In Defence of the Militant No Vote

By Dan Kelly

13/10/2023

Preface

Over the course of this campaign, we have had many confronting and heated discussions with people from all sectors of society regarding our position on the Voice and Constitutional Recognition. We acknowledge the harmful impact this dialogue and referendum process have had on First Nations peoples and their communities. In looking at the research for this article and hearing from our First Nations comrades, we cannot help but see a malicious intent by the colonial state to deliberately use this issue to sow division and leave First Nations peoples exposed to emotionally and physically confronting situations.

To those taking the time to read this article, we wish to clarify that we do not attempt to belittle or attack the many individuals and organisations who have genuinely good intentions in support of the struggle for First Nations justice. In writing this article, two Malcolm X quotes that have stuck with me through the years came to mind, the first of which is:

“Don't be in a hurry to condemn because they don't do what you do or think as you think or as fast. There was a time when you didn't know what you know today.” - Malcom X

The intention of this article is to to educate others. We want to provide information for those who never had access to authentic insights on this issue. In knowing this information, we send our eternal gratitude and solidarity in action to our First Nations comrades and those staunch activists and organisations that have sacrificed their time, health and wellbeing in carrying on the struggle. We stand by you, whatever the result is after the polls close. The second quote that came to mind was this:

"I just don't believe that when people are being unjustly oppressed that they should let someone else set rules for them by which they can come out from under that oppression." - Malcolm X

I remembered this quote when I was told that the Voice is “better than nothing” and “a step in the right direction by concretely linking First Nations people with the Australian government, the colonial state and its constitution. Our experience, and that of others before us, combined with the lessons provided by our research and engagement show that, time and time again, “solutions” put forward by the active oppressor will never truly liberate the oppressed.

The history of not only First Nations peoples, but workers, women, refugees and countless other oppressed groups repeatedly demonstrates that the ruling capitalist class, and their institutions in this country embedded in colonialism, will use any means at their disposal to supress our rights and fracture our solidarity. Liberation will only come from the solidarity and organisation of the oppressed to fight for the overthrow of these unjust systems and institutions. This is a lesson that has been known in the resistance movement on this continent for over 250 years. We must not discard the sacrifices of the warriors who came before us and who have often paid the ultimate price to teach us these lessons. We must carry the torch that they lit, not only for ourselves, but for generations to come. We must all remember that this struggle will continue after October the 14th. The real question is this: will you still be fighting for justice after the polls close? Or are you going to rely on the rules set by the oppressor?

On the Arguments Against a Progessive ‘No’ Vote

Overview

This piece seeks to analyse, respond to and deconstruct the major points and arguments that have been used by the Yes campaign in the debate around the referendum on constitutional recognition of First Nations peoples and the creation of a constitutional Voice to Parliament. We seek to deconstruct and argue against the main points put to the progressive No vote by those who support the Yes campaign.

We hope that in deconstructing these arguments and sharing knowledge on the historical background and present conditions that inform this campaign, that we will provide the critical insight needed to understand what motivates the colonial state and its supporters to pursue constitutional recognition and a Voice in the form that is proposed.

Argument One: ‘The Voice and Statement from the Heart were created by a democratic delegation of First Nations peoples and outlines their demands and we should support it as such’ 

BrownHoneyAnt, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Simply analysing the historical process that led us here fundamentally undermines the first argument. To be brief, constitutional recognition was formulated by John Howard and various right-wing individuals and organisations as a method to water down and de-radicalise the land rights movement and to assimilate First Nations peoples into the colonial state. This can be seen in his address to the Sydney institute in 2007, where Howard pushed for recognition as a way to reconcile First Nations peoples seeking justice with the colonial state without providing any material changes to the conditions they are confronted with .

The National Summit held in the Northern Territory in 2017 shows a similar trend. Before, during and after, First Nations people were subjects of a deliberate campaign that sought to co-opt First Nations voices and to manufacture consent for the tokenistic agenda of constitutional recognition and a powerless Voice. This campaign came from above, pushed by the government and leaders of both major parties, utilising hand-picked First Nations individuals reliant on the government to maintain their careers and stature. A statement from the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, released on September 1st 2023, exposed the situation:

“The process that led to the Uluru Statement was colonially-funded and ultimately controlled by the Referendum Council. This is problematic for several reasons. Firstly, the process was not conducted in accordance with Aboriginal decision-making processes commensurate with the serious long-term implications of the decisions made. Most Aboriginal people and groups were left out of key decision-making due to the invitation-only nature of the process. Secondly, it is a clear conflict of interest for the colonial power to constrain the agenda on how we decolonise. This was not a free determination. There was no process arbitrator. Thirdly, the options that Aboriginal people have for self-determination as colonised peoples are much wider than the narrow and tightly-controlled agenda of the Referendum Council process. Delegates reported the process was so highly controlled that they have concerns the outcome was predetermined.”

Regional Dialogues

In the lead up to the National Convention, a series of regional dialogues were held across Australia. These regional dialogues were limited to a handful of locations and had only 100 invite-only delegates. As such, many have criticised the way these regional dialogues were conducted, with issues around accessibility for First Nations people dealing with large families, lack of transport and funds to attend, how to represent those who were imprisoned or ill, and the fact that communities could not elect their representatives. 

A major point of contention was how delegates were selected to attend. The process involved a tiny number of delegates being hand-picked and invited to the meeting, which flies in the face not only of Western democratic processes, but insults First Nations' protocols and structures within communities. This was raised by many Elders, individuals, communities and organisations, but was ignored, with the dialogues going ahead as planned. In doing so, the first stages of the formation of the 'Uluru Statement' and the Voice were marked by government and pro-government institutional intervention in who was allowed to attend, speak and contribute to this process, representing the colonial agenda and manipulation that has characterised the Voice ever since.

Another issue was how at these regional dialogues, five agenda items were raised and discussed by delegates. Delegates later complained that they were misled, as they were lead to believe they were to go and speak on the mandate delivered from the dialogue on those five agenda points at the National Convention. However, at the National Convention, the only item on the agenda was constitutional inclusion, with new agenda items inserted that bypassed the conclusions of the Regional Dialogues.

Yet, even with this biased selection of who attended the regional dialogues, delegates at many of these meetings only supported the concept of a voice conditionally. We also add that this was for support of a voice itself, rather than constitutional recognition. These conditions were as follows:

• Hobart: Supported a powerful representative body with the consensus that a body must be stronger than just an advisory body to Parliament.

• Broome: Suggested that the Parliament would need to be compelled to respond to the advice of the Body, and there was discussion of giving the body the right to address the Parliament.

• Dubbo: There was a strong view that the Indigenous body must have real power: a power of veto and the power to make a difference.

• Melbourne: There was a concern that the body could become a tokenistic process. Hence, it must be more than advisory and consultative. It needs powers of compliance and to be able to hold Parliament accountable to the standards of the UNDRIP.

• Brisbane: The body needs to be more than just advisory. It needs to be able to provide free, prior and informed consent that is binding on government.

As we can see from these examples, when compared to the current structure of the Voice these concerns were not listened to. The Government and Referendum Council glossed over this conditional support and has attempted to frame the outcome of the Regional Dialogues as being wholly supportive of the Voice in the powerless, tokenistic form it currently exists in. This is a shameless manipulation and attempt to manufacture consent that ignores the voices and concerns of hundreds of First Nations leaders.

In addition to the above points, there were other elements raised around the composition of the Voice and about how it should be explicitly linked to the grassroots of the community. These points, which were imperative to their support of the Voice, were dismissed at the National Convention.

They were as follows:

• Hobart: A selection process should be put in place to ensure that the body is representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

• Darwin: The body would need to be elected and connected to the community.

• Perth: Very strong support for a Voice to Parliament that would represent all lands and waters across Australia.

• Ross River: The body must represent communities across Australia and have legitimacy in remote, rural and urban areas. It was also suggested that it should include representatives across generations.

• Brisbane: The body needs to be representative of grassroots. Not a handpicked organisation like the Indigenous Advisory Council. It needs to be elected by grassroots and consult back with the community.

