Branding the Indigenous voice to parliament as divisive is a tactic to defeat it

Invoking apartheid is grotesque. The deceptiveness and divisiveness of the Indigenous voice to parliament No campaign’s main arguments cannot be allowed to stand.

Shadow Indigenous Affairs Minister Jacinta Price and her husband Colin Lillie appear in an ad for the No campaign.

So far the long push for an Indigenous voice to parliament has mainly amplified the voices of its strident opponents. Just why this proposal triggers such visceral antagonism from some is difficult to fathom, but what needs to be called out is the deceptiveness and divisiveness of their main arguments.

Such is the deformity of this debate that voice opponents claim victim status, framing almost any criticism of their case as ad hominem, and grotesquely arguing that a measure aimed at encouraging progress and equality for the most disadvantaged cohort in this country is somehow conferring a special right or privilege and rendering the rest of us as second-class citizens. Opponents claim Indigenous Australians will be lording it over us, seriously.

The most grotesque criticism of the voice is the invoking of apartheid. This absurdly likens a measure to provide agency and encourage advancement for the disadvantaged descendants of our original inhabitants to an odious system of discrimination and oppression based on the colour of people’s skin.

Even those opponents who eschew the apartheid line indulge in a kind of catch-22 to provide a circular argument against the voice. They call the voice divisive, which I would argue is the opposite of reality and most certainly is the antithesis of its intent.

But, of course, their opposition makes it divisive. When opponents refer to the divisive voice, they are mounting a self-fulfilling attack.

Now, I hear you say, what if it is divisive? Surely it is acceptable and even necessary to label a measure divisive if it actually fuels division?

This is where the cynicism of the No campaigners is exposed. Their divisive attack on the grounds of division is deceptive because these same opponents all claim to support a legislated voice.

It is impossible to argue that an Indigenous representative body legislated under a new constitutional mandate is divisive while such a body legislated under existing constitutional provisions is not. This contradiction gives their ploy away.

Their strategy is an ode to Joseph Heller – deceptively dubbing the voice as divisive as a tactic that creates division to defeat the voice. They support a voice under their terms, conceding it could be a useful tool in reconciliation, but they claim that if it is mandated in the Constitution it will be divisive and counterproductive.

We all know there have been excesses of vitriol and rhetoric on both sides. Plenty of attacks from Yes supporters have demonised No campaigners, just as No campaigners have overstepped the mark.

Mean-spirited element in public debate

But this fake call on division is a fundamental flaw in the No case. And it awakens a resentful and mean-spirited element in the public debate.

I could fill this page with unprintable abuse directed at me and others publicly supporting the voice. Many viewers claim to be boycotting my program because of my position on the voice.

Here is a sample of the many thousands of messages I have received online: “You’re on the wrong side of history and shame on you, you’re keeping racism alive by supporting the voice.” “The voice is a racist joke.” “No to further division. No to giving up property rights. No to reparations based on lies and skin colour.”

“Lockouts from state forests, no hunting if you’re not Indigenous, all would get worse. Why cement the woke mind virus, critical race theory, into the Constitution?” “The voice is racist, divisive, apartheid and undemocratic.”

“Voice is nothing but a Trojan horse to impose more communist government on us all.”

Dip into the comments to this article online today and you will see more, no doubt. There will be many considered and civil comments, too, I hasten to add, because I am not out to condemn all opponents, but this tone is common, even though the worst of it would be filtered out by our moderators.

What does this tell us? It tells us that people should be very careful about trying to portray an issue in race terms given how volatile race politics can be.

Race is an ugly term and an outdated concept (one of the reasons I have said I would rather see this measure replace the race power rather than hang from it). Yet this does not alter the fact this reform is not about race, it is about reconciliation with our original inhabitants and delivering constitutional recognition in a practical way that might help reduce disadvantage.

Regular readers will know that I understand and oppose the excesses of identity politics that occur in the US and are being imported here. From senator Lidia Thorpe down we see outrageous and equally divisive claims from “blak” activists. But it would be wrong to let extremist elements, who will continue to agitate with or without a voice, derail a sensible proposal aimed at enduring reconciliation.

The line we hear from opponents now about supporting recognition but not the voice misses the point. Bipartisan consensus on the need for recognition was achieved nearly two decades ago – the voice proposal has grown out of that, with parliamentary committees and other forums arriving at the voice as the compromise form of recognition that a broad consensus of Indigenous Australians have requested.

Coalition’s stance is an insult

Indigenous leaders had every reasonable expectation that it would be embraced by both sides of politics. For the Coalition now to not only reject the voice but pretend the past two decades did not happen, proffering a restatement of support for constitutional recognition as some kind of compromise, is an insult.

It is also patronising for the Coalition to declare it will recognise Indigenous Australians but only in the way the Coalition chooses. For reconciliation to be achieved, the Coalition might want to listen to broad-based Indigenous views on the matter (it is almost as if we need an Indigenous voice).

We saw how precious the No advocates have become this week when they claimed the welcome to country at the State of Origin on Adelaide Oval was pro-voice propaganda. But Indigenous speaker Uncle Karl talked only about the need for unity and conversation, and expressed his confidence that we were mature enough to make the right call.

Well said, I thought, and I note that No advocate Nicolle Flint reacted the same way. For other No campaigners to complain about this is bizarre; is any mention of the referendum anathema?

It has been passing strange also to see the Liberal Party adopting a Paul Keating line in their argument against the voice. And it appears that they have not really thought it through.

Campaigning against John Hewson, Fightback and the GST in 1993, Keating said: “If you don’t understand it, don’t vote for it.” Thirty years on, the Liberals under Peter Dutton have turned their sights on the voice with a similar slogan: “Don’t know? Say no.”

This line is the punch line to months of fear and confusion fomented over the voice. This might be effective, but it is also disingenuous: the Liberals know plenty about how a voice would work because they set up a comprehensive co-design process that delivered a 275-page report (I served in a voluntary capacity on the committee).

On one level it is clever politicking to adopt a tactic that worked for Keating. But the Labor leader was trying to win an election – that is all – and this referendum has nothing to do with who forms government.

What is at stake now is far more important – reconciliation and the future of the nation. It should be beyond base political games.

GST precedent

So, it is worth reflecting further on the GST precedent because when you consider all the history it is clear Keating’s attack was merely an opportunistic tactic that delivered a short-term partisan victory but said nothing about the merits of the reform in question. His opposition to the GST was hypocritical and intellectually inconsistent given he advocated a consumption tax almost a decade earlier at the 1985 tax summit.

And while he defeated Hewson and therefore the GST in 1993, this major tax reform was eventually introduced in 2000 by John Howard and is now embraced by Labor.

So, while political attacks will come and go, sensible reform and good ideas tend to have a life of their own. There can be an element of inevitability about them – as was the case with the  GST.

I must confess it is uncomfortable arguing on the same side as the leftist virtue-signallers, who were nowhere when these issues were thrashed out before Uluru but have jumped on board the emotional wave since. But that is the nature of reconciliation, it requires give and take from all sides.

It would be wrong to allow the shallow emotionalism and moral vanity of the green-left to undermine the fundamental justice and practical potential of the voice. And it would be wrong to allow the faux divisiveness of opponents to do the same.