2023-10-28
The role of inherent racism and political conservatism in shaping a No victory
By Chris Johansen, Green Issue Co-editor
For me the referendum question started off as a fairly straight forward proposition – a polite invitation to recognize First Nations People in the constitution and give them a better chance of advising government of how to Close the Gap. The Gap, in terms of lifespan, poverty, health, educational opportunity, incarceration rates, etc., has remained wide open after many decades of well-intentioned efforts to close it.
These efforts, however, mainly seem to have been top down, largely initiated and implemented by non-Indigenous well-wishers. My career in agricultural development for resource poor farmers has taught me that, with all of the good will and scientific expertise in the world, if you don’t sit down with the target population to allow them to explain their constraints and then directly involve them in testing possible solutions, you don’t get anywhere.
Early this year, polls indicated nation-wide support for the Yes case to be above 60%. On referendum day, 14th October, Yes did not even achieve 40%. Why this slap in the face to First Nations people and consequent further erosion of this nation’s reputation as “the land of the fair go”? Although many factors contributed to this result, there seem to be two underlying ones – inherent racism and political conservatism.
My early childhood, during the late 1940s to early 1950s, was spent in an undeniably racist WA society. Indeed the white Australia Policy was in full swing then. With regard to First Nations people, societal beliefs included:
- Australia was indeed “Terra Nullius” when conquered and “tamed” by the British.
- Conquest battles against indigenous peoples were glorious, against an uncivilized and dangerous foe (who occasionally speared sheep!).
- Full Blood Aborigines were a dying race (mainly due to diseases introduced by Europeans).
- Mixed race children should be taken away from Aboriginal parents and preferably fostered to white families or put in institutions to ensure their ultimate assimilation (stolen generation).
- Those children to be prevented from speaking their original Indigenous language, let alone learning about their cultural heritage.
- Look the other way when coming into sight of humpies on the edge of country towns or Aborigines sleeping under bridges in the city.
- Use of extremely derogatory language when referring to Aborigines is quite OK in normal public conversation.
- And lots of other white supremist beliefs and behaviours.
At the time, having no other terms of reference, I believed all of these things. However, doubts crept in from around 1957 when I learned of the exploits of Dr Martin Luther King, and the reasons behind them. And I am still learning about the TRUTH of Australian history to this day, although that learning was interrupted by my residence in other countries for nearly three decades.
For example, just recently I learned that there were 414 recorded massacres of Aboriginals between 1788 and 1930, with an admission that there were probably more but the evidence had been successfully covered up. One of them, the Pinjarra Massacre was related to me in the early 50s as the “Battle of Pinjarra” where the gallant Capt. Stirling and troupers successfully fought off hordes of ferocious savages.
During the 1960s I had thought that I had expunged the racist views of my early childhood. This feeling was reinforced when later living in other countries and on several occasions acquaintances said to me words to the effect of “I thought Australians are racist but you don’t seem to be”. Although not acknowledged in Australia there is a general perception in other countries that Australia is a racist country. This is now inevitably reinforced by the Voice Referendum result, basically interpreted elsewhere as Australia being unwilling to recognize its indigenous population in its constitution.
However, despite living for three decades in various non-Anglo cultures I realized that I still retained some characteristics of my racist upbringing (my genes are 50% Anglo), which I was hitherto unaware of. Once realized, or embarrassingly but politely pointed out, I did quickly try to gloss them over. Of course, not many people of my origin and vintage have had the opportunity of living in other cultures to the extent that I have and must at least subconsciously carry forward some of the traits of “white Australia”. I interpret that this embedded, unexpunged racism would have made a significant contribution to the No vote, consciously or unconsciously. Indeed, many of the statements issuing from the No campaign took me back to the beliefs of the 1950s.
The other major factor behind the No vote was political conservatism. The fundamental principle of conservative philosophy is preserving the status quo and opposing any attempts to change it. This is where the prime No campaign slogan came into its own: “if you don’t know, vote No”. This certainly sowed doubt in the minds of those of conservative bent – they really need overwhelming reasons to approve any changes to something as fundamental as the constitution or existing societal structure.
It is certainly no coincidence that the conservative political parties, think tanks and media were champions of the No campaign. And no coincidence that these entities supported continuation of racial divides and opposing any schemes that would try to close them, like the Voice. Their interpretation of history is as in traditional Anglo history books and strongly against any attempts at history revisionism is resisted. And they certainly don’t support the black armband view of history (quoting an Australian PM of 20 or so years ago). Racism and political conservatism do indeed go hand in hand (e.g. the British Empire).
But there were other factors dooming the Yes campaign also. One of them was the “progressive No campaign” led by Lidia Thorpe. Actually, I do sympathize with her argument of “why would we want to be incorporated into a colonial constitution”. Australia’s constitution was written in the 1890s and its main purpose was to unite the then separate colonies in Australia into a federal governmental system. Actually, it was quite progressive for that time in terms of formulating democratic government. But it makes very clear that Australia remains under the thumb of the British monarchy, as evidenced by the dismissal of the Whitlam government in 1975. It contains all sorts revolting (to me at least) language like: Item 2 – “A Governor-General appointed by the Queen (referring to Queen Victoria!) shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him (GG apparently can’t be a woman!).”
It is long overdue that the Australian constitution be rewritten, and not just edited. An opportunity lost with the failure of the 1999 Republic Referendum, whereby a new constitution would have been required, possibly meeting Lidia’s concerns. It is unlikely that there will be an appetite for a referendum, on a republic or indigenous recognition, any time soon, so we are stuck with trying to tinker with an antiquated constitution.
Although I do appreciate the good intentions of the Albanese Government in trying to respond to the Uluru Statement, I think that they have gone about it in the wrong way. Summarized, that statement seeks Truth, Treaty and Voice, and it should have been addressed in that order. Decisions about a Voice cannot be sensibly made without an electorate adequately conversant with the Truth of colonial history. A Truth and Reconciliation Commission as established in South Africa (and chaired by one of my heroes – Desmond Tutu) after the demise of apartheid should have been a first step. A step in this direction has been made by Senator Dorinda Cox earlier this year. She called for a truth-telling justice commission in WA modelled on Victoria's Yoorrook Justice Commission.
For the bulk of the Australian population to learn about the Truth of the country’s history will indeed require donning the black armband of history and a comprehensive re-writing of history books originally designed to portray the glories of the British Empire. This is a challenge that will take at least a generation to make headway. For an example of what truth telling involves, notwithstanding how confronting that is, a viewing of Rachel Perkins’ “The Australian Wars” on SBS On Demand is recommended. And David Marr’s “Killing for Country” where he does a deep dive into his own family history and their involvement in the frontier wars.
Until there is a much better understanding across the Australian population of our actual history it will be difficult to bring justice to our Indigenous Peoples, let alone meaningful treaties.
Header photo: The Yes Rally at Victoria Gardens, Perth on 17th September. Crowds at Yes rallies vastly outnumbered those at No rallies, but the Voice Referendum result did not turn out that way.
[Opinions expressed are those of the author and not official policy of Greens WA]