For First Nations people in Australia, today’s vote on our recognition in the constitution is starting to feel like a choice between love and war.
The debate on this landmark referendum has intensified, and the polarization between the hard “yes” and “no” cases means that 28 percent of Australians are still yet to decide how they will vote.
Many First Nations people are grappling with the fact that our fate in this country’s democracy will come down to the decision by those Australians who have never met an indigenous person.
According to the nonprofit Reconciliation Australia, only 17 percent of the population have socialized with First Nations people in the past year. It means most citizens only understand indigenous issues through mainstream media, which is rife with stereotypes, racism and hostile headlines that draw battle lines rather than build bridges.
Most attention has focused on the downward trend in support since March, which coincides with opposition leader Peter Dutton taking a formal position against the referendum. This effectively wrecked any chance of bipartisan support for the process, which aims to guarantee a representative Voice for First Nations people to advise the government on policies affecting our communities.
The coalition’s hard right-wing, Trump-like politics have incited a tidal wave of racism, while also attempting to capitalize on the referendum for its own political gain. They have relied on the rapid spread of misinformation and disinformation to confuse voters with the campaign tagline: “If You Don’t Know, Vote No.”
It is lazy politics — and a disservice to our democracy — when those elected by the people fail to do their jobs or act in good faith when it comes to indigenous affairs. The pending uncertainty around the result to be decided today highlights how status quo party politics is detrimental for the well-being of indigenous people. How can we progress reconciliation when our call to be heard by establishing a First Nations Voice in the constitution is considered so controversial?
On Tuesday last week, the UN urged Australian authorities to treat the Voice referendum as a first step towards the full implementation of the Uluru Statement and the UN declaration of the Rights of Indigenous peoples.
“The fulfillment of Indigenous Peoples’ right to Indigenous-led institutions should not be presented as a cost or unjustified privilege, but rather as a matter of fundamental human rights and justice for historical wrongs,” the global body said.
Only eight of 44 referendums have ever passed in Australia. That requires a double majority; it must be approved by more than 50 percent of the 18 million eligible voters from all states and territories, and more than 50 percent of voters in a majority of states (at least four of the six states) to succeed.
This is no small feat for us as First Nations peoples, who account for approximately 3 percent of the total population.
What is not captured in the mainstream is the steady rise in support among local indigenous community advocates who were hard “no” supporters when Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced the date for the Voice referendum in August, but are now switching to a hard “yes.”
Why have they shifted? Because they realize the failure of this vote would give license to ongoing racism, stall progress on a treaty with First Nations people and offer no solution to tackle the entrenched disadvantage faced by communities.
These indigenous leaders who have switched sides are influential at mobilizing the grassroots, which is where this referendum will be won or lost — among the 28 percent of undecided voters.
Unlike state and federal elections, where Australians typically vote on their individual concerns, this requires citizens to vote in the national interest to formally recognize the rightful place of First Nations people in our country.
The “yes” campaign says a vote in favor would be an act of love that will bring the country together. The “no” side claims the referendum is divisive, a misrepresentation of history and akin to a declaration of war on modern Australia.
As a lawyer in this process, which began in 2017 with the Uluru Statement from the Heart’s invitation for Australians to join indigenous people in their quest for justice, I have witnessed genuine goodwill among those who want to rectify our past and improve outcomes for Indigenous Australians. Yet there is a disturbing lack of awareness about how systemic racism affects the daily lives of Aboriginal people.
We are the most incarcerated peoples in the world, jailed at a rate 16 times higher than non-indigenous Australians. The status quo is not working, and attempts by successive governments to close the gap in education, jobs and health outcomes between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples have made little progress.
Australia was founded as a federation in 1901 without formal recognition of this continent’s Indigenous peoples, despite the fact we are the oldest continuing culture on the planet. Archeological evidence indicates we have been here for at least 65,000 to 80,000 years. The history of denial runs deep in the nation’s psyche.
While most citizens view themselves as easygoing, this has never been the land of a fair go for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, which will be news to the millions of tourists who flock Down Under to witness the wisdom of First Nations people and our ancient connection to this land.
Ultimately, it will be the citizens of Australia, not the polls, who will decide the fate of the referendum — and given the uncertainty of almost one-third of electors, it could swing either way. As a proud Wiradjuri and Wailwan woman, I am voting “yes” for hope and unity.
Teela Reid is a senior solicitor practicing in Aboriginal land rights litigation and is a practitioner-in-residence at Sydney Law School. She is a campaigner for the Uluru Statement from the Heart and a member of one of the working groups for the Voice to Parliament referendum. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS