Peter Adams writes: Straight-up racists will, of course, vote No (“Racists in the No camp? What a shocking discovery”). People who hate Labor will vote No, as will those who hate Greens and teals. People who deny climate change will vote No. People who oppose vaccines will vote No. People who hate perceived political correctness will vote No. People who hate anything they see as “woke” will vote No. People who hate change will vote No. People who think they deserve a better deal from life will vote No. People who blame others for their misfortunes will vote No.
Every time I ask a No campaign supporter on social media to explain why we should do so, I never get an answer. They dissemble. They insult. They feign some imaginary moral high ground — and then they run. They never engage.
The No campaign offers every closet racist in this country the chance to exercise their hate, their spite and their envy and to do so with impunity. Facts were never a part of this referendum — it’s all about the one golden chance to wind back the clock to a time when it was acceptable to punch down, to smear, to insult and offend… and get away with it.
Robin Hay writes: Everyone accepts that there are racists in Australia. We can argue about the number (most would say a significant minority), but the number is not zero. I would like the No campaign to consider this: some non-racists will vote No (for various reasons, some sincere and some cynical) and a lot will vote Yes. On the other hand, virtually all racists will vote No. This is the bedrock of the No vote.
It looks likely the No vote will win. A year from now, how will people feel about that? Yes voters will feel sad and frustrated that an opportunity for a positive change was squandered and will mostly have given up on meaningful reforms. If something as innocuous as the Voice can be defeated, what chance is there that treaty or truth-telling would be achievable? The so-called progressive No voters will be jumping up and down about treaty — but they will get nowhere. It will be like after the republic referendum failed. Any momentum for change will be lost. The No voters concerned about “the constitution” will mostly have forgotten the whole thing. All the supposed threats to “the constitution” were concocted nonsense so their victory will be seen as essentially meaningless politics. There will be no local voices or legislated voices. The arguments against a “Canberra voice” can be retooled whenever required.
The hard core of racist No voters will be the only ones celebrating. They will feel like the fight was really worth it.
On the piece of paper you will hold in your hand on October 14, there will be only one No box — not a separate one for the racists to tick. If you vote No, you may well not be racist, but the box you tick will give only one group any joy.
John Peel writes: Of course the No campaign springs from racism. But try telling that to friends or colleagues intent on voting No. The usual reply: if you give First Peoples a Voice, why not give it to Serbs or Italians or anyone else? Suggesting there should be a distinction between original inhabitants who have been here 65,000 years and new arrivals who have been here, at the most, for 235 years is disparagingly dismissed as a “We wuz here first” argument. At that stage, in order to keep my friends, I zip my mouth, further debate being pointless. Sad but true.
Judy McKay writes: Many of us were, and remain, shocked by Russia’s actions in invading Ukraine and support arms and other resources being supplied to help Ukraine defend its homeland. We regard it as when one country invades another without extreme provocation. Can anyone explain to me how Russia’s actions differ fundamentally from those of Britain when it invaded Australia in 1788 and claimed the country?
Like Russia, it showed callous disregard for the local Indigenous peoples, emptied overcrowded prisons, moved British settlers in to take over some of the land, gained access to a variety of resources (and hence wealth), spread its considerable empire, and then imposed British notions of government, systems and structures on the newly claimed lands. It was not OK in 1788 any more than it is today.
A Yes vote will at least start the process of recognising and addressing the wrong done by Britain in 1788, recognising our First Nations peoples, acknowledging that they are the most underprivileged group in Australia, and deserve a Voice to Parliament to be heard.
Garth Jones writes: “There’s a reason why the No campaign is riddled with racists — it springs from racism.” What an absolute load of crock from Bernard Keane. It would be fair to say that statements like that actually incite division or, in simple terms, stir the pot.
Why the heck should Indigenous peoples have a “Voice” in Parliament just because Anthony Albanese decided it to be so? Like any other political party, if they want that, why don’t they run a campaign at the next election? Why don’t they run local campaigns? Nothing racist about that. It is called democracy.
I guarantee that if the Voice gets up, it will be another catastrophe and impediment to the peaceful enjoyment of life that we should all have without all this noise of trans, and Indigenous rights, and treaty, and on it goes. Enough! You say racists in the No camp, I say left loonies in the Yes camp who cannot think past their selfish narcissistic objectives.
Chris Noel writes: I agree with Bernard Keane that the No campaign is riddled with racism. Just as the Adam Goodes saga uncovered the racists in our midst, so is the Voice referendum. These are the people who generally hold Australia back from reaching its potential and making progress, led by media such as News Corpse, Nine and Seven among others.
Gary Sparks writes: I have lived and worked in the Torres Strait for the past five years and feel a little qualified to comment on the Voice. Most non-Indigenous people living in this country (particularly in the southern cities) have absolutely no idea what the First Nations peoples actually want or need. A lot of the problems they face cannot be fixed by throwing money at them. I will be voting No along with a lot of First Nations peoples as we know that those in custody of the Voice are mostly not representing the average Indigenous person.
Until now I had valued the articles from Crikey but feel compelled to disregard them as politically driven bullshit. I will be changing my sources of information forthwith.
Will Van Leeuwen writes: My children and my brother are going to vote Yes for the Voice because they are ashamed of the colonials’ treatment of First Peoples in early years during settlement. They feel that they are responsible for reparations. My daughter is a social worker and sees first-hand how difficult our Western system of social survival and covert racism is for the Indigenous population.
The atrocities that occurred in the past to the Indigenous population by colonials were abhorrent and should have never happened — but they did, and there is nothing we can do to reverse it. Racism is equally disgusting but it’s rife around the world in many different cultures. However, I’d like to think that under human rights doctrines most people are not racist and are working to eradicate it.
My view is that Australia in general is a great place to live, and if that way of life is to be maintained, Indigenous peoples — like the rest of us — need to work within the existing system. It seems to me the Voice concept wants to alter this system and it’s the level of alteration it might impose if the referendum is successful that concerns me.
I think it’s not so much that Australians don’t want First Nations peoples to have a Voice or a say in the running of the country — it’s their right, I reckon, and they do have 26 MPs who identify as Aboriginal in Australian parliaments. It’s more a fear of the unknown contained within the concept put forward by the government and knowing that it’s almost irreversible if it goes awry or proves ineffective.
If the referendum fails it will be Albanese’s fault. It’s simple really. The government’s Voice documentation is sparse and needs more detail; Australians are worried about their properties, income, tax, lifestyle and the long-term ramifications of the Voice, and this is what needs to be addressed before the referendum.
Barry Welch writes: Bob Geldof said of Live Aid: “We had a choice. We could choose to do nothing or we could choose to do something. We chose to do something.” Untold thousands of lives were saved. The No campaign tells us to do nothing. The Yes campaign is a choice to do something. Surely Australians would rather choose to do something to address the problems exhibited in the Closing the Gap report. They can do something by simply voting Yes.
Chris Pettifer writes: The No campaign has obviously taken cues from the American experience. Joe Bageant’s book Deer Hunting With Jesus explains, in easy-to-comprehend detail, how a cynical and nefarious Republican Party has exploited hard-working lower middle- and lower-class white Americans simply by using the knowledge that literacy is still at an all-time low in these classes and that the hand-to-mouth, pay-cheque-to-pay-cheque existence leaves little time or ability to search for nuance in Republican proclamations. All they hear is “the Democrats will groom your children to become transgender, gay or love Black people” and it’s a slam-dunk vote for the GOP.
Big lies are easy and the average American is simple fodder for believing them uncritically. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and his crew are right on to it. Labor is on the back foot because of this and there’s no way of knowing that, under these circumstances, the truth will overcome the big lies. Australia is too far down the American rabbit hole. Besides, we have a majority of casual racists here anyway.
Christine Tiley writes: I live in a retirement village in a northern suburb of Brisbane, am a member of our local Labor branch and am on the Yes23 committee. From the conversations I’ve had — respectful, of course — I’ve ascertained that few, if any, of my fellow occupants of this village will vote Yes. It’s no surprise as this is Peter Dutton’s electorate of Dickson.
I’m making myself unpopular by wearing my Yes23 T-shirt and telling people my late husband was a Darramuragal man from Brewarrina and my grandmother a Gamilaraay woman from Ku-ring-gai. I don’t look, nor do I identify as, Indigenous so I get some strange looks from some of these entitled retirees who’ve probably never met a First Nations person in their lives.
It’s quite possible that Queensland will be the downfall of the Voice. I have a good grasp of the concept of the Voice and try to explain it in simple terms, but all I hear back is fear and distrust fuelled by the right-wing media. We’re a weird lot up here. Must be the heat.
