On the 14th of October, Australians will vote in a referendum on whether to change the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing a body called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
The Editors at The Paris End will be voting “Yes.”
We also see that the complexity of the issue at hand is flattened by the binary fault-lines along which it has been drawn. Celeste Liddle is an activist and writer who has publicly challenged this dynamic by maintaining a conscious “undecided” stance. On the 29th of September, we spoke with her about the referendum debate.
THE PARIS END: Could you briefly describe your work and background for readers who might be unfamiliar with you?
CELESTE LIDDLE: I'm an Arrernte woman. My traditional lands are Mparntwe or Alice Springs and then east and south-east of there. Liddle is a pretty big surname, so people have probably come across relations of mine in the media or in politics or other fields before. Through my grandmother on my paternal side, I'm also a Perkins—that’s another big central Australian family. I'm a writer, a social commentator, and an Indigenous rights, union, and feminist activist.
You have been publicly commenting on the upcoming referendum from the position of “undecided voter.” Can you talk us through the process of how you arrived at this position? Who or what influenced you in arriving at the “undecided” stance?
It's a long story if I'm honest about it. I will state that partly it’s pragmatic, and I'll get into why a little bit later. But if I was to pinpoint why I am undecided it's because growing up as a kid in the ‘80s, I was brought up in movements like the land rights movement. For decades upon decades, I've seen the struggle for land rights and treaties and been active in them. I've also seen the fallout from things such as the Mabo decision and the dismantling of ATSIC [the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission].
I come from a position of stating undecided because ultimately I feel that what we’ve been fighting for isn't really what's on the table here. [The Voice] is a conservative way forward. It's about working within the system and reinforcing the Constitution, a document which was written on the basis of Indigenous erasure and off the back of the understanding of Australia as terra nullius. It was also written to reinforce ideas that then became the White Australia policy, in order to exclude not just Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people but a whole heap of migrants of colour, and initially women too. Does being written into such a document actually undo the problems with that document? I see the Voice as the least that we could ask for on the back of decades of Indigenous activism.
You have written that “we have been fed the politics of fear” [by the “No” campaign] and “the politics of hope” [by the “Yes” campaign]. Could you speak to the role that emotional narratives have played in campaigning?
The biggest danger that I've seen with these emotive campaigns is that the actual crux of what we're dealing with here—the reality of what we're voting on, the reality of the constitutional amendment itself—has completely gotten lost in the mix. What people seem to be actually voting on at this point, due to the dialogues from the “Yes” side and the “No” side, is whether or not Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are worthy of some sort of recognition or respect. The reality does seem to be a debate about our humanity. To me, it's been a very dangerous debate and it's been very demoralising.
I'm a middle-aged Aboriginal woman. I remember the first time that there was talk of recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution. That was back in ‘99 during the republic referendum, and it was driven by John Howard as a proposal to put Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as one line in the preamble to the Constitution. That got defeated at the vote.
Then I saw the “Recognise” campaign. There was a massive, multi-million-dollar ad campaign about it. Footy fields and billboards and aeroplanes were painted up with the big R's. All the stars were supporting it. But none of us actually knew what it was. It was a lot of talk with absolutely no meat on the bones. I helped discredit some of the claims that were made in that campaign. And it wasn't just activists like me who were doing [the discrediting]—it was also people who were members of the expert panel, who were taking it apart because they had contributed massive amounts of research and recommendations to governments about ways forward, and all of that knowledge had just been ignored for running a bipartisan ad campaign. So “Recognise” got whacked on the head.
Then the process of the community consultations, which led to the Uluru Statement, started happening. The government had got a bit embarrassed by the fact that there had been no community consultation and that was hitting the media, so they decided to do it. We ended up with the Uluru Statement.
All that we are actually going to the ballot box to vote on is an amendment to the Constitution: [“A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”] “Yes” or “No,” that's all it is.
But the “Yes” side is saying that a Voice is going to be able to deal with things like Closing the Gap, that a Voice is going to be democratically selected from the community, that it's going to have age representation and location representation…they're stating a bunch of ideas that have been presented by things like the Calma-Langton report as established facts, when none of those are actually facts. They're proposals that need to be passed through both Houses of Parliament as legislation before they're actually realities. And if we have a change of government tomorrow, and we end up with a Coalition who decides that they don't like this structure of the Voice (if it is successful), that Coalition government can put up new legislation and get a change to the structure voted on. So the Voice could be there giving a bunch of advice and none of that could be taken on board by the government. There is nothing there that says that they need to. There's no power of veto over legislation that's going to impact Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, so very little could change, if at all. I feel like the “Yes” side is over-promising.
I feel like the “No” side is flat out lying. One thing I've taken apart from the “No” side has been the idea that putting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution is going to divide the country and the Constitution by race. Never mind the fact that there are already racist sections in the Constitution, so if it's not racially divisive already, I don't know what it is. For example, Section 25 is blatant. The “No” side has claimed that this is just a pathway to treaties, to us taking over their backyards—all this sort of rhetoric that we've been hearing for decades every time Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people look like they're getting ahead in some way. None of that's truthful. They've been really playing on the politics of white fear and what non-Indigenous people stand to lose if Indigenous people get rights. In an environment when we're not actually getting rights, we're getting possibly a say, all of it is rubbish.
If we were looking at the truth, people would be making a decision on whether or not they think that a Voice that has no power is a way forward. That's all it is. I'd much prefer that people were looking at the bare bones of what we've got in front of us and making a decision based on that.
Let’s return for a moment to your critiques of the “Yes” campaign and the potential power (or lack thereof) of the Voice. You are critical of the fact that the Voice will have no power of veto over legislation passed that impacts Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and that even if it did, the scope is ambiguous. For instance, as you’ve written: “Will the Voice be consulted on environmental legislation or disability legislation (given the higher rates of disability in our communities) if these proposals do not directly reference Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander lands or peoples?”
This connects to claims that there is a lack of detail in the proposal. One argument against these concerns is that, as constitutional reform, the proposal is intended to be flexible—it is designed to be altered over time and in consultation with the community’s changing needs. What do you make of this?
They’ve allowed for the prospect of almost a zero-impact scenario in order to give it the most chance of success at the ballot box. But the parameters are a little bit concerning. We know from studies globally that Indigenous communities are at the forefront of things like climate change. The Torres Strait Islands are currently being inundated with rising sea levels—that's the reality of their backyards right now. And therefore, if there's a new gas field that's being opened up in the Top End, you’d think that Torres Strait Islander input on that particular field would be absolutely crucial. This is an example of legislation that would impact Indigenous communities. But there is ambiguity about whether this would qualify for consultation with the Voice; unless those groups are actively named, it doesn't seem to be that there needs to be consultation.
I use disability as another example because it is well known that Indigenous people suffer from disabilities at a much higher rate than the mainstream population. For example, I've lived with ear problems my entire life, and we know that the rate of otitis media in Indigenous communities is significantly higher than mainstream communities. If there is new disability legislation, which is going to disproportionately impact Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, unless it specifically names Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, will the Voice be consulted?
Just to throw an interesting thing in the mix, which I haven't used in my writing before—there is a union parallel to what's going on here. Essentially what Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are being asked to do is to sign a dodgy workplace contract when collective agreements are yet to be negotiated. We're being asked to sign into the Constitution as the founding document of Australia that we are going to work within. But we haven't negotiated a treaty yet. We haven't protected our rights as First Peoples. So that's why this can only ever be in service to the settler colonial state. It can't actually really benefit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander self-determination and sovereignty. Just that really simple act reinforces the colonising power over our own ways of knowing and ways of being, and our right to our own representation.
On top of these concerns around the power of the Voice and the misinformation around it, what other issues have you observed in the “Yes” and “No” campaigns?
A massive shortcoming in the “No” campaign is that the dominant campaign has nothing to do with Indigenous rights or Indigenous voices. I'm being a little bit snarky when I say this. But when you look at the main talking Indigenous heads within the mainstream “No” campaign, they're very much people whose paradigm is the white colonial status quo. That might be Jacinta Price in her Press Club address, and her outrageous claim that the colonisation hadn't had an ongoing impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Or it’s Senator Kerrynne Liddle, who also backed that up. She was talking about how the Constitution needs to be protected, and how nobody in her family ever talks about colonisation. These figures are very much there to reinforce mainstream viewpoints.
