Debunking the ‘No’ Campaign
I imagine many of us are feeling nervous about the fate of the Voice referendum. Polls show declining support for the Voice, and the thought of a failed referendum is gut-wrenching. I have been frustrated with the rhetoric of ‘No’ campaigners and Voice sceptics, because most arguments against the Voice are fallacious, and many appear to be deliberately deceptive. Equally, I have been frustrated with the Yes campaign, for their failure to come out and vociferously debunk these arguments.
In this piece, I debunk the most prominent anti-Voice arguments. My hope is that I can persuade some readers to vote Yes, and give Yes advocates some useful arguments to employ in their day-to-day conversations with family and friends who are skeptical of the Voice.
“It is a Canberra voice”
For the last six months, Peter Dutton has argued that the Voice will be a ‘Canberra Voice’ that ignores the diverse needs of individual First Nations communities. Dutton is advocating for a No vote, because “A Canberra-based voice with academics telling people what they should be doing is just not going to work,” and “Having a Canberra voice is not going to resolve the issues on the ground in Indigenous communities.”. Dutton’s concerns are misguided or disingenuous, because the actual Voice being proposed is nothing like the ‘Canberra voice’ Dutton is imagining.
If you want to find out about the Voice being proposed, you can read the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process Final Report, — often referred to as the Calma-Langton Report. This report proposes a national Voice consisting of 24 members — with 2 from each state and territory, 5 from remote communities, 2 from the Torres Strait, and 1 representing TSI living on the mainland. Alongside the national Voice, there would be 25 local voices representing districts across Australia, each designed and run by the communities they represent. These local voices would be responsible for electing the national Voice, with the national and local voices working closely together, providing advice to one another.
The national component of the Voice does not work in opposition to local and regional voices; it empowers them. In fact, First Nations communities with local voices already in operation have been some of the loudest advocates for a national Voice — stressing that they need a national body to coordinate their efforts and liaise with Canberra.
“Hey look — This Indigenous person is voting No”
Many ‘No’ campaigners defend their opposition to the Voice by pointing to First Nations people who oppose the Voice. Conservative media outlets circulate clips of the occasional Indigenous Elder criticising the Voice, and this can be very persuasive. After all, if some First Nations people don’t want a Voice, surely it is not my place to say what is best for them? This line of argument is misleading.
The facts are that the architects of the Voice went to extreme lengths to develop a policy that had the support of as many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as possible, they have achieved a resounding 83% support (YouGov polling), and the existence of some First Nations opposition to the Voice is an inevitable consequence of human plurality.
It is important to appreciate just how much effort was put into building a First Nations consensus behind the Voice. The Referendum Council on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians was established in 2015, featuring a diverse selection of Indigenous and non-Indigenous leaders, such as Megan Davis, Noel Pearson, Galarrwuy Yunupingu, and Murray Gleeson. The Council consulted with over 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives over two years.
In 2017, following these consultations, 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates from across the country came together at the foot of Uluru for the First Nations National Constitutional Convention, convened by the Referendum Council. After four days of consultation, the delegates reached a consensus, which they articulated through the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Uluru Statement is a manifesto which declares First Nations intentions regarding constitutional reform, reconciliation, and treaty. Among other things, The Uluru Statement calls for a First Nations advisory body that gives First Nations people a say in policies affecting them, and for this to be enshrined in the constitution so it could not be repealed by subsequent governments.
In late 2019, Marcia Langton and Tom Calma began the Voice co-design process, which developed the details of how a voice would function. The co-design featured two groups — a Local and Regional co-design Group, as well as a National co-design Group, comprising a majority of Indigenous members, and featuring relevant experts from urban, regional, and remote Australia. These groups designed the national and local voices, and these designs were then refined in consultation with First Nations leaders and community stakeholders across the country. These designs are planned to be implemented if the referendum succeeds.
As you can see, Indigenous leaders made a tremendous effort to construct a voice that works for all First Nations people, and they achieved as strong of a consensus as you could hope for on a policy of this magnitude. The [inevitable] existence of First Nations opposition to the Voice is not a legitimate argument for voting No.
