Hissy Fits for Some, Ongoing Misery for Others

The divisive Voice referendum campaign Australia has just endured could well be described as the nadir of our country’s tumultuous political history. But there is growing evidence that the elitist and progressive Left is not accepting the resounding defeat of the Voice proposal.

Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s decision to give every public servant the option of an extra week’s leave — on full pay no less — to mourn the loss is bizarre and leads one to speculate what other mind-bending outcomes would have resulted had ‘Yes’ succeeded. The Voice was a most divisive construct, causing sometimes bitter argument between old friends and within families and organisations. The Queensland decision comes with a very heavy price tag, potentially the wages of over 200,000 people for five days plus disruption. In any case, many of these would have voted ‘No’. Quite simply, it is a ludicrous and outrageous decision. The stupidity involved reminds us of a quote attributed to Albert Einstein: “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”

Several universities provide free counselling services to their staff and students to overcome the depression created by the trauma of the ‘Yes’ campaign’s defeat. And then there have been the repeated statements, floated by illiberal journalists, that intelligent, well-educated people voted ‘Yes’, whereas dumb, uneducated people voted ‘No’. If ever there was a stereotype – the attribution of certain characteristics to people on the basis of their formal education – this is a standout. In addition, especially over the last few days, ‘No’ voters have been labelled racists. The people behind this invective might use the Misinformation Bill, now being considered by the Albanese government, to destroy free speech because whoever disagrees with them must be automatically guilty of distributing misinformation.

The reality is that the campaign by determined, valiant, and successful  ‘No’ supporters was essential in avoiding Australia becoming an officially racist country. Indeed, if the Voice had prevailed, some people, merely on the basis of their claimed racial connection – a characteristic over which people have no control, and where authenticity can often be challenged – would have permanently enjoyed a privileged, exalted, position in the governance of this country, thereby making a mockery of the equality embedded in Australia’s DNA. If the Voice, a potentially  divisive and conflict-ridden concept, had been enshrined in the Constitution, the preferment of group rights over a person’s individual rights would have become a permanent part  of our constitutional structure, .

In the end, the magnificent, courteous campaign run by the ‘No’ camp, especially by the Opposition spokeswoman for indigenous affairs, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and the exhortation to implement the principle of political equality communicated throughout the campaign, made the defeat of the Voice proposal possible. In the end, voters came to realise that the entrenchment of the Voice in the Constitution would result in the allocation of special rights for Indigenous people, merely on the basis of their race or claimed racial part-descendancy. 

Nevertheless, a step at a time, a country that should be united in a common purpose to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens is being divided by the merchants of racial division.  For example, the ‘Welcome to Country’ ceremonies, respected by few, will probably continue, flags purporting to represent some and not others, will continue to be flown, and the practice of place-name changes will also continue unabated. In Australian schools, children will continue to be made the targets of indoctrination, taught to be ashamed of industrious forebears who made Australia a wonderful place in which to live.

It is fair to speculate that a successful ‘Yes’ vote, rather than being “modest proposal”, would not have achieved reconciliation, but instead would have generated, over time, incessant demands for political power, reparations, land rights, treaties, ‘truth-telling’ commissions, and more. A successful ‘Yes’ result would also have overturned the noble aspirations and achievements of the 1967 referendum credited for developing a colour-blind policies, coupled with an expectation governments would assist those who need help to overcome serious handicaps regardless of race or ethnicity.

It is thus to be hoped that the victorious ‘No’ vote – 61 per cent of voters – will put an end to the grovelling, obsequious, prelude that speakers recite, paying fake tribute to past, present an emerging tribal ‘elders’, distorting the history of Australia in the process.

Writing in The Australian, Bella d’Abrera commented that in 1788:

the British colonists brought with them centuries of ­accumulated knowledge and the basis of our cultural heritage. They brought with them the values of liberty, inquiry, toleration, religious plurality, and economic freedom. They brought with them Christianity, which had positioned the individual as the locus of meaning, sovereignty, and significance. Equality of man, individual dignity and the abolition of slavery were all bequeathed to the world by Christianity and Christian thinkers.^[1]

How much longer will that confected symbol of division, the ‘Aboriginal flag’ be flown beside the one under which Australians fought and died defending a free society that is today rapidly becoming less free? Geoff McDonald described in 1982 in Red over Black how the KGB, during the Cold War,  nurtured the Aboriginal victimisation industry. The publisher describes this book as “the chilling and almost unbelievable story of the Marxist manipulation of the Aboriginal ‘land rights’ movement, told by a man who learned of Communist strategy while in the Communist Party” and “the long-range Communist strategy for the establishment of an Aboriginal republic under Communist control.”

So, while the defeat of the ‘Yes’ campaign is obviously very pleasing, it is only one crucial step in the direction of developing, and thereafter maintaining,  a united country. This is because the relentless pressure for special rights for indigenous Australians will undoubtedly continue and may even accelerate. The activists will certainly clamour for constitutional recognition and ever-grander benefits.

The demonstrable, and justifiable, moral obligation to assist remote indigenous communities will succeed only if a united and prosperous country can support such communities while fixing other critical issues such as homelessness, energy security, foreign aggression and morale. Targeted support and societal help are needed to close ‘the Gap’.

The only result, truly worthy of celebration in Australia, is a resounding commitment by our political leaders, to the implementation of the principle of political equality, where everyone, regardless of race  is treated equally and any demonstrable problems are sought to be remedied by empowering people to look after themselves by shedding the shackles of government dependency.

Gabriël A. Moens AM is an emeritus professor of law at the University of Queensland. He serves  as pro vice-chancellor and dean at Murdoch University. In 2003, Moens was awarded the Australian Centenary Medal by the prime minister for services to education. He has taught extensively across Australia, Asia, Europe, and the United States.

John McRobert is a civil engineer with over 60 years’ experience in the design, construction and maintenance of major infrastructure, and the study of extreme natural events on man-made structures. He founded CopyRight Publishing in 1987 to facilitate informed debate, publishing over 200 books, including seminal volumes by geologists and engineers on major Earth seismic events.

[1] Bella D’Abrera, ‘Let’s Honour our Western Heritage Without Shame’, The Australian, January 24, 2018. <https://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/lets-honour-our-western-heritage-without-shame/news-story/cb476aa84d494a95271ed7563d6a0e32>