I don’t know what time I woke up the day after the No.

I have spoken to so many mob, who the day after No, didn't want to leave the house. If they did, they felt sickened, hurt, rejected.

The one thing in my mind since hearing Mimi the morning of the vote was: how will our jarjums (children) feel on Monday back at school?

In kindy and primary, so many little ones learn Aboriginal words and languages.

So many jarjums went to school on Friday belonging to something and returned on Monday feeling like they didn’t belong.

How do they navigate Monday at school? How could I ever explain all of this to my little niece Mimi?

It has been eight months. Our leaders have withdrawn from media engagement and political engagement. And as one of the leaders I’ve had a lot of time to think about the referendum, and yarn about it, and feel better placed to speak on it now. So, my NAIDOC remarks today are in the form of a letter to Mimi (who is at school).

Dear Mimi,

Referendum Day was the culmination of a long effort by our people to be recognised in our country’s constitution. It’s an effort that has been going for over a century, but its most recent and significant push began in late 2015.

Aunty Pat, Noel Pearson and I were members of the Referendum Council and both government and opposition tasked us with finding out what meaningful Constitutional recognition looked like for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

To answer that question we designed and delivered a process called The First Nations Dialogues.

It represented the deepest, and broadest consultation with First Nations people on how they wanted to move forward with constitutional recognition.

In 12 meetings we yarned with thousands, culminating with the National Convention, where 250 delegates reached an historic consensus and raised their voices as one - making The Uluru Statement From The Heart.

Part road map, part rallying cry, it laid out the vision of First Nations people like never before.

A version of Australia where the voices of our mobs are acknowledged in its most foundational legal text.

The ambitions of the Uluru Statement went beyond just constitutional recognition in a token symbolism.

The group deemed that the symbolism of a preamble would not suffice.

They wanted to be heard - and so put forward the idea of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

It was, and still is a very simple concept.

The Dialogues were crystal clear in calling for it: decisions that affect First Nations people should always be influenced by First Nations people.

How could it be otherwise?

It is an idea that flows very logically from the starting point of basic human decency and an understanding of rights.

Voice is about dignity.

And so, though it was a simple idea, it has tremendous potential to change the fortunes of First Nations people.

Incorporating our say could only benefit our people manifest in the recognition of political participation as prescribed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples but also, across an array of areas such as incarceration, youth detention, poverty and domestic violence.

Studies show that the simple act of being heard is transformative - regardless of what the listener chooses to do with that information.

In the global Indigenous Rights context, it was and remains a modest request but one in alignment with the political and legal temperament of the Australian polity.

The vast majority of Indigenous people saw the merits of the Voice.

Some said because it didn't veto the Australian Parliament and by default the Australian people, it wasn't a substantive reform. But they were in a very, very tiny minority of our people even though their voices were loud.

Our polling suggested the proportion was 83%, we ran ads during the campaign on this, and this was verified in the polling data from the referendum.

In remote and regional areas, the Yes vote was over 80% in most ballot boxes. In some of Australia’s most remote areas, the vote was extremely high. Wadeye records 92.1% Yes. In Maningrida it was 88% Yes. And in Tiwi Islands the vote was 84%.

These results are significant as these towns have had many challenges and experience some of the most disadvantage, as well as being extremely remote. They must have felt awfully remote on the night of October 14th.

For them, a Voice was a way to cut thru the Ministerial anecdotes, and the anecdotes of Australians who have been in and around communities – those who speak on behalf and those who know best …

The voice was a way to cut thru the self-appointed spokespeople, and the bureaucrats, to have a seat at the table.

Of the twenty remote polling booths in the Northern Territory only one recorded a No.

This is important information for all Australians and our research shows few Australians know this.

We knew from our own research going into the Referendum that despite what some politicians and the news media would have you believe, the majority of mob supported the establishment of a Voice to Parliament.

Think for a moment about those identities who insisted First Nations people didn’t want a Voice.

The prominence they were afforded in the campaign, and how wrong they were: this is what Aboriginal Affairs is like every day.

Voice is a powerful thing for human beings. It empowers. It dignifies.

That it is why it was overwhelmingly popular among Indigenous people. The data, the facts are in, and they are indisputable.

This is our starting point. The starting place for the 2023 referendum, for our people, is that it was a resounding Yes.

But it wasn’t just popular with mob. There is another mob that was identified that night.

We discovered 6.2 million friends that we didn’t know we had. 6.2 million people is a movement - any way you want to measure it. And these were not votes placed out of fear, or falsehood. These were votes placed with pride, and positivity.

Our research since the referendum shows that these voters remain committed to the cause - they are tremendously proud of their YES and they are staunch in their support - and that’s something we must build on.

WHY THE NO?

So Mimi you must be wondering why did 60% of Australians Vote No? I won’t oversimplify.

