20 October 2023

Letter from the Editor: people had reasons for voting no, but rejecting reconciliation isn't one

| Genevieve Jacobs
Join the conversation
16
Old Parliament House wqith Indigenous flag painted on steps

The referendum loss does not mean that the national conversation about reconciliation has ended. Photo: Reconciliation Australia.

I had an extraordinary letter this week, predicated on the referendum vote, giving me a timeline before the writer would “out” Region for having a Reconciliation Action Plan.

“Over the coming months, my team will be following up publicly with businesses that remain actively partnered with Reconciliation Australia. I trust that by that time the appropriate decision will have been made to permanently terminate your current RAP,” it read.

The signature block implied the author was a Liberal Party candidate for a seat up the coast (without quite stating it explicitly). Minimal digging revealed he’d been disendorsed in March and expelled from the party after The Australian unearthed a slew of homophobic, racist, Islamophobic and anti-vaccination comments deemed “offensive and unacceptable” to the NSW Liberals, according to a party spokesperson.

Quite how this total stranger would publicly out Region for something we worked hard to produce, publicised widely and display on all our media platforms is a bit of a puzzle. In fact, I encourage you to read it.

READ ALSO ACT’s Yes vote for Voice referendum a ‘silver lining’ as Territory considers further change

So he can go his hardest. We’ll proudly stand by the RAP and the commitments we have made at Region to play our part on the reconciliation journey. I suspect that most other ACT businesses with RAPs, from Icon Water to Aspen Medical, will feel the same.

In the meantime, I’ve let the NSW Liberal Party division know this bloke is skating very close to the wind with the inference he’s still a candidate, or even a member.

And, really? Is this what comes next post-referendum? I’ve had some thoughtful and civil conversations with No voters after stating that I voted Yes for the Voice and constitutional recognition. I appreciate and value those conversations.

But this odd incident points up something that needs to be clear. The reconciliation journey is not over.

The referendum was about constitutional recognition and an advisory Voice to Parliament. Those are part of the larger national reconciliation movement.

The referendum loss does not mean the end of reconciliation. It means the majority of the Australian people, for a variety of reasons, did not agree with this particular proposed alteration to the Constitution.

READ ALSO Where to now for bold policy ideas?

The significant gap in outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens must still be addressed. Truths about our past must still be told, and a way to the future must still be found for us all, both nationally and locally.

Truly disturbing misinformation about the referendum and reconciliation must be combated. AAP’s independent fact-checking unit was retained by Meta (owner of Facebook) and found abundant examples of flat-out lies on social media.

These included the utterly bizarre claim the United Nations had given the Australian Government a mandate to remove private property rights but could not do so until all citizens were recognised in the Constitution. Apparently, Aboriginal people (who have, in fact, been citizens for decades) are keeping the nation “safe” from becoming a republic. There are also some very whacky misunderstandings about Torrens Title.

Go ahead and scratch your head at how convoluted and nonsensical that thinking is – some basic Civics education wouldn’t go astray either.

So, there is work to be done on reconciliation. Fair-minded and good-hearted Australians will continue to work for a better outcome for all Australians in the interests of equality and decency. This path didn’t work out, but there will be others.

In the meantime, let’s keep walking and working together.

Join the conversation

16
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

The Yes campaign was hardly “well-oiled”. They barely made their basic argument about 1/ why a respectful mention of indigenous people would be a good thing in our century-old constitution, and 2/ that a better advisory system for parliament is needed because different governments keep dissolving and remaking whatever advisory bodies they have, with chaotic and ineffective results. Perhaps like me they knew the Voice proposal was dead as soon as Peter Dutton opposed it, because Australian referendums never succeed unless they’re bipartisan. Disappointing all around.

GrumpyGrandpa10:32 pm 21 Oct 23

When I read articles blaming misinformation for the results the Referendum, I just wonder whether there would have been as much “misinformation”, had Mr Albanese provided details or “information” about how the Voice would work.

In the absense of “information”, there can only be “misinformation”; pretty much like kicking an own goal.

That no voters are still spouting the clear b.s. line that they vited no to stop division is ridiculous.

The no voters were and still are the only ones dividing the country. They voted to exclude. That’s as divisive as it gets.

You have a poor, emotionally-driven comprehension of the issues. What you’re doing intellectually is coasting on the presumption that the upper classes are always right. In the 1960s it was the old crusty establishment who rolled out these sorts of pompous and spluttering tirades; these days it’s the new “progressive” elite, now that they’ve ensconced themselves at the top of our pecking order, who are doing it.

Gregg Heldon4:29 pm 21 Oct 23

I voted no because an advisory body was being offered. I would have voted yes if constitutional recognition was being offered as a separate question. Most people would have done so as well.
Ask people why they voted call, rather than this broad, ill informed judgement call.
People voted no for a whole raft of reasons. Find out why.

NO won, YES lost – deal with it

Disgruntled & self righteous Yes voters should read Guy Rundle on Crikey or Michelle Grattan on the Conversation on why the vote was lost.

They dismantle the claims that the vote was lost due to racism or misleading propaganda and lay the blame with Albo for not doing his homework and overeach.

Middle Australia saw the proposal as divisive & didn’t want a bar of it.

So many factual arguments could be made against the claims below, but there’s no point arguing against people with blinkered rusted on views, as they don’t listen because they don’t want to hear and will not value another perspective. It’s smarter to speak to those who are more open-minded and able to consider a wide range of views.

I never saw, or could have been persuaded by any of those ludicrous claims that the Yes side was, and still is, trying to convince us were behind the No side. Those claims, if they ever existed, were more likely concocted by the well oiled Yes misinformation campaign to discredit, vilify, insult, belittle and marginalise No voters. Fortunately, intelligence and common sense resulted in an overwhelming No result. Australians generally, or at least those who voted No, can identify and have a low tolerance for BS.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.