Warren Mundine actually threw a bit of a spanner in the works this past week. Even though he has been very much on that “No” side, he essentially had the gall to wrongfoot them by stating that he believes that “No” is actually a stepping stone in achieving treaties. This view actually has some overlap with the progressive “No” side/sovereignty activist side. This left a lot of the [conservative] “No” people not knowing exactly where they stood, because dialogues about treaties are just so outside of what the mainstream “No” campaign is about. But if non-Indigenous people were across Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander politics and how robust they are—how much these sorts of things are discussed and debated in our communities—then his view would never have come as a surprise.
If I was to hold a mirror up to the “Yes” side, unfortunately, it is much the same. I've been critical of it because I've seen that they're framing themselves as the progressive and anti-racist side, and saying that the “No” side is where the racists hang out. As somebody who's been active in progressive movements for decades now, I know that there are plenty of racist people who are going to be voting “Yes” in this referendum. That will be on the basis that appearing to do an anti-racist act is more important to them than actually knowing the first thing about the impacts of systemic, structural racism and what that does to people.
If Indigenous voices were running both sides and people were looking at the Voice on the merits of what it will and won’t do for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and politics in this country, then they'd have a full scope of the views that are actually discussed frequently in the community. As it is, that's not what's going on. Understanding Indigenous politics from a mainstream perspective looking in, not from an Indigenous perspective, is doing this whole debate no service whatsoever.
Let’s turn to the media coverage of the referendum. What has your experience been like covering the lead-up to the vote? You've published a number of articles as an “undecided voter.” What has it been like to maintain that public position in the media?
I said at the beginning that there was a pragmatic reason for taking the undecided position. My view is “undecided” because I believe that [the current proposal] doesn't go anywhere near far enough and is the wrong order of business. I have very strong views on the fact that things like truth-telling processes and treaties would have actually been much more integral to forward momentum and achieving proper equality. But I'm going to have to go to the ballot box and cast a vote like anyone else.
What I found is that, although [being “undecided”] means that I can be attacked from both sides quite easily, it's also given me a lot more freedom than people who have declared “Yes” or declared “No” have had. The minute that an Indigenous person declares that they're voting “No,” then they're accused of siding with people like Pauline Hanson and Peter Dutton. But the minute that somebody says “Yes,” then the attacks are quite different. I've seen people from the racist “No” camp attack Aboriginal people because they assume that they're going to be voting “Yes.” But then again, you end up dealing with the racism of the “Yes” side by being swept up in the sentiment of it all, when there's not actually anything there. We're not voting on a robust proposal at the moment.
The minute that you do declare your side, you are cast one way or another. I've seen this happen to so many other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I've watched some incredible commentators have their views swept to the side because it's like, “Oh, well, we can't read their stuff because they're aligning with the racists.” Or: “We can't read their stuff because they're not exploring the real threats to sovereignty and self-determination.” None of those things are really true. There is a bit of freedom with maintaining an outwardly undecided stance, because I get to see what's on the table on any given day and take that apart.
There's also an expectation placed on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that we will tell mainstream Australia which way to vote, and that therefore, they don't need to actually have any knowledge, do any research, or be across the arguments before they go into the ballot box. This is so offensive. It speaks to broader voter apathy, but it also speaks to generations upon generations of the reinforcing of the great Australian silence myth and understandings of terra nullius. When you think that people are going to be that uninformed and then go to a ballot box, and they want Aboriginal people to tell them which way to vote, it shows a lack of care.
As an Indigenous woman, you're coming from a particular position and also responding to particular expectations. Do you think it is equally valid for non-Indigenous people to hold the undecided position?
I think that people need to engage with the arguments. At this point, if I was looking at the undecided camp within non-Indigenous Australia, they'd be made up of two main groups. One would be the apathetic, who haven't looked into it. The other would be those who are incredibly passionate, and who have actually done their research and have looked and said, “Well, it sounds good. But here are a couple of shortfalls in this idea of the Voice; here are the problems that Indigenous people are identifying. Here’s what could potentially happen if colonial structures like the Constitution continue to be centralised through these processes.”
Some of [the people who might be undecided] are valid, some of them aren't. But to those who are actually out there asking questions and doing their own research and engaging with the diversity of Indigenous opinion, I think that’s pretty incredible. Perhaps they have a responsibility to talk through the sheer weight of the different views and arguments with other people.
