "Voice" to Parliament, a body designed to advise Parliament on Indigenous affairs. With voting being compulsory in Australia, the outcome was could not have been clearer: 39 percent said “Yes” while 61 percent said "No."
Why did the proposal fail? The immediate reason was that it lacked bipartisan support. It was championed by Anthony Albanese, Australia's center-left Prime Minister, as well as prominent Indigenous advocates such as Marcia Langton and Noel Pearson. But it was not championed by the Opposition Leader, Peter Dutton, and the centre-right parties that make up the Coalition.
Nevertheless, early polls had indicated support for the idea of an Indigenous voice. But this was arguably because voters did not know that the “Voice” would require constitutional change. When the proposal's implications for changing the Constitution became apparent, doubts crept in. Why not legislate the change first? The absence of a testing phase made people wary. Innovation often entails unforeseen challenges, and in the realm of Aboriginal affairs, the gap between intentions and outcomes is substantial.
Ramesh Thakur
The “Yes” campaign garnered support from major corporations, sports organisations, religious associations, and various celebrities and was very well-funded. "Yes" campaign ad spending far outstripped that of the "No" campaign.
Albanese justified his support by claiming that Indigenous people overwhelmingly desired it. However, when two charismatic Indigenous figures emerged as the faces of the "No" Campaign, this explanation became less straightforward.
The first figure was Warren Mundine, a Bundjalung man, known for his successful careers in both politics and business. Mundine, a moderate on political matters, rejected the Voice proposal, arguing that "centralised, government dependence" would not solve the problems plaguing Aboriginal communities. He believed that economic development, rather than identity politics, held the key to unlocking Aboriginal aspirations.
The second prominent figure was Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, a Senator from the Northern Territory, which has the largest Aboriginal population in Australia. Price emerged as one of the most persuasive figures in the campaign, advocating for the rejection of grievance politics and presenting a vision of a unified Australia.
"Australians desperately want to do the right thing for their fellow Australians, regardless of their background," she said during an address to the National Press Club on September 14.
Price expressed concern that the proposed Voice would lead to legislated separatism based on racial heritage, perpetuating grievance and victimhood among her people.
Price's stance was a shock to the progressive establishment, which has for decades promoted a two-pronged strategy of drawing attention to historical grievances while advocating for more government intervention in order to solve them.
In contrast to the establishment, Price urged for a more honest conversation around Indigenous affairs. This honest conversation would dispense with the widespread romantisation of pre-colonial life, while facing up to disparate statistics related to incarceration and child protection in the present.
Yet as the official Yes campaign for the Indigenous voice to Parliament gained momentum, many Australians began to experience voter weariness. Australia is experiencing a grinding cost-of-living crisis in combination with a severe housing shortage. Thousands of people are becoming homeless every month. For a great many Australians, focusing on the Voice seemed like a distraction.
However, amidst this weariness towards the Indigenous voice campaign, it's important to recognise that Australia's political system, from secret ballots to compulsory voting, has proven stable and responsive to the people's will. This stability is not accidental; it is by design. And as Price cautioned voters, the Australian Constitution is not a document to be taken for granted or jeopardised for the sake of a "vibe."