“The Voice is not enough”
There is a group of ‘progressive No’ voters, led by Celeste Liddle, Lydia Thorpe, and The Blak Sovereign Movement, who oppose the Voice because it “does not do enough” for First Nations people. The ‘progressive No’ camp is voting No strategically — hoping that when the referendum fails they can push for a stronger Voice model. They argue that the proposed voice is too ‘weak’ and that it won’t deliver on important goals like land rights, treaty, redistributive justice, and Indigenous seats in parliament. I agree that the Voice is not enough. I think First Nations people deserve a lot more political and economic power than what is given them through a federal advisory body. However, this is not a good reason to vote No, because of a few salient facts.
Fact one: Voting No will not lead to a new, reimagined, more radical constitutional amendment. Calling a referendum is politically risky, and if the Voice fails, it is likely that neither major party will be brave enough to push for constitutional empowerment of First Nations people for some time. It is prudent here to reflect on the fallout of the 1999 Republic Referendum. Many progressive republicans campaigned for a No vote, hoping that if the referendum failed, they could push for another referendum proposing a more radical republican model. The 1999 referendum failed, and indeed many attribute this failure to division in the republican movement, yet no revised constitutional amendment has been proposed, despite Australians electing several enthusiastic republican Prime Ministers.
We also saw the fervour for the republican movement die down after the defeat in the 1999 referendum, and I expect that a No result in the Voice Referendum will severely weaken the movement for constitutional empowerment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
The Voice referendum is going ahead, and there likely won’t be another any time soon, so as someone advocating for First Nations empowerment, it only makes sense to vote No if you legitimately think the Voice will have a net negative effect on First Nations people. This is foolish because:
Fact two: First Nations advisory over policies bolsters self-determination, and leads to better health, cultural, and economic outcomes for First Nations people. There is academic consensus on this. First Nations people know their communities best, and they have the best idea of how to design and deliver good policy.
Fact three: The Voice is not an end-all-be-all. There is no reason to believe that establishing a Voice will limit the capacity for future First Nations empowerment. The Voice is a step in the right direction, which puts Indigenous Australians in a better position to make further strides toward treaty, political representation, redistributive justice, and so on.
“It is too powerful”
A series of advertisements have surfaced, which warn that the Voice will be ‘too powerful’ — that it will disrupt the political process, and change the way government operates. This is pure scaremongering, and has no factual basis. The Voice cannot make laws, it will have no veto power, and the vast majority of legal experts claim that policymakers will not be subject to High Court litigation for failing to heed advice from the Voice. Crucially, the proposed constitutional amendment specifies the power of the federal parliament to enact laws relating to the scope of the Voice. So, within the bounds outlined in the constitution, the Voice will only be as powerful as our elected representatives want it to be, just like every other political body.
“The Voice is partisan”
One subtle way in which LNP leaders and conservative media have sought to undermine the Voice, is by categorising it as “Albanese’s Voice” or “Labor’s Voice”. For partisan LNP voters, this is enough of a reason to vote No. To the wider public, this categorisation makes the Voice seem like a divisive, partisan policy that does not belong in the constitution.
This categorisation of the Voice is awfully misleading; the creation of the Voice has nothing to do with Labor Party politics. The Referendum Council on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians was established under an LNP government with bipartisan support, and it was led by a politically diverse board. The basic idea of the Voice is taken from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander creation far removed from the Canberra offices that host Labor strategists. And finally, the co-design process was initiated by Liberal MP Ken Wyatt, under Coalition governance, and the leading participants were not party affiliates. Labor and Albanese have given the green light to the Voice, but they are by no means the architects of the policy.
“There is not enough detail”
This is the going argument as of June-July. You will no doubt have heard LNP leaders and conservative pundits argue that they are cautious about voting Yes because Albanese has not released enough detail about how the Voice will operate. The official LNP website states “It’s a big decision, yet Labor refuses to reveal any details before the vote… They’re asking Australians to vote without knowing exactly how the Voice would operate.” This is all disinformation.