Again, and I keep saying this, but what I really feel should have been the first order of business was the truth-telling exercise. I don't know that Australia as a whole is ready to actually go to the ballot box on a question about Indigenous rights.
It is clear that there are many diverse viewpoints coming from within the community. Who have you been listening to? Who do you think has been speaking productively about the Voice?
To be honest, I appreciate views like Lidia Thorpe’s. She introduces a pro-sovereignty standpoint. She highlights that we've had certain truth-telling processes in this country before, like the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody or the Bringing them Home Report, and those things have gathered dust for decades when they could have been acted upon. When she starts throwing those sorts of things into the mix as a way of saying, “Well, actually, we've raised our voices many times and here's the evidence of that, and previous governments have failed to act,” I think that's been powerful. Aboriginal people have been incredibly active at challenging governments for a really long time. We have been the victim of many broken promises and continual legislative changes.
I acknowledged Warren Mundine before because he's thrown treaties into the conservative side of the arguments and really upset them, which is fascinating to watch unfold. I am also thinking about the Black Peoples Union. Their position is pro-sovereignty but anti-treaty, so they're throwing another thing into the mix.
If I was to highlight people within the “Yes” field that I think have actually done some incredible work, it would be people like Larissa Baldwin-Roberts from Get-Up! Rather than seeing the way to win a “Yes” vote as by getting corporate support on board—Qantas, the mining companies, and that sort of thing—people like Larissa have identified what the real problem is. We need to be appealing to grassroots, everyday people and communities. We need to be engaging in education and truth-telling processes. They highlight the importance of continuing education, and therefore continuing truth-telling, as part of their campaign. That has been really powerful, but it's kind of been ignored within the broader scope of things. There's a lot going on, and there is a lot to admire, actually, from a number of people working on different sides.
We have a lot of respect for you and all the people who have been in the public eye talking about this referendum. We imagine that it’s been a long, tiring period.
It definitely has. As somebody who has maintained an undecided stance, I got roped into a conversation by a person of a migrant background who wanted to know which way they should be voting. I said, “Well, I'm sort of the last person to tell you,” but I ended up educating them. They were considering voting “No” on the basis that they had heard from mainstream media that if the “Yes” vote gets up, it will grant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people special rights and special treatment. As a person of migrant background, they didn't think that was fair. I think that I managed to change a “No” vote into a “Yes” on the basis of the fact that I was able to highlight to this one person that there were no special rights being gained through a “Yes” vote whatsoever. That anecdote is a real example of what everyday people on the ground are absorbing. Even though I'm exhausted, I feel a responsibility to break down some of the garbage that I've seen out there.
What happens if the Voice gets up?
If the Voice gets up, then the community is going to have to hold the government responsible to ensure that it takes on the structure that they're promised and that they do actually listen to it. If it goes down, then the sovereignty activists and the community activists are going to have to up their antics in order to reinforce the rights and self-determination of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and keep our views in the public sphere. Whichever way it goes, the business is far from done. In fact, it's only just kicking off.
What do you see as the crucial tasks to focus on in the future?
I speak as somebody whose entire working life has in one way, shape, or form been linked with the education industry, whether as a unionist, as a worker in the higher ed industry, or as a student myself. The reason why I was so drawn to education in the first place was that I saw the power of knowledge. I saw how transformative it can be. Through being exposed to different knowledge systems, I developed an understanding of why I felt so isolated from the mainstream education system. I barely made it through high school, but I did. When I got the language to understand why I felt excluded during my time within the compulsory education system, it showed me the things—like systemic racism—that people are up against all the time.
To me, truth-telling is absolutely crucial. I've seen some really awesome examples in the past few years, where people have been inspired by the concept and are delving into family trees and family histories and seeing if there are skeletons in the closet, or whatever else that can be challenged. People are looking at their own historical legacy and how they fit into Australia.
If we start doing this with the way that Australia sees itself, we can develop a better understanding of this country's culture, how it came to be, and what the future could look like. Right now, it's kind of looking the same as it did when I was born. Even though I've lived through decades of activism, we're still having the same fights. If people were educated about the untruths that we're taught and about the legacy that we all live with in this country, then we could have a healthier future.
Information about the referendum can be found here: https://voice.gov.au/
THE PARIS END is based on unceded Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung land. The editors wish to pay our respects to Elders past and present.