• Adelaide: The Aboriginal Voice could be drawn from the First Nations and reflect the song lines of the country

These crucial points were emphasised by the delegates of the Regional Dialogues as needing to be explicitly included in any foundational documents of the Voice, and as being necessary to their support of the Voice in any form. However, as with the previous points, they were ignored and dismissed by the government, who have continued to be vague about what form the Voice would take. They have consistently ignored the input of community leaders, members, organisations and Elders, opting instead to manipulate the process as they see fit. 

Additionally, many delegates raised concerns around the lack of clear wording of the proposals not being available in the lead up and throughout the course of the dialogues, which delegates raised as being in contravention of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

There are also many other events that highlight the differences between the demands of the Regional Dialogues and what was brought to the National Convention. The Perth event saw 100 delegates calling for a Treaty rather than constitutional recognition. Likewise, many of those who did "express any support for 'recognition” generally wanted this only if there was “a Bill of Rights put into the Constitution, with special rights enshrining the unique rights of Aboriginal Peoples" as Ghillar Michael Anderson wrote. Once again, these demands were ignored by the facilitators of the Regional Dialogues and National Convention.

The Manipulation of Delegates

The Australian Government further manipulated First Nations people by carefully choosing who ran the Regional Dialogues and National Convention. The Coalition government at the time selectively chose more “moderate” individuals and organisations to receive funding to run these events. This funding was conditional on pushing the agenda of constitutional recognition, rather than engaging in democratic processes to reflect the concerns of communities, individuals and organisations.

As such, AIATSIS engaged paid facilitators to shift the conversations at these Regional Dialogues towards constitutional recognition. For those questioning the issue with paying First Nations peoples to hold these events, we ask you to consider the following:

• Paid facilitators at all of the Regional Dialogue meetings were granted ‘delegate’ status by the Referendum Council for the National Convention, without being elected by their communities or other delegates. This was only mentioned after the Regional Dialogues had concluded, not before or during.

• 170 Referendum council employees and facilitators were given voting rights and their trips were paid for after being employees of the campaign.

• The Referendum Council then changed their own processes after the dialogues commenced to prevent being called out on their own anti-democratic actions.

• At the National Convention, these paid facilitators and staffers were placed in control of all discussions in the manipulated breakout workshops, and actively silenced militant voices who managed to attend despite attempts to prevent their presence.

As a result, many community leaders and groups raised concerns around the process for selecting delegates to attend the National Convention. Many voices explicitly called out how the Makarrata Roadmap working group was selectively chosen with conditions that pushed out many poorer First Nations people. This included having criteria around being able to support their attendance financially and being able to take extended time away from work and family duties. Let’s be clear: delegates were selected not elected. The 100 or so delegates from each of the 18 Regional Dialogues were hand-picked to attend the National Convention according to the following conditions:

a. One female and one male representative from each of the 13 Regions

b. Representatives selected on the basis of their ability to contribute to the working group’s functions

c. Representatives are signatories to the Uluru Statement from the Heart and committed to its strategic goal.

Delegates were not representative of community, were forced to adhere to pre-conceived agendas that favoured the government and were hand-picked rather than elected. An example of this is how Ghillar Michael Anderson, the last surviving founder of the Tent Embassy, was struck from being a delegate despite having the support of two Regional Dialogues to do so, with new rules introduced by the Referendum Council to bar him and other militant voices from attending the National Convention.

After the Regional Dialogues concluded in their anti-democratic, pro-government fashion, there was further manipulation on the part of the assimilationists to stack the National Convention itself. In discussing this issue, we use the arguments listed in the Walkout Statement - Aboriginal Embassy Statement from the Sacred Fire:

Regarding the manipulative, dubious process of hand-picked delegates:

“The Referendum Council, their agents and their Conservative Black elite do not speak for the delegates that walked out of their National Constitutional Convention, not the many other First Nations Representatives who walked out of the National Constitutional Convention in opposition to their insidious and unlawful agenda. Nor do they speak for the many thousands of Wiradjuri people and hundreds of thousands of other Sovereign First Nations Peoples.”

Regarding the shifting of the agenda to focus on constitutional recognition and having delegates speak for individuals, Nations and communities without their endorsement:

“The ‘Uluru Statement’ is a reflection of the corrupt proceedings of the Referendum Council’s Regional Dialogues and the National Constitutional Convention. Only one pathway for the referendum was argued by the National Constitutional Convention: that of First Nations’ inclusion in the Constitution. All other options were gagged. Wrong way legal advice was endorsed by the Referendum Council to fool our people into believing that inclusion into the constitution would not impact on our inherent pre-existing Sovereign rights. Also, to have a ‘Voice’ and a ‘national advisory organisation’ does not require a referendum. No genuine mandate to make decisions on behalf of First Nations belonged to the majority of participants at the National Constitutional Convention.”

Regarding the stacking of the meetings to suppress democratic delegate representation:

“The 12 Regional Dialogues were closed invitation-only meetings, from which 10 ‘delegates’ were ‘elected’ to make up 60% of the ‘delegates’ at the Convention. Once the Referendum Council and its organisers, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Studies (AIATSIS), realised they had lost the numbers for constitutional inclusion, an executive decision was made by the powers that be to stack the National Constitutional Convention with their paid staff and facilitators, whom they called ‘delegates’. This created a major conflict of interest.”

Further, on the use of government-aligned organisations to further manipulate the vote in favour of governmental policy:

“Additionally, 20% of the participants at the Convention came from organisations, which had already been held to ransom to promote the agenda of the Recognise campaign and the Referendum Council in order to continue receiving government funding. A further 20% were individuals selected by government as ‘delegates’.”

“In relation to this, it should be noted that the government both in the past and in the present has manufactured consent from many community organisations, who have been co-opted into signing on in support to maintain funding of organisations. Many First Nations organisations have been made to show support for constitutional reform as part of their key performance indicators. For example, the guidelines for funding applications under the Indigenous Advancement Scheme (IAS) clearly list "Progress towards a referendum on constitutional recognition, participation in society and organisational capacity" as the main program outcome for the 'Culture and Capability Programme'. We can see how throughout this process, there has been a consistent campaign to undermine democratic representation of First Nations communities and a deliberate avoidance of First Nations protocols so as to manipulate these processes and manufacture consent. This has all been done to create a veneer of legitimacy for the government agenda of constitutional recognition and a powerless Voice.”

The National Convention

In accordance with the concerns raised by many First Nations peoples and communities, we will not dignify the National Convention by referring to it as the 'Uluru Conference' or whatever name the government has employed to frame it as a consensual, representative meeting of First Nations peoples. This section details how the processes at the Convention itself were just as manipulative, anti-democratic and dismissive of First Nations peoples as the Regional Dialogues and previous processes were.

Despite selecting a handful of delegates from the Regional Dialogues that favoured their agenda, the organisers of the National Convention further undermined the potential of these delegates to have an impact on the outcome by inviting 'delegates’ who had zero participation in the Regional Dialogues, as happened in Victoria for example. This was in addition to the stacking by Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Studies (AIATSIS) and community organisations whose funding relied on their support of the government agenda.

At the convention itself, every opportunity was taken by the organisers and facilitators to quash radical or dissenting voices that refused to bow down to the main agenda item of anti-sovereign constitutional recognition and the powerless voice. In the manipulated breakout discussions at the National Conventions, many delegates were denied speaking rights by the paid facilitators of the Referendum Council. Likewise, in plenary sessions, elected delegates were robbed of the right to discuss matters in full, and were stifled to the point that more than 30 delegates and observers walked out.

There were also multiple complaints about the lack of clarity provided on the new agenda points presented by the paid facilitators, who were unable to answer questions on the items their superiors handed them. Overall, these paid facilitators and staffers had greater speaking rights and time than elected delegates, and did not allow observers that had been barred from being delegates to contribute at all. The Aboriginal Embassy Walkout Statement emphasised this in stating:

“The most disappointing aspect of this gathering was that the grassroots-nominated delegates from the regional consultations were not afforded equal time to speak. Their voices were shut down.”

