“Where there is much desire to learn,
there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions;
for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making.“

John Milton

Libertarians believe in free speech.

We do not have to agree with the arguments we hear.

I therefore defend the publication of former Senator Duncan Spender’s debut article It’s Not Our Fight Vote Yes, and I welcome him to the publication.

If you haven’t read his piece, you should before reading this response.

I’ve read and reread his article. I’ve endeavoured to be as open-minded as possible, but he hasn’t convinced me.

I am firmly in the ‘No’ camp and stand by my 14 Reasons To Vote No In The Voice To Parliament Referendum.

In this piece and two others, I’m going to do my best to expose five blind-spots in his arguments.

Today, the big one.

BLIND-SPOT #1: SYSTEMIC RACISM

One thing I’ll say in favour of the former Senator’s arguments is that, as a Yes camp advocate, at least he doesn’t slip into the ‘you’re a racist’ slander. Name-calling is never a winning formula when the burden to convince is on your shoulders.

In fact, he concludes with an undeniable ‘indifference’ – his word. We are offered a kind of reluctant accommodation for race-based activism. For precision, I’ll use his words:

“While there remains a constitutional power to make laws about race, and while we only specifically legislate about the Aboriginal race, it is reasonable for there to be an explicit constitutional provision about an Aboriginal body making representations to the Parliament and Government.”

If it has a racial-entry criteria and is being put into our system, it is systemic racism by definition.

I’m a simple fig farmer from the Adelaide Hills. But I’m left feeling empty at this meatless argument. More nourishing would have been ‘systemic racism is wrong’ and ‘race-based admission criteria to a constitutionally-empowered body is dangerous’.

Knowing my limitations, I checked with leading libertarian minds. I’m reminded of the great Thomas Sowell who wrote:

“Racism does not have a good track record. It’s been tried out for a long time and you’d think by now we’d want to put an end to it instead of putting it under new management.”

Is it just me or does the prospect of systemic racism under the new management of the Voice’s architects fill us with dread? At the risk of being accused again of ad hominem, these people are animated by collectivist values, whether race-based or communist. And I am no collectivist.

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.

A properly-centred libertarian cannot simply rationalise the Voice as something to accommodate because we have a Race Power. We must say No, and fight to remove the Race Power at the very next opportunity.

The former Senator either agrees the Voice is a race-based project or not. As I see it, it self-evidently is. If it has a racial-entry criteria and is being put into our system, it is systemic racism by definition. The burden of proof sits with the Yes camp to demonstrate why systemic racism is desirable.

It is philosophically unmoored to say “this is not a libertarian issue.” Murray Rothbard, no less, wrote:

“Racism is a particularly odious form of collectivism whereby an individual is presumed to possess certain characteristics and moral attributes, or defects, solely because he is a member of a particular race or ethnic group.”

Should we Australian libertarians in 2023 limply concede systemic racism because it is “prudent and gracious”. Or should we listen to Ayn Rand:

“Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social, or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.”

Tomorrow, I’ll cover Duncan’s two leading arguments and their defects as I see them, being:

• Blind-Spot #2: Can’t Get Much Worse
• Blind-Spot #3: Concede or Else

Until then, I’d love to see your thoughts to this piece in the comments section below.

I read hundreds of bills when I was advising Senator Leyonhjelm.  

Some of the bills would significantly alter the size of government or the extent of government interference in the lives of individuals.  For these bills, my advice and the Senator’s decisions were aligned and easy to predict.

But most bills were not like this.  

We should consider ourselves lucky that, in Australia, the descendants of displaced inhabitants aren’t reaching for rockets

Most of the bills wouldn’t make Australia less libertarian or more libertarian.  They represented tinkering with the labyrinthine statute book of a bloated state.  They were fiddles while Rome burned; a re-arranging of deckchairs on the Titanic.

There were bills to change the composition of agencies that shouldn’t exist, the elements of pointless regulations, and the application process for unwarranted handouts. 

I still provided advice on these uninspiring, run-of-the-mill bills.  If such a bill might marginally improve the functioning of our dysfunctional bureaucracy, and if it was supported by a smattering of individuals who had to deal with that bureaucracy, I would advise the Senator to vote for the bill.

I feel much the same way about the Voice referendum, which is why I will be voting yes.

… if we instead see the election of some Aboriginal leaders who believe in the individual rather than the collective, it would be worth it.

The Voice referendum isn’t a particularly libertarian issue.   It has little bearing on the extent of government interference in the lives of individuals, or on the size of government.

A bureaucracy making representations is not an infringement on anyone’s freedom, and the passing of the referendum would do nothing to reduce the existing ability of anyone to make representations.  The Voice is hardly the evil of affirmative action.

The passing of the referendum would require the indigenous bureaucracy to be reshaped, and would likely increase it in the short term.  But the overall size of Australia’s indigenous bureaucracy, and the bigger issue of indigenous-specific handouts, would remain a question for Australia’s parliaments.  Reducing indigenous-specific bureaucracy and handouts will remain an important task for libertarians, whether the referendum passes or not.

