Statement by the Red Ant Collective

There are many important criticisms made by progressive Indigenous leaders and others about the hollow and tokenistic Voice to Parliament proposal.

Many have also rightly highlighted the unfairness of having those that benefit from colonisation voting on the future of Indigenous peoples through a referendum. We also acknowledge the YES-NO division created by the referendum framework is not a clean one and our hearts extend across that line.

Still, we believe a decisive NO victory would likely embolden right-wing forces in this country and could be a demoralising blow to the fight for Indigenous justice.

On the other hand, a strong YES vote would register a desire for change and rejection of racism. We think a successful YES campaign would not be a step backward for Indigenous people and that our responsibility is to oppose the racist lies and fear mongering which dominates the NO camp.

We do not get to choose the terrain of struggle, but it’s imperative to combat Australia’s deep-seated racism at every opportunity given to us.

A ‘Divisive’ Referendum

A key complaint of the left and right-wing NO campaigns is that the referendum is “divisive”. It is, however, conservative right-wing social forces that are causing the most division.

Every negative stereotype about Indigenous people has been trotted out to foster fear and hostility. With fear comes ignorance and the LNP opposition seeks to capitalise on both with their catchphrase, “if you don’t know, vote no”.

Conservative commentators claim the Voice to Parliament will be a vehicle to allocate special privileges to Indigenous people, stoking fears that ownership of residential property will no longer be secure. Another lie peddled by this cohort of retrogrades is that 97% of Australians will be paying large amounts of reparations to Indigenous people.

Although they have no basis, these claims are not new. They are powerful hooks into the most backward layers of society. During the campaign for native title around the Mabo case – which recognised the land rights of the Meriam people – John Howard claimed ordinary Australians would “lose their backyards”.

The “Progressive NO”, Undecided and Rejecting the Whole Process

Various Indigenous activists, leaders and organisations have raised serious criticisms of the framing, process and campaigning around the Voice proposal. This includes the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, Senator Lidia Thorpe, Celeste Liddle, Michael Mansell and numerous grassroots activists and academics.

Indigenous critics have pointed out the Voice to Parliament (which is just one element of the Uluru Statement from the Heart) is being latched on to as a token, ‘actionable’ gesture to the exclusion of the rest of the Uluru Statement. Some of these critics are promoting NO, some are undecided and some reject the whole process.

Senator Thorpe has argued – consistent with the historic position of the Blak Greens caucus – that there should be a process of truth-telling and treaty before discussions about the Voice. Thorpe is correct to point to the hollowness of the proposal – that it amounts to symbolism. Thorpe thinks that a NO vote may open the way for a more radical approach to achieving social justice for Indigenous people.

When you compare what is promised by the Voice to Parliament proposal with what was demanded by the National Aboriginal Conference (NAC) – established by the Whitlam Labor government 1973 – it is easy to understand why progressives are dissatisfied.

The NAC was an elected body that clashed with the Whitlam, Fraser and finally Hawke governments before Hawke disbanded it in 1985.

It campaigned for land rights, recognition of traditional rights to hunt, fish and gather on Crown lands, a National Aboriginal Bank, tax exemptions and reparations, one seat per state in the House of Representatives and the Senate to be reserved for an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person, self-government of Aboriginal communities and respect for Aboriginal customary law, return of artefacts and artworks and control over research about Aboriginal people, dedicated Aboriginal schools, medical centres and legal aid.

The Voice to Parliament proposal by comparison is weak and tokenistic. However, a victory for YES could pave the way to public discussions on crucial issues including truth telling, treaty and a republic.

Where to after October?

The mainstream leadership of the YES campaign routinely claims this is a “once in a generation” opportunity and that the threat of defeat is just as weighty. This is a big exaggeration and is borne of a lack of historical memory or ability to imagine a real step forward in the struggle for Indigenous rights.

The YES campaign is being headed up by Albanese who fronts press conferences in a Rio Tinto shirt and whose government supports mandatory income management in the Northern Territory and fracking the Beetaloo basin, while offering only almost nothing to Indigenous people.

If THAT campaign loses, it will still be a real blow. But it won’t end the possibility of advances. Tens of thousands of people mobilise for Indigenous justice in major cities every year on January 26 and did the same at the important Black Live Matter protests.

Win, lose or draw in the referendum, that sentiment will not disappear. Nor will the possibility that it can be mobilised in support of advances in Indigenous rights in the future.

If the YES vote does win this sentiment, it will still need to be mobilised into action for change in order for any real progress to be made. Whether YES or NO wins, nothing good and meaningful will happen without the growth of an ongoing mass movement.

We need a mass movement that makes it unviable for the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and all future governments to sit back and allow the status quo to drag on and on – with or without a Voice to Parliament.

DEFEAT THE NO VOTE IN OCTOBER!
JOIN INVASION DAY PROTESTS ON JANUARY 26!