Also glossed over were the eight points that delegates at the National Convention agreed to. These have largely been wiped from the record by both the Coalition and Labor since the Convention took place. Those eight points were:

1. Sovereignty was never ceded

2. Rejection of being 'recognised' in the constitution

3. No support for a minimalist approach to constitutional reform

4. Agreement that a Treaty/Makaratta Commission be established to develop a national framework going forward that would permit each Sovereign Nation State to negotiate their own respective treaty

5. Removal of Section 51 (26) from the Constitution

6. Establishment of a Truth and Justice Commission

7. Resolved that the Constitution of Australia should have a Bill of Rights

8. Establishment of an elected Voice to Parliament that has constitutional backing

Yet, as with many of the arguments raised throughout the process, these have been glossed over to push the government’s primary agenda of a powerless voice and constitutional recognition. As renowned First nations activist Michael Mansell stated:

"The 2017 Aboriginal gathering at Uluru was not only about the Voice proposal. The emphasis in the Uluru Statement was that Aborigines are a sovereign people and our rights flow from that status. Accordingly, Treaty and Truth-telling took priority over constitutional recognition. However, the pro-Voice camp manipulated the stage-managed gathering at Uluru to make sure the Voice proposal was supported and prioritised. Since then, arguably, the pro-Voice group has used the Uluru Statement for its own ends."

The conduct of the National Convention was characterised by attempting to stack the meeting with individuals who were aligned to, reliant upon or supportive of the government and the colonial state's pre-existing agenda for constitutional recognition that targeted sovereignty and the implementation of a powerless Voice to Parliament of undefined design. The concerns raised by Elders, leaders, communities and organisations before the Regional Dialogues, at those meetings and at the National Convention itself, were consistently ignored and silenced to create the narrative of consensus. This is fundamentally not the case. The whole process was, is and will inevitably be characterised by the government intervening in the process and undermining dissenting voices to suit its agenda and maintain the colonial apparatus. For further information on this abusive process, see the appendix of this article.

Argument Two: ‘The Voice and constitutional recognition is a step towards treaty and truth’

matt hrkac, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

This argument is one that many have failed to understand in light of the past actions of the government, and in particular the Labor Party, in relation to Treaty. In recent months, Labor leaders such as Anthony Albanese and Linda Burney have repeatedly refused to concretely state if, when, and how the Treaty process will or will not occur after the Referendum. Other leaders have already turned their back on treaty occurring any time in the near future and have blatantly said so.

Many of the comments in relation to this argument have sought to emphasise the goodwill of the major parties in pushing for ‘treaty’ in various forms at a state level. However, the fact remains that these other so-called treaties can be abolished with the flick of a pen under legislation, just as the Voice can be altered by pro-colonial governments once it is in the Constitution. 

Many argue that the Voice will be empowered and permanent, allowing it pursue Treaty and Truth as First Nations communities see fit. However, this is not the case, with the Voice set up in a way that allows governments to rob it of funding and to restructure it as it sees fit. Michael Mansell stated:

“It may be that a friendly parliament and government fund and retain the legislation which establishes an advisory body, but that cannot stop a future government withdrawing funding support or rescinding the legislation.”

Furthermore, as noted in the above analysis of the Regional Dialogues and National Convention, there has been a refusal by the government to entertain other ways of enacting national treaties, with a lack of consideration of other methods raised by First Nations voices. NSW Aboriginal elder Jenny Munro criticised what she called a disrespectful process:

"It's not a dialogue, it's a one-way conversation. Every time we try and raise an issue our voices are silenced. They are not looking at any alternatives options other than the (Cape York leader) Noel Pearson road map. And like Native Title, that will prove to be an abject failure."

Many First Nations organisations and voices have rejected the watered down demands that make up the “Statement from the Heart”. Instead, they have held on to the principles and demands that have underpinned First Nations movements against colonialism for centuries. They are maintaining that truth telling with material redress, treaty with obligations and land rights with sovereignty are the solutions required to address the material injustices under the current colonial system. We also add the fact that many of these issues can be addressed before and regardless of the referendum on constitutional recognition. However, both Labor and the Liberal refuse to take action that threatens the concerns of the colonial state and its capitalist rulers, from mining companies to farming lobbies. As Lidia Thorpe stated: 

“We need real power, and we need real justice in this country. It is time for treaty. It is time to end the war that was declared on our people. We have not ceded sovereignty and we need to have a conversation in this country about sovereignty because the King of England says that he is sovereign to these lands. And he is not. He is not of this land.”

“So, let’s have a conversation about sovereignty through a peace treaty. And let’s talk about how we go into the Constitution. We cannot go into the Constitution until we have an agreement about consent and that can only happen through treaty. We have to have a treaty first and foremost because clans and nations need to firstly self-determine their own destiny and have free, prior and informed consent about what that looks like.”

We re-emphasise that the Voice is not a step towards treaty and truth - it is a tokenistic distraction used to allow racists, capitalists and supporters of colonialism to have their say on what powers and rights First Nations peoples can have under the rule of the invaders. It brings zero power to hold the government accountable in fulfilling its duties and promises to First Nations peoples. I leave this point with the words of Michael Mansell who said: 

“A treaty confers rights on Aboriginal people and imposes obligations on all governments. A Voice does not confer any rights and doesn't impose any obligations.”

Labor has promised a treaty and truth for more than 50 years now. Every time, it says that First Nations peoples need to accept the crumbs they offer them instead, and to be grateful for it, all while Country is destroyed and Mob are killed. If they really wanted a Treaty and Truth, they would undertake a real effort to engage First Nations Elders, communities and representatives, rather than manipulating processes to avoid criticism and manufacture consent. We must recognise the way they operate, remain critical of it and be vigilant against the wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Argument Three: ‘The Voice will break down division and foster inclusion’

The naive argument that the Voice and constitutional recognition will work to break down division between First Nations peoples, nations and the wider colonial Australian society is one that shows a deep misunderstanding of the core issues. What this argument really pushes is assimilation and paternalistic quashing of First Nations sovereignty.

The Voice and constitutional recognition are not measures that seek to unite First Nations peoples with wider Australian society to achieve justice and resolve the material inequalities experienced by First Nations peoples. Rather, it seeks to cement them into a system that is fundamentally geared against their interests, co-opting First Nations peoples into a colonial and capitalist system founded in the maintenance of division along class and other lines.

Hence, the referendum is actively attempting to continue the policy of assimilation by forcing First Nations peoples into the constitution at the whim of a majority non-First Nations demographic that accounts for 97% of the population. Despite many of the claims made on technicalities, this is a decision that will overwhelmingly undermine and negate claims to sovereignty and treaty that have been demands of First Nations movements for generations, as mentioned in the above section on the Dialogues.

The illegitimacy of the colonial state forcing First Nations peoples into the Constitution is represented in the following excerpt from the Walkout Statement by the Aboriginal Embassy, which states:

“We assert that the Commonwealth, State and Territory Constitutions do not have a constitutional head of power to pass any laws which affect, impact, or diminish the continental Sovereignty of First Nations and Peoples. This is the reason why the Commonwealth, via the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s Referendum Council, is so intent to coerce our people and manufacture consent for the colonial power to govern First Nations Peoples in right of the Crown of the United Kingdom.”

The push for constitutional recognition without providing any rights, powers or guarantees to First Nations peoples and nations is motivated by the colonial state’s desire to legitimate its claim to rule over Australia and the First Nations peoples and nations within it. It is not an attempt to address injustices, and there has been a gaslighting attempt by the colonial state that frames First Nations peoples who reject the Voice and constitutional recognition as sabotaging opportunities for material improvements to First Nations issues. Chelsea Watego called out this dynamic in stating:

"I resent the fact that settlers get to decide what is in our best interests. You don't have to be a historian to know that, as a strategy, that has failed us as a people"

Indeed, the fact that this 'unity' is being pushed by those who hold all the power and get to set the terms is a disgraceful, overtly colonial and paternalistic approach to First Nations issues. Indeed, many see it as yet another attempt in a historical trend of attempting to integrate and assimilate First Nations peoples into broader Australian society under terms set by the coloniser. Gary Foley said on the matter that:

"People say — it’s to enshrine it in the Constitution. Well, that’s a bit of a problem. Because what if this advisory body turns out to be a dud like all the rest of them? We’re stuck with it into eternity because getting rid of it is going to be almost impossible."

