On the Indigenous voice to parliament, I was tremendously naive

I assumed the referendum would bring Australia together, in joy and healing, writes Nikki Gemmell. Picture: AFP

We remember emotions. How a book, a film, a sporting event, a political moment makes us feel, long after the details have faded. For the potency of emotion is barnacled in memory. I’ll remember forever how I felt when Cortnee Vine shot her winning penalty in the Matildas/France World Cup match, and I know I’ll remember forever how I will feel when the vote for an Indigenous voice to parliament is declared. Win or lose.

Once upon a time I was tremendously naive. I assumed the Voice would bring Australia together, in joy and healing; that it would mark a new waypoint of maturity in the evolution of our nation. In simpler times I dreamed that the vision of an advisory body on Indigenous affairs, painstakingly devised over 15 long years, would be agreed to, and a new era of nationhood would be ushered in.

The proposal felt necessary, suturing, for all of us. It felt like a proposal that went some way towards lifting the corrosive weight of past wrongs. Considered and careful, it seemed a simple request: for an Indigenous committee to be able to advise parliament on Indigenous issues, without being able to make laws or control funding. Yet what a sour-spirited campaign we’ve seen from the forces determined to scupper this vision.

One of the scupperers-in-chief, Peter Dutton. How will you feel about him, the day after the October 14 referendum? How will he go down in history? We will remember our feelings about him long after the specifics of the campaign have faded. We know, ultimately, he wants to be prime minister. So, saviour of the people – or master wrecker?

Politics is reductive. The individual gets de-coloured, rendered in monotone; reduced to a few distinct traits. If Australia votes No there’ll be an easy label to stick to Mr Dutton, by his opponents and a swathe of voters he’s trying to win over to reach his ultimate goal of the Lodge. He’ll henceforth be known, by quite a few, as the man who killed the referendum. Many from the political party Dutton leads have used all the tricks in the political playbook to divide, confuse and confound; and he will not be forgiven in moderate Liberal heartlands if the Voice is lost.

Kerrynne Liddle, Nyunggai Warren Mundine, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Matthew Sheahan at a No Campaign event in Adelaide. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Morgan Sette

Dutton’s modus operandi feels like it has hardened into a stance of saying no, to just about anything proposed by Labor, including a cheeky suggestion for a public holiday if the Matildas won the World Cup. That rode the mood of a nation, but no surrender from the opposition leader to the national tone.

That stance of wilful negativity will be an easy slogan for opposing parties in future election campaigns, an energising gift to those forces. The reductive perception: Dutton has muddied the voice argument in order to damage the Prime Minister, and the Liberal leader’s relentless negativity for negativity’s sake won’t be forgiven by a swathe of people he’s seeking to win over to gain the keys to the Lodge.

More than 80 per cent of Indigenous people support this voice proposal. The idea came directly from Aboriginal communities, not politicians. I cannot imagine the broken hearts among many of them if this proposal isn’t carried; it would feel like a soul blow, along with all the other soul blows over generations, that would reverberate for years to come.

Once I dreamt of a feeling of great national pride, and relief, following a successful vote for the Voice. Now I worry there’ll be despair and disbelief among many, that in the end it came to this. And anger. Towards one of its scupperers-in-chief most of all. I feel certain Mr Dutton will never become prime minister if the No vote prevails. Be careful what you wish for, sir. The feeling towards you will linger, long after the specifics have faded.