‘Doesn’t make sense’: The Aboriginal leader opposed to Voice referendum

First Nations leader Michael Mansell has revealed why he does not think the Voice referendum makes sense.

The normal process for friendly governments advancing the cause of Aboriginal people is legislation.

When Gough Whitlam wanted to remedy racial discrimination in 1975, he did not hold a referendum – he legislated the Racial Discrimination Act.

When Malcolm Fraser wanted to provide a mechanism for Aboriginals in the Northern Territory to claim lost lands, he did not ask for a referendum – his government enacted the NT Land Rights Act 1976.

Likewise, when Paul Keating stood against the mining companies and conservatives on native title, Keating did not go to a referendum – he shored up native title through Native Title Act 1993.

Legislation is the normal way to change things. The constitution is a complex document raising complex legal and political issues. The Australian constitution is an agreement between former British colonies to form a federation of states with a national parliament and a court to resolve disputes. Its purpose is not to declare human rights.

Legislation does that.

Michael Mansell does not support the Voice referendum. Picture: Supplied

The 1967 referendum was as much about transferring political and financial responsibility from the states to the more financially endowed federal government as it was about improving the lives of Aboriginals.

The point is that it does not make sense to force 17 million voters to a referendum every time a proposal about Aboriginals is put forward.

The dramatic and persistent decline in support for the Voice referendum is a stark reminder to Voice campaigners that legislation, not referendum, is the primary means to achieve a political end.

Successful referendums are rare, with only 8 out of 44 passing in 122 years. Trying to win a referendum for an obscure advisory body was always going to be a risky and difficult task.

The strategy to get a majority of the people in the majority of states to vote for a mere advisory body necessitated avoidance of the fact that the country was being put to a whole lot of trouble and expense for a piddling outcome.

The Productivity Commission Report on Close The Gap condemned failed government action. In response, Minister Linda Burney said another layer of bureaucracy in the form of the

advisory body was needed. If her government ignores the Productivity Commission, what hope is there of an advisory body making a difference?

The Yes campaign has avoided discussing how an advisory body was to do all that they claimed.

Instead, the Yes campaign uses emotion to win over well-meaning people.

To admit the proposal was for a mere Voice incapable of returning land, raising a single tax, distributing no services, having no resources and unable to stop a racist law or build a single house for the homeless, meant exposing the weakness of the end product.

The Yes campaign was never really about empowerment, otherwise they would have opted for designated seats in the Senate where 6 Aboriginals, one from each state, could potentially wield real power.

In part though, many well-meaning white people are happy to vote ‘Yes for Aboriginals’ without looking at the detail.

Australian actor Ruby Rose observed: “we are once again spending a ridiculous amount of money to hold a vote where a majority is voting on a minority’s rights. This is worse than when we held the referendum to allow gay people to get married. Sure, having straight people vote on who you love is brutal, but somehow, it’s 2023 and we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to see what white people think about what the Indigenous folk need. No ma’am. That’s messed up”.

Where does the flailing Yes campaign go from here? With lots of money and staff, the strategy is to go even harder than before.

So far, the one-sided media saturation has not worked.

Polls showing a consistent decline in support.

Doubling up with the media saturation risks alienating supporters sick to death of hearing about the Voice.

This issue should have been dealt with by parliament.