This statement highlights how the inclusion being pushed is one that robs First Nations peoples of the right to determine their own futures as they see fit, in accordance with the changing material conditions they are confronted with. 'Inclusion' under terms and institutions created by the colonial government, overseen by the colonial government and with the power to be altered by the colonial government without consultation is not what First Nations peoples want or need. In fact, this model has caused further division in Australian society, between and within First Nations communities.

The way the referendum has been approached, with its vague language, removal and absence of information, distortion of narratives and wholesale manipulation has led to heightened tensions and polarisation. If successful, the Yes vote will only lead to further division down the line that sees militant, principled First Nations voices, and those that dare be critical, dissent or question the colonial state, be further ostracised and targeted by the colonial state and the broader Australian population. If this process had been done in a truly consultative manner that included First Nations voices in accordance with their values, protocols, histories and material conditions, this could have been largely avoided. Instead, the colonial state and its supporters pursued this paternalistic approach from above, and it has caused damage that will linger for generations.

Argument Four: ‘The majority of First Nations peoples support it’

Supporters of the Voice have repeated this claim ad nauseam. Evidence of First Nations support for the Voice is drawn from two skewed surveys which have been repeatedly questioned by First Nations leaders and organisations. The statistic of over 80% of First Nations people supporting the Voice comes from two surveys conducted earlier in the year.

The first of these, conducted by Ipsos, engaged 300 people, with 181 accounting for the final sample size. This found that 80% of those surveyed indicated they would vote yes. The second poll held by Yougov in March sampled 738 people that self-identified as Indigenous. Of this sample, 83% indicated they would vote yes. These polls were conducted online, with respondents “selected from existing panels of people agreeing to take part in surveys”.

Many have noted that with this qualification, and the fact that respondents only had to self-identify as Indigenous, that the results are not representative of the diverse First Nations population in Australia. Lack of access to internet, engagement with such polling groups and issues around communication mean that many First Nations peoples are automatically excluded from this polling. Factoring in that recently it was indicated in other polls that over 45% of First Nations peoples have heard very little or know nothing about the referendum, the validity of this oft-repeated statistic begins to fall apart.

Likewise, a recent survey conducted by Resolve Strategic found that 56% of First Nations people were opposed to the Voice. This was drawn from a sample of 420 people, showing that support has declined. Admittedly, this poll likewise suffered from the same issues listed above, being conducted online. However, this reflects the selective imagery.

Another important case when looking at polls however comes from a Constitutional Recognition survey put out by IndigenousX in 2015 during the Recognise campaign. This poll was put to First Nations people to counter the results of a Polity Research poll showing that 87% of First Nations peoples supported constitutional recognition. However, the results of the IndigenousX survey certainly presented a different picture to that reported in the Recognise poll. Of the 824 confirmed First Nations people who responded, 25 per cent indicated support for recognition, 58 per cent indicated that they did not support recognition, and 17 per cent were unsure. Only 33 percent indicated that they would vote ‘yes’, even if all of the Expert Panel’s recommendations were included.

Likewise, a meeting in 2016 held by the Victorian Government saw more than 500 First Nations leaders unanimously reject constitutional recognition, with an also unanimous motion explicitly stating : “We as Sovereign People reject Constitutional Recognition”. One of those present as a delegate, Terry Mason, stated afterwards that “One of the key comments was ‘Why are we discussing self determination and constitutional recognition without having first sorted out the issue of treaties.’”

These results, as well as the large number of Elders, leaders, individuals and communities that have come out in opposition to the Yes vote, highlight how the government is attempting to construct a narrative of First Nations creation and support of the powerless Voice and constitutional recognition. Gary Foley put paid to this myth, stating:

"The broader ignorance of where this referendum fits into history is reflected in the reverence displayed for the Uluru statement. I mean, the Uluru Statement was made by a fairly selective bunch of Indigenous leaders, some of them so-called leaders. Gathering at such as symbolic place as Uluru was designed to give unwarranted meaning to this assembly. Some sort of psychic or spiritual blessing. It elevated the statement into some sort of sermon from the mount or something.”

“By no means was this group representative of opinion in Aboriginal communities across Australia. Their position shouldn’t be seen as more important than the strong opposition to such a notion of a referendum expressed amongst Victorian Aboriginal communities. Most Aboriginal communities across Australia would have had no idea about this proposal for a referendum, or being inserted into the constitution.”

“The other thing with this referendum is that once again, our future as Aboriginal people is in the hands of a vast, white, largely unsympathetic electorate. White people, yet again, are deciding what is best for Aboriginal people. This is exactly the opposite of self-determination."

In addition to this opposition to the Voice and constitutional recognition, there are the concerted campaigns led by militant First Nations organisations that have long histories of being at the frontline of First Nations struggles. This is something that many of the self-appointed leaders involved with the government have actively avoided, and history has shown that they have repeatedly acted against the material interests of First Nations peoples so as to protect their own self-interests and maintain the status quo at the behest of the government and its allies.

Organisations such as the Aboriginal Embassy, the Blak Sovereign Movement, the Black Peoples Union, Treaty Before Voice, the Greens First Nation Network and many others have come out in staunch opposition to the Voice and constitutional recognition.

The Blak Sovereign Movement raised the following points on its stance:

    • It is not an invitation from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People.

    • It is not a step in the right direction: just another powerless advisory body.

    • It is a destructive distraction, absolving the government of its continued crimes.

    • Recognition of Sovereignty and Truth-telling are the key to real change.

    • There are options that will have meaningful impacts today. It starts with Truth.

Additionally, the Greens First Nation Network recently issued a release stating their reasons for opposing the Yes vote, which included the following:

    • There are no guarantees that First Nations sovereignty will not be impacted.

    • There is no guaranteed progress to treaty or truth-telling.

    • Labor's voice cannot accurately represent all First Nations peoples.

    • It enshrines the hierarchy of the Crown and Government above First Nations peoples.

    • It further assimilates us.

    • Due to the legislative nature of Labor's voice, the scope of Labor's voice will constantly change with new governments.

    • It is not a step in the right direction. Instead, it is just another powerless advisory body.

    • The Voice will have no guaranteed power, no authority, and no way to influence anything.

    • It is a destructive distraction, absolving the government of its continued crimes.

    • The constitution is a racist document full of the remnants of the White Australia Policy forcing us to be in this document is an act of settler colonialism.

Even First Nations groups that outwardly support the Voice are held hostage by key performance indicators in order to maintain funding. If they want to keep delivering for First Nations people, then they are forced by government regulations to openly support the Voice.

Furthermore, there has been overwhelming pressure on First Nations people from the white majority and its institutions to achieve a speedy consensus among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that has led to an angry response from some.

To assist this, many reactionary, liberal leaders with close ties to Labor have been used to lend legitimacy to the campaign, prioritising their own self-interest and position and to appease the colonial rulers that provide them with power. The nefarious nature of these self-appointed leaders who perform the bidding of the colonial state will be discussed separately.

Furthermore, there is the fact that many of those who did support the initiative did so conditionally, as we discussed earlier in relation to the actual processes before and after the National Convention in 2017. However, these conditions have been repeatedly dismissed, but their support was rejigged to seem like they supported the Voice and constitutional recognition in the form that is now being pushed - this is fundamentally not the case. As noted previously, even with the support that was manufactured and manipulated to seem more genuine and unconditional that it was, the support was garnered through a skewed and heavily biased process that glossed over many of the attached conditions of the government initiative.

In relation to this, the insights of Reverend Doctor Djiniyini Gondarra reflect the fact that most First Nations peoples do not support the voice in the powerless form it has taken, seeing it as merely a tokenistic measure to absolve the guilt of the colonial state in a hollow way that does not impact their material privilege or threaten the status quo. He said:

"So I ask, what is all of this referendum actually for? Is it to make balanda feel good? Is it to distract us from the prize that many Elders have been fighting for most of our lives, Treaty? You cannot cherry pick who you consult with and then say it is what all Indigenous people wanted. Most people in remote communities have no idea what this “Voice” is about."

The proposal put forward by the colonial state is not supported by the majority of First Nations peoples because it is tokenistic and will have little to no positive material impact on their lives. Furthermore, it is more than likely that it would be used to lend legitimacy to the actions of the colonial state and to quash dissent from First Nations peoples. The organisations and individuals that oppose it do so in accordance with the principles that have guided the First Nations resistance to colonialism and capitalism for centuries. These organisations and individuals, like others before them, have always been on the right side of history in recognising the backstabbing nature of the colonial regime. We stand by them in solidarity.

Argument Five: ‘The representatives of the Voice will be democratic and allow First Nations peoples to have a say on who speaks for them’

There is little to justify this claim. After all, how democratic were the processes that led to the Voice and the campaign for constitutional recognition? One need only look at the deeply flawed processes of the Regional Dialogues and National Convention that defied First Nations protocols and democratic standards at every turn to suit the colonial state’s agenda. These actions, as with other historical actions before them, are symptomatic of what the Voice would be like as an institution under the colonial state.

Additionally, we must recognise that this argument, like many others pushed by the Yes camp, are underpinned by paternalistic ignorance and suppression of existing First Nations voices. Leah House, Ngambri woman and Vice-President of the Black People’s Union, explicitly stated that:

“The Voice would create an ‘illusion of progress’ while allowing the Australian government to continue its ‘theft and exploitation’ of Indigenous land and resources. We already have a voice, you’re just not listening.”

Likewise, renowned First Nations leader Michael Mansell stated:

"The problem isn’t that we don’t have a voice: the problem is we cannot get anyone to listen."

He elaborated on this by mentioning the Productivity Commission Report on Closing the Gap and the 1995 ATSIC report Recognition Rights and Reform: A Report to Government on Native Title Social Justice Measures, he noted that:

"The Voice to Parliament or advisory body proposal is a massive backward step from these two reports, both of which emphasised Aboriginal decision-making along self-determination lines. The advisory body is completely at odds with self-determination and the acknowledgement at Uluru of Black sovereignty, which implies Aboriginal decision-making and self-control.”

“The Voice model cannot return land and will not deliver services, raise revenue or distribute money: it can only comment on federal political matters.”

“The Voice cannot pass laws or prevent racist laws from being made, or even save itself should a future government decide to dump it. It is a toothless tiger.”

“The proposed Voice referendum will not give Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders access to the decision-making table at all. An advisory body advises. It is not a decision-maker. Imagine if white people were told they could only elect advisers, not decision-makers. Why should Aborigines be treated less favourably?"

In these arguments, we see how the motivation behind the Voice is not to provide First Nations peoples with opportunities to formulate their own processes on who represents them and speaks on their issues. Rather, it is an attempt by the colonial state to control First Nations voices by legitimising a pro-colonial institution that is shackled to the government. It is a way to legitimise colonial policies by putting First Nations faces to them, as well as a means of stifling dissent. The hand picking of delegates to the Regional Dialogues and National Conventions, and many other historical examples, show this.

Furthermore, there are a range of issues regarding the structure and form the Voice will take. There has been a lack of measures for input from communities and their Elders and representatives on its structure. There has consistently been an outright refusal on behalf of the government and its lackeys to provide concrete information on how it will be composed and controlled.

Currently, the structure that is more or less being put forward is one that will only have 24 members, with two members from each state, then one for the Northern Territory, ACT and Torres Strait, along with a further five members to represent remote areas from the NT, WA, Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales, and an additional member representing Torres Strait Islanders living on the mainland. The concentration of 500 nations into a handful of representatives that are allied to the government does not bode well, especially in considering the previous actions of the government in this space.

In legislating the structure of the Voice, governments will be able to change it as they see fit, which will more than likely see it being narrowed to shut out dissident or militant voices. As previously mentioned, this is exactly what was demonstrated in the Regional Dialogues and at the National Convention, with hand-picked delegates inserted into discussions by the government and its allies, dissident voices excluded, elected community representatives barred from input, and conditions implemented that limit who can actually be involved.

The words of Reverend Doctor Djiniyini Gondarra best encapsulate this:

"In my 78 years living and working in both worlds, I have witnessed the Australian Government continuously hand pick Indigenous people that behave like the Master Slave, mirroring what the Government says, while they ignore the voices of clan leaders and community members who challenge them and the system they are operating under. This is nothing less than dictatorship and the continuation of the dividing and conquering of my people."

The Voice will not be a democratic body because its formulation has not been democratic. It does not respect First Nations protocols, but instead seeks to implement an alien form of leadership onto First Nations peoples. Indeed, it will be a democracy in the true colonial and capitalist sense – a megaphone for oppressor rhetoric and a gag for the oppressed.

Argument Six: ‘The Voice will allow First Nations peoples to advise on policies impacting them and improve their material conditions’

Many believe that the Voice will give First Nations peoples the power to advise on policies impacting them and in turn will allow them to improve their material conditions. This is inherently false. Firstly, even if the Voice was made up of the most staunch, informed and representative leaders from First Nations communities, the issues it is allowed to advise on by the colonial state are controlled by the colonial state. Furthermore, nothing compels the government to listen to or act on this advice. It’s already being hinted at that the Victorian Voice would be limited to advising on health, education, jobs and housing. Nevertheless, constitutional lawyers have repeatedly emphasised that there is no need to be concerned about the legal effect of representations made by the Voice. These powers already exist for First Nations peoples, as

Jessica Savage from the Aboriginal Embassy noted:

"As the Voice is a guaranteed right to make representations to parliament, and in taking that concept of making representations to parliament as the absolute minimum, it means standard citizens’ rights in a representative democracy."

Similarly, Michael Mansell highlighted the limitation of the Voice’s scope to address the pressing issues confronting First Nations peoples:

“Another limitation of the Voice is its scope of operation. Being a creature of the federal parliament and not of the states, the advisory body is restricted to commenting on federal matters. Day-to-day issues affecting Aboriginal people—land, policing, courts, gaols, health, hospitals, housing, education, child protection and child welfare—are primarily state and territory matters. They are outside the jurisdiction of a federal advisory body.”

Secondly, First Nations peoples, communities and organisations already have this power. It is only with paternalistic, pro-colonial state lenses that one can be blinded to these existing voices. These are voices that have provided detailed, informed methods to address issues to different governments. Rather than acting on these recommendations, the government opts instead to gloss over them or outright ignore them, silencing these voices. This would be the same with the powerless Voice to Parliament. On this matter, Elder and community leader Nerelle Nicol said the following:

“First, I find the whole idea insulting and totally disrespectful to our people because it’s like saying we haven’t already got a voice, and we have.”

“If we don’t already have a voice, what is that saying about those people involved in organisations like the Aboriginal Land Council, NACCHO (National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation) and SNAICC (Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care)?”

“Second, it’s not [about] needing a voice – it’s about maybe those with ears are not listening. We have continued to be asked to take a coercive line yet the real issue of disadvantage is what needs funding to be properly addressed.”

The Voice is a hollow gesture that does not actually seek to assist First Nations peoples in addressing their material inequalities. These issues could be addressed now through a variety of measures, but both the ALP and Coalition have repeatedly refused these attempts. Instead they have sought to coerce First Nations peoples, leaders and organisations into supporting this tokenistic gesture if they wish to see any actual changes. This only highlights their manipulative behaviour and pro-colonial agenda. In this vein, Lidia Thorpe noted that a lot of the broader population see this as a way to alleviate their colonial guilt without actually addressing their colonial privileges and the inequalities suffered by First Nations Peoples. She said that:

"(they are) feeling good about it. So, they will say yes. But really, they’re smoothing the dying pillow, because yes, as far as the minister for Indigenous affairs is concerned, is to a powerless advisory body that will focus on health, unemployment, education and housing.”

