“Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.”
― from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, 2017.
“You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view… until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.” – Harper Lee, To Kill A Mockingbird.
What does a women’s conference in Saudi Arabia or the Australian marriage equality plebiscite have to do with the current Australian Voice to Parliament referendum?
In 2013, a picture circulated social media regarding the attendees of a women’s conference in Saudi Arabia – and everyone was male, none of whom has ever suffered the disadvantage about which they claim special expertise. In 2023, those closer to home who use their influence in public discourse to oppose the Australian Indigenous Voice to Parliament are entitled white people who likewise have never experienced anything other than privilege. In both cases, it is not hard to see that what they debate is not the elimination of oppression for others, but how to protect their own privilege.
A Voice From the Heart
“Sometimes a decade arrives when nations have the chance to turn away from bigotry and selfishness and turn to their countrymen and women and embrace them as loved members of the human family. But do we have the ticker for it?” ― Bruce Pascoe, Convincing Ground: Learning to fall in love with your country
(Pascoe was Australian Humanist of the Year in 2021. His words here speak of justice for all, and generically apply to – but are not specifically aimed towards – the issues in the Indigenous Voice referendum).
Arising from the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2017, and following subsequent input from indigeous communities, the Indigenous Voice to Parliament as proposed:
“It would be a permanent body representing First Nations people that would advise government about policies affecting Indigenous people.”
The Voice would be an advisory body, but it would not have powers to overrule parliament, commonly known as “veto” powers.
This sounds fair – taking a group of Australians who have been invaded, killed, discriminated against, paternalistically condescended to, disempowered, and ignored for centuries – and finally allowing them to have some input into laws and policies that would directly affect them… a form of allowing victim impact statements to be used to inform our Parliament before they make influential decisions. Natural justice at last! A fair go for all, not just for affluent white people.
So naturally, some affluent white people oppose it.
Fearful of Change
“The only constant is change.”
Opponents of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament Referendum play semantics with the concept of racism, or argue that giving one group of people will ‘racialise‘ our Constitution.
They ignore the last two centuries of racism in this country: the Frontier Wars, genocide, massacres and ethnic cleansing, the Stolen Generations, and our nation’s chronic failure to resolve Black Deaths in Custody or to Close the Gap.
They also ignore the reality that Australia is already divided on racial grounds – and if you don’t believe that, try walking for a while in the shoes of someone whose skin colour is not white.
Some white people hesitate to support the “Yes” vote because they see that some indigenous people are also unsure about the final direction of the movement. To me, this indigenous uncertainty is not a weakness. It demonstrates that plurality and healthy debate are a vital component of discussion within indigenous communities, who represent a diversity of over 500 communities and cultures who were originally here before European invasion.
Where To From Here?
What has all this to do with the original question I asked about comparing the Indigenous Voice referendum to Marriage Equality?
On one hand, I see that the prominent individuals and media sources that opposed Marriage Equality in 2017 are the same ones who oppose the Indigenous Voice today. While that doesn’t necessarily disclaim their arguments immediately, it does possibly suggest the perspective from which their arguments arise – being fearful that change may alter the power structures that have granted them privilege their whole lives. Such fears are irrational and prejudiced.
But most of all: in 2017, I appealed to my heterosexual friends to support the Marriage Equality plebiscite, arguing that an oppressed or disempowered minority (by definition) cannot win the popular vote unless their friends and allies – and others who support human rights – also take a stand. Marriage Equality ultimately won the plebiscite because enough people voted to positively change the lives of others. The same principle applies today – we can change the future of fellow Australians for whom the past (and the present) have been oppressive.
In the spirit of universal human rights, I hope that everyone will vote “Yes” in the upcoming referendum. It is up to our indigenous brethren to decide the final form and nature of their voice – in the meantime, they have been denied a voice for 250 years. It’s time.
“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.”
©2023 Geoff Allshorn