#yes23au

One of perhaps the only valid arguments from the no camp against the referendum is that there is a lack of detail. This is true, however this is not a bad thing.

Here is the proposed constitutional change:

Pay attention to that last point, it's important.

That last point means that parliament is making up the structure of how the Voice works. It is making up 'its composition, functions, powers and procedures.' Everything about the Voice will be instituted by parliament at a later date, after the nation has agreed that they want the idea on a Voice.

We are voting on an idea, and that's okay. The detail in this place can change and this is a good thing. The lack of detail means flexibility in the Voices makeup, and is not a liability like the libnats would have you believe.

Let me explain further. In the off chance, the unlikely off chance, that something goes wrong with the Voice once it's been put into place (not that I think it will) then we have a safeguard, as in it can be reformed. They can change up how often they meet, the funding, the procedures, anything, if something goes wrong. This is a safeguard mechanism not a weakness.

Since we are voting on a concept, we are not voting on detail we have the reassurance that the Voice can be reformed if needed.

This is not a weakness, this is a strength.

So in conclusion:

I was and still am an advocate for the Voice, and have been ever since engaging with the Uluṟu Statement of the Heart and the invitation it gave for further reconciliation, and the prospect of helping close the gap between the life outcomes of indigenous Australians and the wider population.

Early on I sought to do my little bit in the promotion of ideas by sharing content for the Yes case on my social media, because I saw this referendum as a challenge for Australia. I felt that the default electoral position was No, and that work needed to be done to move it to Yes.

Work, effort and engagement is what many people needed to do. With most people suffering under cost of living pressures and the other concerns of life, it was always going to be a huge challenge for the importance of this proposition to be apprehended and understood.

Everyone has their own levels of capacity, and my own activism was limited. I admire and thank everyone on the Yes side who got out there during the campaign; it was a grassroots phenomenon. Even if I had the time, I couldn’t have done so myself as I would have become too exhausted. I decided to withdraw into neutrality, through my work with the AEC on election night. Hence my silence on this issue in the period between the writs and the cessation of my AEC employment.

I am deeply disappointed by the referendum result, but as a fan of democracy I accept it. On referendum night I saw the results with my own eyes, comparing the size of the piles of Yes and No votes. It was pleasing to see very few informal votes; most people decided to cast their vote without wasting this precious opportunity.

It is my perception that:

• The Yes campaign was largely positive, leading the idea of challenge and change.

• The No campaign was in the business of casting doubt and muddying waters, in the absence of strong argument.

• It was right for the referendum to be called. The work had been done for many years, and it had to now go to the people. Some are saying that the PM should resign for its failure, which is the same as saying Menzies should have resigned for the failure of his 1951 anti-Communist referendum.

• Key arguments of the No campaign (not enough detail, it’s divisive, if you don’t know vote no) were untrue. As a teacher, I find the “if you don’t know, vote No” argument appalling, because it’s a call for wilful ignorance, and for not facing challenge.

• Disinformation and misinformation campaigns are growing, and they appear to be Trumpy imports from overseas. Claims that the Voice was a land grab, a UN/WEF conspiracy, and that the AEC is corrupt are wrong and ridiculous. Dis/misinformation worries me and I think we need to fight it.

It is not for me to draw conclusions as to what was in the hearts and minds of Australians when they voted.

But I believe the long walk towards reconciliation and closing the gap is not over.

I’m not ok with the vastly different life outcomes between first Australians and the rest of us. I’m not ok with the concept that colonisation had nil affect on indigenous Australians. I am certainly not ok with racism, which does exist, and which claims that people behave in certain ways due to some innate supremacy or deficiency.

Research always shows that when you empower people, when you give them a say, a voice, it improves things.

It was a modest proposal, but it failed.

What’s next?

I hope that the pro-Voice elders, people, academics, Australian students who did the work, who walked the walk, can recover and revitalise and continue, with hope, and that the younger generations can keep holding the flame.

I wait to see what the politicians, from both sides, offer next. Whatever happens, the referendum outcome will be something for everyone to refer back to.

If you’re still here, thanks for reading. And make sure you read Thomas Mayo’s article here: