No referendum: actions speak louder than words

“NO” is the answer that many indigenous Australians should give to the proposal for a Voice – a question likely to be put as a referendum issue later this year.

“Yes” is the answer that those non-indigenous who cling to their beliefs of ethnic, religious, cultural superiority should give to the proposal.

These answers reflect the contrasting self-interests of these two groups.

The issue for indigenous people is how to close the gap between “haves” and “have nots” (both among their membership and with the entire Australian community) while nurturing their cultural traditions.

The issue for the bigots is how a continuing indigenous disadvantage can justify their prejudices.

The genesis, consultation and final proposal for the proposed Voice is set out in the mid-2021 report, “Indigenous Voice Co-design Process” .

There are some 250 pages discussing both “Local and Regional voices” and the “National Voice”, the latter being the one for which explicit constitutional recognition is sought.

The report sets out its terms of reference, the membership backgrounds of the consultative committees, the efforts made to ensure wide consultation (including information in local languages and many, many local meetings), the disparate views expressed and the preferred models. It seems to tick all the boxes for a “community participation policy development model”.

It has been recently reported that perhaps two thirds of us will vote “yes”, a voting intention that reflects both an admirable state of mind and a failure to ask the question: “Is this THE answer?”

That’s pertinent because, despite all the commitment and hard work, the report fails. It fails to persuade us that this solution will improve the lot of indigenous Australians, that it will promote their interests, that it will lead to a better, lasting understanding of, and pride in, indigenous culture among us all.

This report will be an illuminat-