“With scant reason behind the Voice, proponents are either bickering; rationalising the fog surrounding its scope, power and selection process; or insulting opponents,” writes reader PETER ROBINSON, of Ainslie. 

THE emotional pitch surrounding the Voice remains the mainstay of the Yes case; and, with a well-heeled propaganda campaign, it may work. 

Relentless calls for the “good manners” of accepting the Voice “invitation” are hammered as a purgative for “colonial guilt”. Unfortunately, as a rational legal mechanism, the Voice deserves a satirical cartoon – a confusion of cogs, wires and pipes, mostly obscured by smoke, creaking towards the Australian Constitution.

How did we come to this pass? The initial blame belongs to Malcolm Turnbull, who sold the indigenous a dummy with his invitation to generate a constitutional wish list, which the sidelined majority would then be expected to cheer. 

The immediate blame rests with our impatient Voice apostle, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. He has form for uncritical enthusiasm – at the 2019 Garma Festival, he pledged his troth to “Bruce Pascoe’s extraordinary book ‘Dark Emu’.” 

Though Pascoe’s fudges are easily set aside, and former acolytes can (and do) go quiet, this will not be the case with a constitutional amendment. 

We will inhabit a society where ancestral differentiation is enshrined in law. However confusing and muddy specific claims remain, the constitution will imply some citizens need (or is it deserve?) a shortcut to our democratic institutions.

The underlying axioms purport that ancestry dominates your power and status whether you are an outspoken federal parliamentarian or suffering at the bottom of the pecking order within a remote community; and furthermore – the Voice will succeed where all else has failed! 

‘We’re bogged in a grotesque and confusing definitional debate’

This rosy guarantee is a real-time reworking of Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. How else to explain the falsehoods peddled as dogma: only Aboriginal people can (or should) solve “Aboriginal” problems; Aboriginal people have no voice; if you oppose the Voice then you are racist; if the Voice fails then Aboriginal aspiration is crippled.

The first claim suffers from imprecision – how does ancestry, as opposed to any other metric, identify a problem, or better equip someone to solve it? 

We’re bogged in a grotesque and confusing definitional debate over who is addressing what, and with how much power. The remaining three claims rely on blinkered views of Australian society: the second assumes our eloquent Aboriginal leaders have yet to open their mouths; the third and fourth assume Aboriginal opposition to the Voice doesn’t exist.

With scant reason behind the Voice, proponents are either bickering; rationalising the fog surrounding its scope, power and selection process; or insulting opponents. 

Noel Pearson patronised Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, describing her opposition as being caught in a “tragic redneck celebrity vortex”. Marcia Langton went one better by associating Price with 19th century Eugenic racism. The following quote, from Price’s maiden speech in the Senate, lays bare the emptiness of these smears; Price said: “My elders taught me that any child who is conceived in our country holds within them the baby spirit of the creator ancestor from the land. 

“In other words, Australian children of all backgrounds belong to this land… they too have Jukurrpa dreaming and they too are connected spiritually to this country. This is what I know true reconciliation to mean”.

How could anyone, after reading this generous spiritual blessing, believe that the former mayor of Alice Springs considers herself, or anyone else, racially inferior?

We are witnessing a phoney metamorphosis of a far less generous spirituality into a national curative. The “Uluru Statement from the Heart” boasts a “sacred link”, much like royals do when rationalising their extra entitlements. 

All Australians, whatever their religious beliefs or lack of them, will be expected to dip their hats to contemporary interpretations of indigenous animism. 

Peace-loving liberal democracies should strive for neutrality regarding spiritual beliefs. Nor should they legally box ethnic groups as victims or oppressors. Ignoring the clarion lessons of history, we are going to seat citizens in separate sections of the constitutional bus.

If the Voice gets up, its inevitable fallibility will see it defending itself against accusations of false promise. Casting themselves as scapegoats for continuing indigenous troubles is probably not a scenario prospective Voice candidates had in mind. 

The 1967 referendum was clear and uniting, and enjoyed record support; this one is hazy and divisive. It’s time for Albanese to throw in the towel, and direct political capital away from this toxic trophy. Emotion should inform reason, not suffocate it.

“CityNews” welcomes all opinions on the Voice to parliament to editor@citynews.com.au