Marcia Langton has accused Peter Dutton of cementing ‘race hate’ into the fibre of Australia in an extraordinary assessment of the failed referendum.
The professor, who was one of the original signatories to the Uluru Statement of the Heart, gave her first detailed response to the failed referendum at the University of South Australia earlier this month.
She called on the Albanese government to push forward with regional and local voices despite 60 per cent of Australians voting not to constitutionally enshrine the advisory body in the constitution.
The outspoken Indigenous rights advocate’s new proposal references the 272-page Calma-Langton report she co-authored recommended 35 regional and local voices that were supposed to work alongside the constitutionally-enshrined Voice.
There are suggestions these local voices – which would not require a referendum or even legislation – could be in full swing as early as 2024.
In her address to the annual Hawke Lecture, Professor Langton blamed the Opposition leader, as well as shadow Indigenous Australians minister Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Warren Mundine for the defeat of the Voice.
Not only did she accuse them of cementing ‘race hate’ into the ‘fibre of Australia’, but of lying about the details of the Voice, confusing the Australian public and ‘further entrenching structural racism in our lives’ – and then ‘gloating’ about it.
In an address to the University of South Australia earlier this month, Professor Langton called on the government to begin implementing regional voices in spite of the referendum defeat
‘They did so with disgusting glee and arrogance,’ she told the crowd, who gave her a standing ovation.
Professor Langton invited Yes voters to ‘stand behind us’, but warned ‘they too face a bleak future’ where ‘the dark heart of White Australia policy will be no whisper but a slogan’.
‘Reconciliation is dead,’ she said.
‘Not because we failed to pursue it, but because the majority of Australians rejected it, led along by a deceitful campaign aimed at dehumanising us.’
She argued the No vote meant Australia could no longer be considered the land of the fair go, and that everyday Australians had squandered an opportunity to be absolved of the guilt of our ancestors.
Despite her disappointment, she credited Anthony Albanese for keeping his word and holding the referendum.
While initial polling showed the majority of Australians supported the proposal, but by the time October 14 arrived, every pollster had been predicting a failure for months.
But Professor Langton said the ‘outcome of the referendum was deeply shocking to those of us familiar’ with it, who wholeheartedly believed the proposal was based on ‘contemporary human rights standards’.
She sees local and regional voices as the clear path forward.
Initial polling showed the majority of Australians supported the proposal, but by the time October 14 arrived, every pollster had been predicting a failure for months
Echoing the recommendations made in her initial report, Professor Langton said Indigenous people ‘want the federal government to establish a legislated representative body’ through ‘regional Voice structures’.
‘In addition to legislated representative bodies… Indigenous people have been very clear they want treaties and the establishment of a Makarrata Commission.’
Professor Langton said First Nations people also want governments and institutions to take steps toward ‘truth-telling’ – the third pillar of the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
Despite her calls for the government to progress with treaties, truth-telling and legislated voices, Professor Langton conceded that the general public’s rejection of a constitutionally enshrined Voice marked ‘the end of reconciliation’.
‘We are left with the wit and determination of indigenous people themselves to find another way to live alongside those who hold us in contempt,’ she said.
Professor Langton also said the ‘primary attribute of Yes voters was a high standard of education’.
She placed the blame squarely at the feet of the most effective No campaigners – Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, Shadow Indigenous Australians Minister Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, and Warren Mundine
‘It is difficult to convey how damaging the No campaigners were to me personally,’ she said. ‘The damage to our prospects of living healthy, worthwhile lives in our own country is profound.
‘Make no mistake, the damage is permanent.’
Professor Langton failed to mention that much of the discontent came came from the failings of the Yes campaign.
She sparked controversy herself when she branded the No case ‘racist and stupid’ and accused ‘hard No voters’ of ‘spewing racism’.
The Yes campaign wasn’t helped by commentary by Thomas Mayo or TV legend Ray Martin.
Martin called No voters ‘d**kheads and dinosaurs’ at a crucial part of the campaign, while Mayo’s ambitions of a Voice leading to treaty and reparations derailed the message early on.
Professor Langton said the ‘outcome of the referendum was deeply shocking to those of us familiar’ with it, who wholeheartedly believed the proposal was based on ‘contemporary human rights standards’
The crowd gave Professor Langton a standing ovation
Mr Albanese and his cabinet have frequently referred back to the Calma-Langton Report – both throughout their election campaign and during the last 19 months in government.
The report was handed to the then-Coalition government in July 2021 calling for 36 Voice bodies.
While the national Voice will not go ahead, there are suggestions the government is considering utilising the already established Empowered Communities program to elevate local and regional Indigenous voices.
The program gives First Nations leaders and community representatives from regional and remote areas direct access to decision-makers in government to make suggestions and advocate for their communities.
In essence, it delivers what Professor Langton recommended in her 272-page report.
She called for a ‘strong, resilient and flexible system which … will be part of a genuine shared decision-making with governments at the local and regional level’.
Mr Albanese and his cabinet have frequently referred back to the Calma-Langton Report – both throughout their election campaign and during the last 19 months in government
The report called for the national Voice to be comprised of 24 members, two from each state and territory (one male, one female), and an additional five people representing remote regions. One person would be selected to represent Torres Strait Islander peoples on mainland Australia
It is important to note the government has not formally adopted the report, but in several media interviews over the span of the campaign, Mr Albanese has urged the public to read it when he’s been asked for further details about the Voice.
And in the absence of a renewed commitment to the Makarrata Commission in the wake of the referendum defeat, it is becoming increasingly likely that this suggestion could form part of the Labor government’s Indigenous affairs policy for the remainder of their term.
Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney said in February she would seek to establish a network of regional Voices with state and territory governments.
‘Those things are very important,’ she told The West Australian.
‘We will obviously work with those States and Territories in the best way to pursue a network of voices across this country.’
The Calma-Langton report provides a thorough blueprint for such a task. It says community consultation indicated ’35 regions across Australia would be necessary to accommodate the complexities of implementing the Indigenous Voice proposals’.
Additionally, each region should be able to ‘decide how best to draw its Voice members’, whether it be via election, nomination, expressions of interest or another form of selection.
The report suggested these methods would ‘drawing on structures based in traditional law and custom, or a combination’.
The group would also have the freedom to determine ‘how many Voice members there will be’.
Professor Langton and her co-author wrote these regional Voices should be able to provide direct advice to the national Voice, creating a ‘two-way flow of advice and communication’ on ‘systemic issues associated with national policies and programs, and matters of national importance’.
Additionally, they sought for the local and regional Voices to be able to advise non-government sectors within communities, such as businesses and corporate entities.