The media loves to latch on and identify The One Thing that tilted voters to the No camp.

But all of our analysis indicates that there was no one reason. The reasons were many and varied.

It is worth noting that we’ve had to do our own analysis to arrive at these conclusions - the media and government has done next to nothing as far as a port-mortem goes.

Was racism at play? Undeniably there was an element of it, but racism alone does not explain October 14.

Was it Dutton’s fault? He didn’t help. Neither did David Littleproud when he came out against the Voice before he even knew what the proposal was.

But we can’t be sure that bipartisanship would have changed the outcome.

Obscuring everything was a thick cloud of mis- and disinformation.

Throughout the campaign lies spread from both ends of the political spectrum.

Politicians and opportunistic zealots got involved and coloured the national conversation in a way that was divisive.

Then they sought to brand the idea itself as divisive.

Imagine that, Mimi.

Our people conceived of an idea to extend an olive branch to the rest of Australia.

How can an olive branch be called divisive?

How can someone who rejects an olive branch claim to be motivated by ‘unity’?

It felt like a bad dream.

But it was not one thing.

Rather it was a cocktail of negative influences - racism, politicisation, disinformation, and let’s not forget plain old inertia and fear of change.

It seems to be these factors that defeated the referendum.

But more analysis is needed. We continue to conduct in depth research into the makeup of No. We can’t shy away from it, even if what we unearth is unpleasant. We owe it to ourselves to be as rigorous in our post-referendum analysis, as we were in consulting with First Nations people through the Uluru Dialogues.

But being rigorous and data-driven doesn’t mean we need to be emotionless.

No, we must feel the hurt.

Nothing will be gained by avoiding it. Or somehow diminishing it.

I remember the day after the referendum - I did get out of bed eventually – in the evening. And as I walked to dinner cutting across the Queen St mall, I had a baseball cap on and refused to make eye contact.

I could not quiet the voice in my head, reminding me relentlessly:

He probably voted No ... She probably voted No.

I am told many mob felt the same way.

Especially those who grew up and work in small towns with loads of non-Indigenous community people and interactions. Many felt it inexplicable.

Many could not reconcile those daily interactions and co-existence with NO.

But …. I remembered I was in Brisbane in a seat that screamed and voted YES!

Even so:

It’s okay to be sad. It’s okay to feel cynical, or pessimistic.

But …

It’s not okay to give up - we owe it to our ancestors and to you our jarjums.

WHERE TO FROM HERE?

The Voice to Parliament amendment has been rejected. Australians in 2023 voted No to enshrining an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Constitution.

They didn’t Vote No to Truth-Telling. They didn’t Vote No to Agreement Making. The No doesn’t mean a legislative Voice is off the table. And the No was not a No to constitutional recognition.

Our research this year shows even NO voters saying that the loss in the referendum does not extend to all things in Indigenous Affairs.

This is surely the new goal upon which we must re-focus our efforts.

The path to meaningful constitutional Recognition for First Nations people has been a long one, and now that road has gotten a little longer.

But it will continue. We will continue. We know full-well that we live in an unforgiving climate:

• The political landscape is fractious, both here and abroad

• The effectiveness of Indigenous Policy seems to be at historic lows - which is really saying something

• The penalty for lying in the political arena also seems to be lower than ever

• Trust in institutions is heavily eroded - both private and public

• Social justice movements the world over are struggling against the tide of ‘anti-Wokeism’

• Social media is engineered to marshal all of our attention and point it toward things that outrage us and pit us against one another

These headwinds are significant, but despite these challenges - we’re staying true to Uluru.

I believe in the enduring importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples being recognised in the Australian Constitution.

People ask me all the time why Constitutional recognition?

Why must you be represented in the document that is the hardest to change?

The answer is embedded in the question. We ought to be recognised in that document precisely because it is the most important in the land.

Because it is so hard to change.

Once recognition is written into that document, it can’t be taken away - like so much else that has been introduced and then taken from us.

If we accept recognition in some less important way, we are conceding that we are not that important.

We are important. And Constitutions are important. They are an effective tool in ensuring citizens flourish. They provide the material conditions for a dignified human life. And they – Constitutions - are not immovable.

When we strip away the fear of change and the lies and the confusion - these are documents that are designed to evolve and improve.

Australia’s Constitution is a good one.

We are a highly functioning liberal democracy.

It provides the material conditions for a dignified human life for almost all Australians.

We need only fix its one glaring hole.

We have the same ambition for all Australians - for all of us to belong to and belong in our own country.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart is about unity and healing. This isn’t about deepening any sense of us and them.

We want to walk arm-in-arm into a future where we tackle the nation’s great challenges together.

Celebrate its wins together.

This spirit was lost in the debate.

Forever by my side in these endeavours has been Aunty Pat Anderson - My Co-Chair of the Uluru Dialogue.

My mentor and dear friend.

Our work was distinct from the formal Yes campaign, that was Yes 23.

But our work nonetheless played an important role.

We didn't start in 2022 once the government committed, we'd spent 5 years of our lives working on this.

We worked tirelessly on Community Engagement - everything from mass speaking engagements, to tea and biscuits at town halls in remote areas.

Talking, but always listening too.

The Dialogues taught us a lifelong lesson about the power of listening.

We conducted education campaigns, aimed at a range of audiences - designed to dispel some of the bad information and propaganda that sought to distort our agenda.

We provided a range of legal and technical advice to the government, to the attorney general and to mob and citizens that needed it all around the country.

And we conducted valuable research - helping us to understand the country’s landscape of attitudes so that we could effectively address some of the misconceptions that existed.

So our efforts leading into the referendum were extensive. And in the aftermath we remain loyal to the historic consensus at Uluru - we carry it forward.

We’re continuing to keep the Uluru Statement From The Heart alive and on the agenda.

Its legitimacy stands.

Most importantly, we’ve kept mob engaged - thorough genuine consultation and self determination are prioritised in our work.

With an eye on succession, we’ve been keen to identify the next gen of leaders.

With that in mind we’ve supported the Formation of the Uluru Youth Dialogue - led by Bridget Cama and Allira Davis.

I’m so proud and so inspired by the work of these young women.

The Youth we work with are a seemingly endless source of energy and support.

Their contribution to the conversation at a political and a community level has been immense.

And we can see that borne out in the results of the referendum.

Young people voted YES overwhelmingly.

Their advocacy bodes so well for the future of our movement and our people - I draw great hope from them.

That next generation will be a huge asset as we seek to change the state of Indigenous Policy in this country.

Let’s be honest, it ain’t good.

One of the main reasons we drafted the Statement in 2017 was that Indigenous Policy was in dire straits.

Greater representation and better outcomes for First Nations were needed urgently.

It has only become more urgent since.

It was urgent on October 14, and it’s certainly urgent now.

Listening to us has to help.

And it is surely not a scary idea.

Nothing about us without us.

That simple.

We know that when you include people in the development of policy, the policies are better.

Where is that urgency now? Where is the discussion? Surely all that support can’t have been performative?

The alternatives on offer are not working.

Closing the Gap is not closing the gap. Not in any meaningful way.

The Productivity Commission Report published earlier this year was scathing about bureaucratic processes in the indigenous policy space.

It’s a lengthy report but I’ll share you some of the best worst bits:

“Overall the Commission’s engagements with over 130 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island organisations have not identified systemic change in when and how decisions are made, indicating limited progress in governments sharing decision-making."

It goes on: “Despite pockets of change, the Commission heard many examples of consultation that did not go far enough. Words like codesign and partnership are frequently used but often turn out to be empty promises with little practical effect.”

And this: “The Commission heard that engagements are tokenistic as if they are being conducted to tick box when the particular policy program has already been decided upon. This was often demonstrated by the timing of engagement, with governments engaging too late in the policy or program development cycle giving unrealistic timeframes for meaningful community input, and providing limited transparency on how the input has shaped policy decisions.”

The Commission also found that while governments have demonstrated a willingness to partner with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, they still largely retained power over key decisions, including whose voices are incorporated and how investment decisions are made.

It’s damning stuff.

But when the report was released, what was the reaction? Tumbleweed.

Even though the Productivity Commission validated all of the reasons the enshrined Voice was critical, the media caravan has moved on.

After all they didn't seem to understand why the Voice was needed because outside of 2022 and 2023 Indigenous policy barely rates analysis.

Perhaps they think the public’s appetite for matters Indigenous was exhausted in 2023.

I’m not sure if that’s true.

What I do know is that tackling these issues is something we can’t do alone.

If these goals aren’t shared by all Australians, meaningful change is unlikely.

In achieving that sense of shared purpose, all the academic works point to the concept of Belonging as crucial.

Its most lucid description is in ‘Belonging without Othering’ by John A. Powell and Stephen Menendian.

Powell and Menendian note that while egalitarian and other social justice movements can improve material conditions and the standing of marginalized groups in society, they tend to engender backlash, amplify polarization, and further fragmentation.

This framework ultimately argues on behalf of a Belonging paradigm and framework as the only one that has the potential to overcome these dynamics and reweave the social fabric.

The problem of non-belonging may be most acutely felt by marginalized and othered groups, but it is experienced by super-ordinate and high-status groups as well.

Across societies, seemingly record numbers of people of all backgrounds report loneliness, despair, isolation and sense disconnection and dislocation or simply bewilderment.

A Belonging paradigm is attentive to both the problem of Othering and the various crises of identity, resentment, and backlash that exacerbate it.

There are some big words in there - academics love a paradigm.

