Spare a thought for No campaign leader Nyunggai Warren Mundine, who must be shocked — shocked — to discover that there are racists in his own campaign outfit, and in the wider No campaign.
This week we had David Adler, head of the Australian Jewish Association and a senior figure in the far-right Advance group, questioning the Indigenous heritage of Lidia Thorpe and accusing Stan Grant of darkening his skin, in remarks reported by Nine’s Paul Sakkal. When busted, Adler literally used the “some of my best friends” trope, telling Sakkal he was friends with Mundine.
Mundine had to go on the ABC — of all places! — and distance himself from Adler, saying Adler wasn’t part of Mundine’s campaign and was on the “fringes” of the No campaign, and that attacks on the heritage of Indigenous peoples were racist and disgusting.
In his effort to put a lot of space between himself and Adler, Mundine revealed he’d sacked two people from his own campaign for racist remarks, including an anti-Semitic statement. This immediately sparked interest in who exactly Mundine had fired from his own No campaign.
There’s a pattern emerging in all this. The Advance campaign was behind a racist cartoon attacking the Yes campaign published by The Australian Financial Review, for which Nine later apologised. Another prominent No campaigner, Gary Johns, demanded blood tests for Indigenous peoples, prompting calls for his departure from the campaign. Yes campaign meetings have been interrupted by Nazis and white supremacists. Thorpe, who doesn’t support the Voice, has described the No campaign as “looking more like a white supremacy campaign that is causing a lot of harm”.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said voters planning to vote No are not racist — reflecting an anxiety not to repeat Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” moment. Mundine says racists are only a tiny, fringe minority (though, if so, one that seems strangely overrepresented in the ranks of the No campaign). But the logic of the non-Indigenous campaign against a Voice to Parliament is implacably, irresistibly racist.
While Indigenous peoples can and are in good faith arguing that a Voice is inadequate, that it legitimises a fundamentally illegitimate colonial occupation, or that treaty should be the priority (Mundine, for example, has long supported treaties with Aboriginal nations, a position he reiterated yesterday), non-Indigenous opponents arguing that a Voice is “racially divisive” cannot avoid the racist logic of that position.
The fundamentalist position — one adopted by far-right groups such as the Institute of Public Affairs — is that any constitutional recognition of First Peoples is racist in distinguishing them from any other group. This is a simple restatement of the terra nullius lie, by rejecting the fact that First Peoples were attacked and dispossessed and thus have a foundational role not merely in the history of the Australian continent but in the establishment of the Australian state culminating in Federation — far beyond any other group that may have emerged since then.
The more mainstream No position, that constitutional recognition is fine but without a Voice to Parliament, may part ways with the terra nullius myth but asserts a unilateral form of recognition that rejects as illegitimate and irrelevant any consultation with Indigenous peoples on what form recognition should take. It’s recognition purely on white terms, with First Peoples reduced to objects of white debate, a perpetuation of 240 years of white supremacy.
The “modified mainstream” No position, if it can be called that, is that constitutional recognition is fine, and a Voice is fine, but that the Voice must be controlled by Parliament and has no right to exist outside the whim of governments — another repudiation of what First Peoples have called for.
Those who reject any Voice at all are also rejecting the simple reality that a Voice is part of the framework for driving a much greater role for First Peoples in policy development and implementation, without which efforts to close the gap in educational, health and economic outcomes are doomed to failure.
It may be impolitic to say it, and earn charges of elites trying to shame No voters, but the logic is irresistible. There’s a reason why the No campaign is riddled with racists — it springs from racism.
Is it fair to say the No campaign springs from racism? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