“Where is the justice in that? Where are deaths in custody, child removals, the destruction of land and climate change? You don’t think we’ve got something to say about that?”

”So, again, the oppressors are telling us what we can talk to them about. And the oppressors are coming back to us and saying, ‘We’ll give you a little advisory spot and we just may allow you to give advice.’ Well, I’m sorry. That is just not good enough. And after 250 years we do deserve better. We don’t have to go to a referendum for extra seats in parliament and we don’t have to go to a referendum for a treaty.”

“Millions of dollars are being thrown at the Yes campaign, when the Labor government right now has refused my recommendations and the recommendations from grassroots Aboriginal housing organisations to make sure that Aboriginal housing was a priority in the latest housing legislation.”

“Labor can talk the Voice all they like, but they won’t implement the recommendations of the deaths in custody inquiry. They won’t recommend the child removal recommendations from the Bringing Them Home report. They won’t even give us any leeway on any legislation that’s going through parliament right now.”

“I’m begging them for housing for our people, and Burney is waiting for the Voice to come to talk about it. It is hypocrisy and it is deceitful, and it is wrong. There is so much the parliament could do right now. They won’t pass the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People legislation, my private members bill. It’s been there for 18 months. They won’t do it.”

Additionally, there remains the fact that the Voice will actually have no power to address material inequalities. To again quote Lidia Thorpe on this issue:

"The Voice has got no power. No power whatsoever and the government decides who is on it and what it looks like. It has no money. It has no mandate. It has no veto rights.”

“It is exemplary of what this country thinks of us. We are the problem that needs to be fixed. ‘So, give the little Aborigines a voice, one with no power either way, as that’s what we prefer.’ That’s what the Yes people are saying to me.”

“We want you to have a seat in there somewhere, but you are not allowed to have any power, and we need to have parliamentary primacy over you at all times, because we don’t actually trust the Blacks in this country. And we know what’s best for you.”

First Nations peoples already have voices that should be listened to. These are voices that have taken action to address the inaction on behalf of the colonial state, both Labor and Liberal. Shamelessly, the official Yes pamphlet mentions that it can give better health services by following the examples of services such as the Aboriginal Medical Services. It also mentions that the Voice can achieve improved results in education by following examples where community involvement has been paired with education formation.

The historical ignorance and whitewashing of this argument is appalling. Programs such as these were formed due to the direct failure of government policies and their repeated dismissal of First Nations programs that the government has supported with meagre resources. These are programs that are consistently starved of funds by both Labor and the Coalition, who have worked to ensure that funds are repeatedly siphoned off by white middle-men and NGOs with links to government institutions, depriving community programs of the chance to thrive and survive and setting them up for failure.

Government institutions and NGOs consistently ignore or water down advice from First Nations communities, leaders, organisations and other experts. This is highlighted in the fact that only four out of 19 “Closing the Gap” targets are currently on track to rectify the material disenfranchisement suffered by First Nations peoples. This happened because the government refuses to listen to community First Nations voices. The government has undermined self-determination and has done all it can to promote constitutional recognition and the Voice to Parliament as a way to attack sovereignty with vague platitudes. On this matter, the words of Gary Foley resonate:

“How anybody could conceive of this as some form of culmination of the struggle for self-determination, or say that ‘History is calling’ here is ludicrous. There is no self-determination element in this proposition whatsoever.”

“The whole exercise is just yet another effort to put a bit of lipstick on the pig. It’s yet another device to divert the people from the real issues of self-determination, economic and political independence, which have been the consistent Aboriginal political demands since the first modern day Aboriginal political organisation, the AAPA, in the 1920s.”

The Voice, as part of constitutional recognition, is not the way that First Nations peoples believe that their issues should be resolved. It is a coercive approach that seeks to undermine sovereignty and self-determination, motivated by colonial and paternalistic thought and ideology. Until the government has shown that it will actually listen to First Nations voices, any attempts to be coerced into the colonial state and its institutions must be rejected, in line with the principles of First Nations movements of the last 250 plus years.

Argument Seven: ‘If you look at who supports the No vote, you’d change to vote Yes’

matt hrkac, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Rather than argue the merits of the Voice, some prefer to attack the No position via association. The capitalist media, ever faithful in its service of ruling class interests, focused attention on racist “No” supporters while ignoring the progressive no camp, effectively associating voting no with racism in the popular imagination. Let’s be clear, conflating the views of the Aboriginal Embassy, Blak Sovereign Movement and countless Elders, leaders and organisations that have fought against colonialism for decades with the racist, pro-colonial views of people like Jacinta Price, Warren Mundine, Pauline Hanson and bodies like the Liberal Party and One Nation is a tone-deaf, historically ignorant position.

In fact, there are plenty of pro Yes people who are just as racist, supportive of colonialism and against land rights as those in the “racist No” camp. However, theirs is a more subtle form of racism that holds on to the paternalistic image of the 'good Aboriginal', one who is happy to be assimilated and to buy into the myth of colonial prosperity. As Murri Elder Ken Canning stated:

“I’ve had conversations with people involved in this. And if you look closely at the Uluru Statement and the Voice, you’ve got the same players who were involved with constitutional recognition. They rejected constitutional recognition. And now, they’re calling for the Voice.

There’s a couple of things here. We’ve got the same players involved. But, more importantly, we’ve got the same companies backing both moves: Rio Tinto, KPMG, Lendlease, IAG, BHP, Woodside.

            Would anybody who has regard for the rights of people on their own lands trust their future with groups like this bankrolling a move to have a Voice in the Constitution?"

            The other point is, the Anangu people – the traditional custodians of Uluru – have quite clearly stated they want their name removed from the statement. They want it called the Statement from the Heart, not from Uluru. They do not want to be associated with it.

            But, the people who are involved with this have disregarded the traditional owners request. So, I don’t hold any confidence in this being anything but something that’s set up and bankrolled by big companies, colluding with government to take away what little rights we have left.

            My simple statement is this: they are going to dig up Mother Earth, while they are burying Aboriginal peoples. If this goes through, that’s what will happen.”

Similarly calling out the questionable background of those who manufactured and bankrolled the Yes campaign is First Nations journalist Ben Abbatangelo:

“What hasn’t been accounted for is how ‘Yes’ voters end up on the same side of the ledger as Anthony Albanese and the Labor Party, BHP, Woodside, Rio Tinto, the Business and Minerals Councils – institutions that, through ongoing dispossession, exploitation and displacement of Indigenous people, actually create the world Gary Johns envisages. How do the ‘not all no voters are racist, but all racists are no voters’ explain this? How do the ‘white moderates’ pretending to be ‘progressive environmentalists’ account for this ‘unity ticket’ they’re riding?”

            "If ‘No’ is the only racist option, then how do people like Mark Textor – who was the populist pollster that, ironically, used wedge politics to fan the flames of racism during John Howard’s prime ministership, not only led to the disbandment of ATSIC and the rolling back of other protections, but also the inhumane ‘stop the boats’ campaign and offshore detention centres – end up on the board of Yes23 alongside John Howard’s former Chief of Staff, Tony Nutt and current BHP Director Catherine Tanna?"

To flesh this out further, we provide a list that includes just some of the many figures involved in the Yes campaign that have histories of undermining sovereignty, attacking land rights and silencing First Nations voices:

·      Graham Bradley AM - currently non-executive Chairman of Energy Australia Holdings, Stockland Corporation and HSBC Bank Australia. He was on the Expert Panel.

·      Jane McAloon - a strategic and corporate adviser, former President of Governance and Group Company Secretary of BHP Billiton, former Director General of the New South Wales Ministry of Energy and Utilities, current non-Executive Director of Energy Australia. She was on the Referendum Council.

·      Michael Chaney - petroleum geologist, Chairman of Wesfarmers and Northern Star Resources, former Chairman of Woodside Petroleum, former Director of BHP. He is a Director of Yes23.

·      Catherine Tanna - Director of BHP Group Limited, former Managing Director of Energy Australia. She is a Director of Yes23.