But the book offers a simple example of how it might work in the real world.

Powell and Menindian have suggested that the BLM movement in the US might’ve made greater inroads if it were known as Black Lives Matter Too.

This framing may have nipped in the bud the perception that this was one racial group trying to prevail over another.

Out-group hitting back at in-group.

Those sentiments gave rise to All Lives Matter, and the two factions remain at loggerheads.

We’ll never know if those extra three letters would’ve set BLM on a more fruitful trajectory. But it’s worth pondering.

In the social justice sphere there is a tendency to romanticize ‘the fight’.

But it could be that when we’re fighting, we’re losing.

When we’re fighting, we’re not changing minds.

And surely that’s the only way to win.

If we can cultivate this sense of Belonging, then this isn’t a First Nations issue, this is an Australian issue.

Of course that was at the core of the Uluṟu Statement and remains so.

Its sentiment about “walking together” for a better future was a nod to the fractious political environment.

It was about engaging ordinary Aussies on the reasons change is needed.

Come meet us at the Rock, we have some grievances we would like to share with you, so we can move forward.

This is an issue for all of us.

It’s not fashionable.

Or recent.

Or woke.

This is a conversation that’s been happening since First Contact, and has been a constant dialogue since 1901.

During the dialogues and at the national convention our elders, our gerontocracy, said Let’s focus on the things we have in common, as Australians are born on Aboriginal land, some arrive for new beginnings in Aboriginal land, or seek peace from persecution on Aboriginal land.

Australians live here, work here, have children here, die here.

We are all tethered to this country.

It's about location.

When we come together extraordinary things happen - on sporting fields, on compulsory voting, on healthcare, on gun laws, on same sex marriage - how can we harness that kind of energy and move to a place where our ancient culture is a source of great national pride?

How do we get the majority of Australians to “understand full belonging means having the same rights and privileges as any other members - no more and no less. It confers a right of full standing, rather than conditional or partial standing.” and that Constitutional Recognition isn’t about special treatment, it’s about remedying past harms and moving forward.

The research shows that the primary reason for the No vote was that people didn't want RACE in the Australian Constitution.

Guess what?

It's in the Australian Constitution.

It dominated the discussions for our Constitution in the 1890s and it shaped the laws contained therein – laws of exclusion based on race.

Not everyone sees that - so we simply need to do our best to convey it. Shaming has no place in this effort. Many Australians have had quite enough of the Left telling them they are ignorant or bigoted. It’s an approach that yields nothing and persuades no one.

We need to learn how to come together and motivate one another and push for progress without alienating those who aren’t - yet - on our team. The insularity common to so many activist movements is unhelpful. And righteousness is even worse.

We need to rise above the mudslinging of the political arena.

Canberra is fixated on the next election, and on bipartisan point-scoring.

As best we can we need to avoid becoming just another blunt instrument they use to club each other.

Let’s not assume that opinions are unchanging.

Typecasting groups and deciding who they will forever be, is not useful. Isn’t fair.

“People are both resilient and fragile. Altruistic and selfish. Hopeful and fearful.”

We’re all in this together.

And we’re going to face challenges - look at climate change. If we’re to stare down problems of that magnitude, we have to stand shoulder to shoulder.

The country must be at peace.

I remember being at one of the conventions as an old woman said:

To face what's coming, the country must be at peace. We need to address the original grievance and agree to disagree and move on.

I was always struck by the wise counsel and graciousness of our elders. I learned so much about peace and love through that process.

Speaking of peace, I should probably give you some, Mimi.

This has been a long letter.

That's a downside when your Aunty is a law nerd.

But I wanted to record for you my reflections on this moment.

And recording what we feel and our version of what happened is important, Mimi.

Someone remarked the other day on radio that Aboriginal leaders have retreated from media and political discourse after 2023.

But it's time we tell our stories …

There's an old African proverb, Mimi, that say:

The hunter always tells the story of the hunt, never the Lion.

Well, Mimi, it's time for the Lion to roar.

As I see incredible paintings and art about the referendum loss emerge, we are seeing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander response to the referendum.

Mimi,

The future of our country can be bright if it is co-created. Not just by you and me, but by all Australians.

Constitutional recognition may well be the next step on that path.

But first we have 6.2 friends to meet and greet and begin the process of yarning with Aussies across the spectrum without a politician or camera in sight.

This is the silent work of the people.

Will it be easy? No.

Will the pain of the Voice referendum be over in a hurry? No.

But our people have endured far worse.

And we are not giving up.

Our statement, though rejected, remains a true, just statement.

An idea that transcends politics.

This is not about right and left.

It’s about right and left foot.

Rolling out of bed and putting one in front of the other.

Walking alongside all Australians.

In a Movement of the Australian People for a Better Future.

March On, Mimi!

Love, Your Aunty.

Some small edits have been made to this text.