Some argue against introducing race into our Constitution.  But, unfortunately, race is already in our Constitution.  While there remains a constitutional power to make laws about race, and while we only specifically legislate about the Aboriginal race, it is reasonable for there to be an explicit constitutional provision about an Aboriginal body making representations to the Parliament and Government.  Just as, if we were silly enough to have laws about Dutch Australians, it would be reasonable to be explicit that Dutch Australians can make representations to the Parliament and Government.

Some argue that the Constitution should remain limited to our major institutions.  But our Constitution already has provisions for minor institutions.  Consider Section 105A, inserted by referendum in 1928, to underpin the now moribund Loans Council.  I suspect that those who wax lyrical over our Constitution have only read bits of it.

Other arguments against the Voice referendum represent a cavalcade of fallacies.  

The passing of the referendum would require the indigenous bureaucracy to be reshaped, and would likely increase it in the short term.

There are straw-men: arguments against a body whose advice needs to be waited for and listened to, when no such body is being proposed.  

There are slippery slopes: arguments against separate things, like treaties and a different Australia Day, that will be argued for regardless of the referendum result.  

And there’s ad hominem: arguments against proposers rather than the proposal.

For me, there are two half-decent arguments in favour of the Voice referendum.  

Firstly, Aboriginal affairs couldn’t get much worse.  If the Voice delivers more of the same, we haven’t lost anything.  But if we instead see the election of some Aboriginal leaders who believe in the individual rather than the collective, it would be worth it.

The Voice is hardly the evil of affirmative action.

Secondly, saying no would disempower Aboriginal leaders pushing the Voice and empower militant Aboriginal leaders instead. If you say no to Martin Luther King you end up with Malcolm X.  We should consider ourselves lucky that, in Australia, the descendants of displaced inhabitants aren’t reaching for rockets, as occurs in other countries.  We should not be so naive to think that such violence is not possible in Australia.

Despite the popularity of tribalism, not every issue warrants a strong, certain, and unwavering response.  Some issues warrant only weak support or opposition, or even indifference.  This is one such occasion.

As our libertarian principles are not at play, we should be prudent and gracious, and vote yes – then move on to more consequential matters.

Shareholders are being taken for a ride, as are donors, trade unionists, sports fans and taxpayers. The relatively few high-profile CEOs, charity leaders, trade union leaders, sports administrators and politicians foolish enough to forsake their duty and send other people’s money to the referendum Yes case are doing harm. Many of their supporters and funders, and possibly a majority, are against the proposition. They are not as foolish as their leaders.

Leaders who think that a solution to Aboriginal despair lies in permanent government intervention in the lives of those few Aborigines who are failing in this modern society should think again. It is not all about government. Changing the Constitution does not change behaviour. Changing the Constitution will not get children to attend school. Changing the Constitution will not stop the grog, or the abuse, or the awful habits that cause early death.

This week, Aboriginal children will walk into the store at Warburton in Western Australia and purchase the typical fare of an Aboriginal diet. On the same latitude as the border of Northern Territory and South Australia, Warburton is as remote as it gets. But cake, Coca-Cola, and energy bars are all available, and expensive. For adults, throw in smokes. These are typical purchases. Week in and week out. Eating and drinking junk foods, not working, and having no purpose in life other than consumption, is a death sentence. No amount of government intervention can save this. No Voice, no committee, no treaty, no ‘truth-telling’, no Makarrata can save these people.

Aboriginal people are a modern people. In Warburton, mobile phones are commonplace. Electricity keeps the food and drink cool. Without the paraphernalia of the modern world there would be no Warburton, it would have closed decades ago. Aboriginal people rely on modern means to survive. Most have no idea how it is made. This is cruel. 

The task of leaders is to have every child understand how it is that the mobile phone and electricity that makes their food and shelter available comes in to being. Government may be the provider, but it is not the maker.

Government makes nothing, it merely covers the indignity of woeful ignorance.

Why do governments refuse to teach their citizens how their lives have been degraded to the point of begging? This is no gracious gift; it is stealing the future of these people. It is an abandonment of leadership. Recognition is not the same as reconciliation.

Aboriginal parents face an awful choice. To keep children ‘safe’ on country, away from the worst of modern life, grog and drugs, or in doing so, condemn their children to live restricted lives, with poor education, few prospects and a poor diet. The great lie of this referendum is that choices can be avoided. Somehow, 24 select delegates in Canberra will solve the parents’ dilemma. They will not; they will continue to mask the choice and, in default, make the choice for them. A slow death on country, rather than to break free, with the help of their families and guidance from outsiders on how to handle the wider world.

There is no love for Aborigines in this referendum proposal, just ego.

The Aboriginal people at Warburton are radically disabled. They are self-determining alright, sitting on country, speaking language, and dying early. And CEOs and the Prime Minister think that this is a good idea.

They must, because their solution is to change nothing. Not to learn how to create value, not to adapt, but to wait. Government monies as a permanent way of life are poison.

Gary Johns is President of Recognise a Better Way