·      Joanne Farrell - worked in the mining industry from 1981 to 2020. She retired from Rio Tinto from the position of Group Executive Health, Safety and Environment and Managing Director of Australia. She was a member of the Senior Advisory Group that co-designed the Voice.

·      Chloe Wighton - Lendlease First Nations cultural engagement director. (Lendlease is involved with mining and utility power systems and does work for BHP.) She is a director of Yes23.

·      Mark Textor - His lobbying firm Crosby Textor (also C/T) works with Australia's mining industry, oil and gas retailers and renewable energy companies and conservative political parties globally. He was a strategist for Recognise, assistant to Noel Pearson on the Expert Panel and the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and now a director of Yes 23.

·      Bill Lawson AM - "a retired professional engineer in public works who had worked throughout Australia in Indigenous communities" according to the official blurb, forgetting to mention that he was the principal of Sinclair Knight Merz, a global construction firm fined for bribery. He was on the Expert Panel.

·      Daniel Gilbert AM - Director of the Business Council of Australia (a lobby group which has attacked organisations such as GetUP! and is on record as having paid Sky News $1 million to further its conservative Business agendas). Additionally, Gilbert is Co-Chair of Noel Pearson's Cape York Partnership Group Pty Ltd which supported income management for Aboriginal communities. He is Director and co-chair of Yes23.

·      Noel Pearson - has been criticised for supporting the Northern Territory interventions. He is a Director of Yes 23, and was on the Senior Advisory Group. Closely aligned with and mentored by Mark Liebler, a notorious Zionist supporting the genocide of Palestinians.

·      Josephine Cashman - former One Nation candidate for the seat of Lyne, was sacked from the Senior Advisory Group co-designing the Voice after allegations that she provided a faked letter from a senior Aboriginal leader as part of a campaign to discredit the author Bruce Pascoe.

·      Mark Leibler - taxation lawyer with high net worth and corporate clientele, former director of seven companies that "went to the bottom of the harbour" in the 1970s. He was co-chair of the Expert Panel and of the Referendum Council. Notrious Zionist and opponent of land rights.

·      Anthony Nutt - former chief of staff to John Howard. He is a director of Yes23.

The Yes campaign has been driven by those who have repeatedly acted against First Nations peoples, communities and interests to support colonial policies and institutions that have attacked Mob and Country. This is just another example of how the initiative has come from above, backed and controlled by those who benefit the most from the current status quo of the capitalist, colonial system in Australia.

To conclude, the Racist No camp and the Progressive No camp are in no way compatible - one fights to defend colonial privileges and systems to the extreme, while the other seeks to tear them down. On the contrary, the Yes vote is but the other side of the Racist No coin, in that they both seek to protect the colonial system and its privileges and to downplay First Nations material justice, albeit through different means.

Argument Eight: ‘Taking a no stance is dogmatic and idealistic, negating the material needs of First Nations peoples’

The ACP’s position on this referendum is drawn from a thorough analysis of the events and material conditions surrounding the creation and propagation of constitutional recognition and the proposed powers of the Voice to Parliament. We’ve already shown how the Voice will have little material impact, so here we instead present the arguments that an array of respected First Nations leaders have made on the matter.

Jessica Savage from the Aboriginal Embassy highlighted the lying, manipulative nature of the ALP and Coalition in relation to First Nations issues, and the inherent anti-First Nations agenda of the colonial state. She stated:

“The colonial system has repeatedly proven itself untrustworthy and unwilling to even make low-hanging fruit improvements for our wellbeing. Our people know where the proposal originated, the main names behind it and who’s bankrolling it. The overall messaging is shallow and leaves many unanswered questions. I can’t think of how it could be made more suspicious.”

Likewise, Gary Foley emphasised the need for measures that provide the grounds for First Nations Peoples to express self-determination over their own communities:

“Self-determination means Aboriginal control of Aboriginal Affairs. It means political and economic independence. And that’s what sovereignty means.”

Lidia Thorpe called out how the initiative does not actually address the material needs of First Nations peoples. Rather, it is merely a tokenistic measure that seeks to provide the colonial state with the false image of progress:

“The Voice is the easy way to fake progress, without actually having to change a thing. It is a destructive distraction, absolving the government of its continued crimes.”

Similarly, Michael Mansell called out the hollowness of the initiative, and the idealism surrounding those who argue for Yes:

“Selling a mere advisory body as a ‘seat at the decision-making table’ takes some gall. The Yes camp cannot give detail about the Voice proposal because the sell is dependent on emotion—and, yes, on guilt. Last year Senator Pat Dodson said only racists would oppose the Voice. Minister Linda Burney argues this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. Noel Pearson and others keep referring to Aboriginal disadvantage as a reason why the Voice should be supported. They fail to explain exactly how an advisory body will overcome this disadvantage when many other advisory bodies have failed.”

Respected Elder Narelle Nicol expressed how the Voice demonstrates the unwillingness of the colonial state to actually address the material conditions confronting First Nations peoples:

“I’ll be very disappointed if it’s voted in because it will have a significantly negative impact. To me the Voice would not be progressive at all. Nothing is going to change with an advisory voice – if it was going to change it would have changed long ago.”

“It also concerns me that it would only be 24 people on the Voice, when we have multiple communities in just the Cairns area alone. It can’t represent everyone’s interests in a fair way.

But what gives me hope is that I see young Australians – both Black and white – who are not afraid of addressing the truth. It won’t be an easy path, it never is, but they are determined to address the real issues truthfully.”

In relation to the silencing of these voices who have made valid critiques as community representatives, leaders or Elders with decades of experience in this area, we quote Celeste Liddle regarding the quashing of dissenting voices by the liberal, ‘progressive’, paternalistic Yes camp:

"We have seen a continual erasure of progressive Indigenous voices who are calling for a “no” vote, or even those who are more questioning of what difference a Voice to Parliament might really make."

It is dogmatic and idealist to support a vague concept put forward by the colonial state and backed by its worst criminals, and the forces who continue to unleash genocide upon First Nations peoples and Country. The Voice and constitutional recognition does nothing to address the material injustices confronting First Nations peoples. It is not a step in the right direction; it is a means of legitimising the colonial state that is at war with First Nations peoples. We will not support it, and will not be swayed by emotional, baseless arguments into doing so. We stand by the First Nations resistance movements fighting against the colonial state and those who seek to paternalistically assimilate them into its constitution.

Argument Nine: ‘To Vote No is to be divisive and prevent bringing our country together’

Matt Hrkac from Melbourne, Australia, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

This argument rests on a colonial position that is pro-assimilationist and centred on maintaining the colonial power imbalance to assuage guilt without forfeiting colonial privileges. Why should we unite those in remote Indigenous communities and those trapped in ghettoes on the fringes of urban metropolis with the rich criminals in their harbour side mansions that profit from running the prisons, mining companies, and banks that derive their wealth from the colonial exploitation of First Nations peoples and Country? Why should First Nations peoples throw away 250 years of struggle to seek unity with a government and institutions that implement, maintain and strengthen policies that imprison, exploit and kill them?

Gary Foley spoke on this by saying:

“Why would I, as, as member of the Gumbaynggirr nation, who have never ceded our sovereignty, why would I want anything about me in the constitution of a foreign country? Why would we hook our trailer to a disreputable nation like Australia? That’s the simple answer for me, I’m not interested in constitutional recognition, I don’t think that anybody with any sense should be talking about it.”

The Voice and constitutional recognition seeks to water down First Nations culture, sovereignty and self-determination by forcing people into the colonial constitution based on what the colonising majority decides. Jessica Savage called out this process in stating:

“Constitutional recognition is a lie because it recognises us as being the First Australians and that’s simply not who we are. We are not unrecognised Australians. We are who we are. We have our own political systems and identities. We need to have our territorial integrity respected.”

Finally, on this matter we quote Reverend Doctor Djiniyini Gondarra, who said:

“If you have really been following Indigenous rights and the policies affecting my people, you will see that Yes is not a step forward in the right direction. It is another step toward the assimilation of our culture and the demeaning of our sovereignty and our Law. It is also important to see that voting No won’t mean a ‘missed opportunity’ because the “Voice” offers nothing meaningful in the first place.”