The government has released an enormous amount of detail about how the Voice would work, which you can find in the 272 page Calma-Langton Report. If you read this report, you find clear, careful detail about the implementation, structure, and operation of the Voice. Sections of the report cover the Voice’s connection to existing bodies, the transition and implementation process, governance structures, accountability mechanisms, dispute resolution, membership structure, corporate form, partnership agreements between local, regional, and national Voices, and much more. Where details are omitted, this is done so deliberately — so that structures can evolve organically to suit the needs of the representatives, the government, and the public, as is normal with the design of any political body.
When it comes to the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment, you will notice that there is not much detail at all. This is not a limitation of the Voice; it is deliberate. Our constitution does not include fine details about the operation of different branches of government, or the electoral system, or other core democratic institutions. The constitution outlines the bones of these institutions, and over time detailed features are formalised through legislation, while other features are maintained by convention. This allows these institutions to evolve over time, around a basic structure that is set in stone.
As is the case with our other democratic institutions, the detailed features of the Voice will be formalised in parliament with their own legislation, while some aspects of the Voice will be maintained through convention, as is commonplace in Australian politics. The point of the constitution is to outline the very basic functions of the Voice, and the proposed amendment does just that.
If you have made it this far, you might have noticed that the leading arguments of the No campaign are strangely shallow, and intellectually vapid. I promise you, this is not a result of me strawmanning. If I had to guess, I’d say it is a result of the fact that the No campaign has been outsourced to conservative organisations like Advance, Whitestone Strategic, and R.J. Dunham & Co, who have been hired to essentially produce anti-Voice propaganda — which as you can see amounts to shallow, deceptive, catchy arguments. If you can believe it, these organisations are running a Facebook page called ‘Not enough’ which promotes a progressive No campaign and labels the Voice as a ‘conservative idea’, while also running a Facebook page called ‘Referendum News’ which describes the Voice as a Labor policy and makes scaremongering claims about the Voice being too powerful. The arguments of the No campaign appear to be shallow, because they are. Clearly, they are just throwing mud at the wall to see what sticks.
I will stop with my analysis here, but I welcome any comments from readers who are still opposed to the Voice. I will do my best to respond.
To those who are Yes advocates, I want to stress that you don’t have to sit idle until October, nervously monitoring the polls. Volunteer for the Yes campaign, attend rallies, post on social media, and most importantly, reach out to any friends and family who are on the fence, or leaning towards a No vote. Given that the No campaign is built on baseless and misleading claims, I genuinely think that you can flip many No voters by simply presenting the facts. Don’t underestimate the impact you can make by persuading just a few people; political attitudes can be contagious.
I couldn’t end this piece without taking a second to remind readers of the historical context surrounding this referendum. After flourishing on this land for over 60 thousand years, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had their home invaded, their people genocided, and their land stolen. They then faced centuries of legal persecution and ethnocide — including the forced removal of over 100,000 children (33,000 of which are alive today). As a result of Australia’s violent colonial history, and 20th century state-sanctioned persecution of First Nations people, Indigenous families suffer from intergenerational poverty, intergenerational trauma, and are stuck in a Western political, legal, and economic system that does not represent their needs. Consequently, these families suffer some of the worst life outcomes in the developed world.
We know First Nations-led policy is crucial in achieving better outcomes and self-determination for First Nations communities, and after thousands of hours of careful deliberation and consensus-building, First Nations Leaders are asking for the right to advise the government on issues and policies affecting their communities. They are asking for an amendment to a constitution that was written while their people were being actively massacred by colonisers, — an amendment that will really only materially affect First Nations people. They are doing so respectfully, within the confines of a political system that was forcibly established on their unceded lands. All of this is why I say that the prospect of No result feels sickening, and why I say that each of us have a responsibility to do what we can to increase the odds of a Yes result.
Ray Cattoni is a fourth year PPE student at UQ. This is his first article for Statecraft Magazine.
Thanks to Joseph Christensen for editing this piece.
