Indigenous leaders’ statement a ‘dead-end car wreck’

"The letter postulates a whole series of reasons why the referendum campaign, as opposed to the referendum subject, was lost," writes Greg Craven.

Australia’s Indigenous people were always going to have a profound reaction to the failure of the voice referendum. This reality weighed heavily upon many Yes supporters.

It also was predictable that there would be two strands to this reaction: grief and anger.

The unsigned open letter to Anthony Albanese from Indigenous leaders and communities expresses both. Each element is entirely understandable. But it would be fair to say the letter is much more expressive of anger than grief.

Deeply disappointed people often are better, soon after the event, at expressing rage than hurt. They may also say things which later create difficulty, both for others and themselves.

The grief is there at the outset, deep and raw. It vibrates with pain. Indigenous people are “in shock” at their “repudiation” and “rejection”. This is hardly a surprise. I would feel exactly the same if I were in their position. As Australians, we will wear this.

But the anger follows quickly, and despite some small limitations, it is squarely directed at the Australian people as a whole. The referendum result is “appalling”, “mean-spirited” and “unbelievable”.

At various points, it is hard to tell whether the specific charge of racism is being levelled at parts of the No machine or the majority of the Australian people. Possibly both, but that assertion would be a mistake.

The letter not only is defying the nostrum that “the Australian people always get it right” but that at least the majority of the Australian people got it wrong, and as is evident from the rest of the letter, did so through a combination of ill-will and gullibility.

The judgment is obviously heartfelt, but it will make hard reading for most Australians of good will.

The letter postulates a whole series of reasons why the referendum campaign, as opposed to the referendum subject, was lost. These do not concern the legitimacy of the voice itself but the quality of the efforts of its supporters, so it is fair to give a frank assessment.

This part of the letter is a special pleading for a dreadful campaign that lost. It is everybody’s fault but campaigners.

The refrain is familiar from the dying weeks of the referendum. It was “the media”. It was lies. It was “misinformation” and “disinformation”. It was nasty right-wing think tanks. It was conservative and international interests.

Above all, it was Peter Dutton and David Littleproud for destroying the chance for bipartisan support.

Let’s take the last point first. Bipartisanship was negated from the very start by Albanese. He did not want it. He excluded the Coalition from all meaningful discussion. This was to be a Labor triumph. Dutton merely trailed in his wake.

The Indigenous inner circle know all this, because they were part of the decision. They knew exactly what Albanese was doing, and key players just did not care. They stated confidently that the referendum was so obvious it did not need bipartisanship.

Dutton was the dupe who eventually fell from grace, but only in the wake of Albanese.

As to lies and disinformation, the No case had more than its fair share. The Yes case had a few of its own. But the determination of supporters of the voice to damn any argument with which they disagreed as a lie was one of the worst features of the campaign.

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Neville Bonner

As to the media, there was overwhelming support. Regarding conservative think tanks, well they would oppose, wouldn’t they? On international interests, it’s hard to imagine.

The most alarming aspect of the letter is the view it presents of the modern Australian nation state. Allowing for deep hurt, loose language and insider terms, it comes very close to repudiating the Australian polity along with its Constitution.

Many or most of the writers may not have meant this, but words do haunt.

This is not about the commonplace recitation of sovereignty and land unceded. The letter specifically questions the “legitimacy” of non-Indigenous “occupation”. It says the Constitution belongs to “those for whom their founding fathers originally intended it”, and not Indigenous people”. That “founding document” continues the process of colonisation.

This is not the laying of charges against past wrongs, or calling for action on clear present failures. It is a challenge to the ongoing legitimacy of Australia’s constitutional and national foundations. It is Lidia Thorpe, not Neville Bonner.

Whatever the hurt this referendum has done Indigenous people, there is no future is this rhetoric. It is a dead-end car wreck for indigenous and non-indigenous Australians alike. We will all think better.

Which is why the letter’s closing commitment to carrying on the cause for Indigenous rights – including through their own peak Indigenous voice – is deeply encouraging. This is something that must and will occur within our constitutional system, not alongside or outside it.

Hopefully, it will work to repair hurt and with that placate anger.

Greg Craven is a constitutional lawyer and former vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University.