“Stop treating us like children and forcing inappropriate solutions upon us, that are propped up by mainstream propaganda and funded by corporations that have never cared for our self-governance, our liberty or our freedom.”

“We don’t need a saviour. My people have their own pride, their own authority and their own dignity that comes from our Maḏayin system of Law.”

This country is at war - the colonial state is actively pursuing the genocide of First Nations peoples. We do not support the capitulation of the First Nations struggle to assimilate into the capitalist, colonial state. We do not put our trust in the hands of the thieves, deceivers, manipulators and murderers that maintain the colonial apparatus. We can’t bring this country together while this war continues. Unless terms are agreed to, all attempts to be coerced by the colonial state must be rejected. They are the ones who have created and maintained the conditions for division, and now wish to force upon First Nations peoples an ‘inclusionary’ process that sees them gagged and powerless. We oppose this and stand by the staunch leaders, Elders and communities who oppose it.

Argument Ten: ‘The progressive no position is the same as the conservative no position’

This shameless argument is one that we have been confronted with repeatedly throughout the course of the referendum debate. To put the issue to rest, we present the main arguments of the racist No camp, and in turn present our counter-points.

‘It will divide us’

Australia is already a nation that faces great division and inequality. First Nations peoples are effectively experiencing a system of apartheid that sees them die younger, be murdered by police, be housed in cramped unsuitable conditions, be robbed of their children, have little rights to ancestral Country and a whole other range of issues. We know that there is division here already, and that paternalistic assimilation into the constitution of the invaders and colonisers will not resolve the material conditions underpinning these divisions. This can only be done through concrete commitment to resolve these material issues. The Voice and constitutional recognition in its current form will not do this. The only way to bring First Nations peoples and the working class (not the colonial state) closer together is to work WITH, not against, First Nations peoples to address the material inequalities they suffer with guarantees in a manner that is democratic and adheres to Indigenous protocols.

‘It gives too much power to First Nations peoples’

We oppose the Voice and constitutional recognition because it does not give enough power to First Nations peoples, leaders and communities to represent their concerns and to challenge actions and policies that threaten them and their communities. Rather, it grants the same ‘powers’ to make representations that individual citizens already have. First Nations peoples currently do not have the power to decide what happens to land granted by native title - mining companies can blow up sacred sites without punishment. They don’t have power to decide legal outcomes for their people - children can be imprisoned indefinitely. They don’t have the power to decide where they live - forced closure of remote communities against community demands. They don’t have the power to live with their people - forced removal of children. The Voice gives no power to address these issues. Instead, it seeks to validate the colonial state and alleviate the broader population of their guilt without addressing the privileges of the colonial society.

‘First Nations people will be able to claim compensation from the government’

We oppose the Voice because it does not allow people to be compensated for the generations of oppression, displacement, rape, murder, familial separation, destruction of Country, illegal imprisonment and many other crimes that First Nations people have suffered and continue to suffer at the hands of the current government. Instead, it allows the government to wash their hands of the issue and to be validated in continuing its modern-day genocidal policies and programs.

‘There is not enough information on what its powers would be’

There is plenty of information on what its powers would be and the answer is effectively none. It will be a limited body made up of selected representatives that don’t even need to be listened to by parliamentarians and politicians. It is weak, it is powerless and it will do little to actually address the issues confronting First Nations peoples.

‘No issue is beyond its scope’

As mentioned previously, the government has set the Voice up to be severely limited in what it can and can’t speak on. It will have little say on the key issues actually impacting First Nations communities. Furthermore, the false image of the Voice as a means to address these issues will be used to silence voices that are outside of the institution, much as it already happens now.

 If you don’t know, vote no’ 

We say if you don't know, find out. Find out the truth beyond the emotional, immaterial guilt-tripping arguments put forward by the pro-assimilation lobbyists. Find out how this is a diversionary tactic employed to undermine the militant First Nations struggles for land rights and sovereignty. Find out how democratic inclusion in this process and community input has been repeatedly stamped out every step of the way. Find out how tokenistic gestures will do little to actually address the material conditions and colonial institutions impacting First Nations peoples and communities.

Most importantly, find out how you can get involved in a meaningful way to help address the material injustices that First Nations peoples are subject to. Find out how to join the movement for decolonisation, rather than staying in our comfort zone. This is the bare minimum that we can do under colonialism, and we have a duty to do so in this land that nurtures us all and to begin to right the wrongs inflicted upon First Nations peoples by the colonial system.

Argument Eleven: ‘If we vote No, then nothing will change’

We counter this argument by arguing that nothing will change if we vote yes other than signing off on the legitimacy of the colonial state and its right to quash First Nations dissent. Such a move undermines more than 250 years of resistance to assimilation in the colonial state and its right to dictate the future of First Nations peoples

This argument is historically ignorant and paternalistic. It essentially states that the only way First Nations peoples can achieve any changes is to rely on the goodwill of the colonial state and its institutions. This dismisses First Nations struggles that have shown that change can only come from organising and building people power to directly confront the colonial state and to garner concrete concessions from them. Wave Hill, the Aboriginal Embassy and countless other examples have highlighted this.

The fact remains that the Voice has essentially zero power to shape policy any more so than existing First Nations organisations are already capable of doing. Here, we quote at length Ben Abbatangelo who argues that so long as the colonial system remains in place, nothing will really change, unless it comes from First Nations peoples themselves, in accordance with their processes and protocols on their own terms. He stated:

"It doesn’t matter which party and leader is the face of the Empire. Whether John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Tony Abott, Scott Morrison or Anthony Albanese, the policy platforms and outcomes are slightly different versions of the same devastation. The illegality of their occupation doesn’t change.”

“Strangely, I appreciate the Coalition’s honesty. I know that they want us wiped off the face of the Earth. It’s helpful knowing where you stand with them. Labor wants the same, except they’re not brave enough to say it with their chest out. Instead, they prefer to lure you in with grand promises and forward-looking visions only to stab you in the back at the moment of embrace.”

“This term of Anthony Albanese’s government is the perfect example. With a ‘historic moment’ at the forefront of Labor’s agenda, they have doubled and tripled down on all of the same violent policies of the past. So too have Labor state governments, with Annastacia Palaszczuk’s government suspending the Human Rights Act for the second time in a matter of months to box and cage more Aboriginal children.”

“Under the ‘winds of change’, they have irrefutably invalidated the entire premise and promise of the Voice. Their contempt is unchanged, incurable and in plain sight – as it has been for 250 years.” 

“Whilst the coalition might be responsible for the idea of herding First Nations peoples onto modern day missions, it’s Labor that gleefully steps in to manage them. The Northern Territory Intervention is the perfect example; a John Howard policy that was unanimously supported and rolled out by Rudd, extended by Gillard and left unremediated by Albanese.”

Change can only come from oppressed people organising themselves to combat their oppressors. It cannot come on the terms and conditions dictated by those who kill, imprison and attack the oppressed. They will always seek to sell out the interests of the oppressed and to protect and strengthen themselves.

There is a movement that has fought for First Nations rights for 250 years on this continent. It has not been fighting to be assimilated into the Constitution. It has not been asking for crumbs so as to maintain the status quo and absolve the colonisers of their guilt. Pemulwuy, Dundalli, Jandamarra, Tongerlongeter, Tarenorerer and countless other warriors have shown us that the oppressors only understand one language. This is being shown in West Papua, Palestine, Chile and countless other corners of the world where people are standing up to capitalism, imperialism and colonialism. We must not betray these principles. We must not give in to defeatism and settle for crumbs. We must not betray the cause to protect our comfort.

We conclude with the immortal words of Fred Hampton of the Black Panther Party who said:

“You have to understand that people have to pay a price for peace. If you dare to struggle, you dare to win.”

We must dare to struggle. We must dare to win. We must not give in to the colonial state, and the forces of capitalism. This struggle will continue long after the 14th of October. We will see which side the Yes camp is really on in its aftermath. Power to the people. Down with colonialism.