It was heralded as a modest proposal that would help heal the traumas of history and unite the country. Australia would change its constitution to recognize the country’s indigenous peoples and introduce an advisory body in parliament for Aboriginal people, giving them a greater say in issues affecting their lives.
But over the past year, the proposal has exposed racial cleavages and been entangled in a bitter culture war in a country that has long struggled to reckon with its colonial legacy.
One former prime minister said it would “anchor the victimization,” and another called British colonization the “luckiest thing to happen to this country.” One opponent said Aboriginal people who want “a voice” should “learn English” and suggested that those receiving benefits should prove their ancestry with blood tests.
And now public opinion polls show that a referendum on the issue – set to take place on October 14 – is likely to fail. That result, according to Thomas Mayo, an Indigenous leader, would mean “Australia officially rejects our existence.”
The vote marks a turning point for Australia’s relationship with the hundreds of indigenous tribes who first occupied the continent and today form a small minority in the country. Since colonization, they have been subject to ineffective or deliberately harmful government policies, activists say. Before a constitutional referendum in 1967, Indigenous people were not counted as part of the Australian population. They remain trapped at the bottom of society, with an average life expectancy eight years less than the national average and the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
The Voice to Parliament is the culmination of a struggle by indigenous activists for recognition in the 120-year-old constitution and for equality. It was developed by over 250 Indigenous leaders who gathered in 2017 at Uluru, a sacred site once known as Ayers Rock. They were trying to deal with what they called “the agony of our powerlessness.”
The plan for a referendum was presented about a year ago by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the leader of the centre-left Labor Party, who announced the date of the referendum on Wednesday.
The body would provide advice to parliament, government ministers and the departments they oversee on issues affecting indigenous people. If the vote passes, the body’s design and precise details will be decided by parliament, but the architects say its members will be elected by Indigenous communities, who represent less than 4 percent of Australia’s population. The government has said its priorities are healthcare, education, employment and housing.
“There is a broad sense that things can and must be better for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of this country,” said Dean Parkin, executive director of Yes23, the group leading the campaign in support of The Voice.
But advocates need to convince the public that changing the constitution will have a practical benefit, says Larissa Baldwin-Roberts, an Aboriginal activist and CEO of the progressive group GetUp. That’s a particularly difficult task, she said, in a country where most people have no contact with the Aboriginal people, and many still believe the Indigenous people are responsible for their own disadvantages.
“They don’t know us, they hear a lot about us, and they’re worried about giving us more rights and what that would take away from them,” Ms Baldwin-Roberts said.
Opponents of The Voice have also cast doubt on its effectiveness, using the lack of detail about the proposal – which is normal for a referendum – to suggest it could provide advice on any government policy. Some Aboriginal leaders have called the move toothless because the government lacks the mandate to follow its advice. Others call it division.
“At the moment there is a lot of confusion in the Australian community about what constitutes a fairly modest form of recognition,” said Megan Davis, one of the leaders of the Uluru process, who campaigns for the Voice with the group Uluru Dialogue.
Opponents argue that the Voice would make Australia less equal by giving indigenous people special rights.
“I want Australia to move forward as one, not two, divided,” said Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, an Indigenous opposition MP, in a parliamentary speech. “This is a dangerous and costly proposition; it is legally risky and full of uncertainties.”
In a statement, Advance, the conservative group leading the ‘No’ campaign, added: ‘Australians who don’t want their constitution to divide us on the basis of race are not racists. In fact, the opposite is true.”
But, observers said, colonial tropes continue to play a role.
“Some people feel that the Indigenous people have already had enough benefits and government payments, and moving on is just a kind of exercise in making us feel guilty about the success of this country,” said Mark Kenny, a political commentator and professor at the Australian National University. “This is a very powerful message that seems to be resonating with a number of people.”
Another obstacle, Mr Kenny said, is a population generally averse to constitutional change. Only eight of the 44 constitutional referendums in Australian history have passed. The most recent debate, over whether to end the symbolic rule of the British monarchy, was defeated with flying colors in 1999.
When Jim Durkin, 63, recently handed out leaflets in support of The Voice in a suburb of Melbourne, he was concerned about the impact of misinformation on the campaign. “When people are in doubt, the easier option is ‘no’,” he said.
The “Yes” campaign has been criticized for being slow to mobilize and respond to opponents’ attacks, run an uninspiring campaign, and enlist the support of celebrities — including, oddly enough, Shaquille O’Neal. But it hopes to generate support in the coming weeks with its 28,000 volunteers knocking at the door.
In Albury, a rural town about halfway between Sydney and Melbourne, the volunteers found both hope and discouragement.
At one house, Jane Richardson, 43, said she wholeheartedly supported the Voice. She said she understood the “historical culture of exclusion” Aboriginal people had been subjected to and, as a Chinese Australian woman, had a strong belief in racial justice. But she said it took some time to convince her husband, who had never really questioned the Indigenous stereotype, to follow suit.
There was strong resistance from residents worried about what they might lose, says Liz Quinn, a volunteer. Many were under the impression that their country would be taken away if the vote passed, she said.
These misconceptions were a result of racist dog-whistling and scare tactics used for decades to slow progress on Aboriginal issues by suggesting that addressing colonial injustice would require a sacrifice on the rest of the country, said Mrs Baldwin-Roberts, the Aborigines. activist, who pushes for a “yes” vote, but is not involved in the official campaign.
“This debate has bombarded race relations in this country, and it will reverberate for years to come,” she said.
