[Theme Music Starts]

DANIEL:

From Schwartz Media, I'm Daniel James and this is The Fight for a Voice, a special series from 7am.

On October 14, we are being asked a simple question to which we must answer yes or no.

And while the question itself is a simple one, the issues in and surrounding the debate, the proposed alteration to the nation's founding document are anything but simple.

To understand how we got here and why a voice to Parliament is the model we're all being asked to vote on – you need to properly understand the last consultative body we had, known as ATSIC. Its failures drive the "No" campaign and its disbandment drives the "Yes" campaign.

The story of ATSIC is part of a broader narrative of promises kept and broken, the reconciliation that never happened, and the people who kept going.

This is episode one, the Road to the Referendum.

It's Monday, October 9.

[Theme Music Ends]

DANIEL:

Look, let's just start off for the record - please introduce yourself.

MICK:

I'm Mick Gooda. I'm a Gangulu man from Central Queensland. My my area takes in just west of Rockhampton to the Comet River, takes in all the mines out that way, plus sacred places like the Blackdown Tablelands.

DANIEL:

The heated debate on the Voice to Parliament has revealed much about Australia as a country. Its ability to reckon with its own history and preparedness to move forward one way or another. It's not the first time an advisory body to government has been proposed. One man who's seen it all come and go before is Mick Gooda.

MICK:

You start with, you know, a father who was a unionist who always advocated for workers rights, particularly Aboriginal workers rights. He had a mum who raised ten kids and was fierce about protecting her children. And we used to have a joke when Cheryl Gooda marched through the doors gates of schoolyard. Every teacher scattered because she's going to sort someone out inside. And so you go out with those people who are fierce about protecting us, and that just becomes part of your DNA, really and you grow up...

DANIEL:

Mick was born into an Australia where he, his mother, father and their extensive families weren't counted as part of the population of the Commonwealth. In a country still basking in the glow of the Melbourne Olympics, a time to show its best self to the world.

Audio excerpt – Unknown:

“Melbourne is hardly more than a provincial town, capital of Australia’s smallest state population, just over 1 million… named after a British Prime Minister.”

DANIEL:

1967 Referendum was still 11 years off from being the bipartisan reckoning that would see Aboriginal people finally counted and taken into consideration by lawmakers.

Audio excerpt – Unknown:

“The Referendum is on Saturday and it’s important that we should have the maximum vote because the eyes of the world are on Australia - they are waiting to see whether or not the white Australian will take with him as one people the dark Australian.”

DANIEL:

His story and many like him is the Australian story his country didn't want the world to see.

MICK:

Then you start growing up and yet you then experience inequalities, before that your parents sort of hide you from it. And then that makes you more fierce about advocating for not just your own rights, but the rights of everyone.

DANIEL:

And the best of times, Mick is a jovial, yet authoritative figure. Someone with a lifetime of lived experience as an Aboriginal man and social justice advocate. But today he's not as relaxed as he usually is. It's a sign the debate on The Voice is getting to even the most experienced and strident of leaders. Someone who has been through the tumult of public debate before, like during the rise and demise of ATSIC the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.

MICK:

I remember being in Rockhampton as a young fella chairing a community meeting when Gerry Hand and Charlie Perkins came around to talk about this new body they were proposing it was ATSIC.

Audio excerpt – Charlie Perkins:

“Without Aboriginal people in Australia in a suitable and equitable position in Australian society, there is no future for Australian people either. The two things have to go together, the advancement of Aboriginal people with the advancement of the Australian nation.”

MICK:

I was pretty fresh face in those days. I wasn't that cynical as I am now.

DANIEL:

ATSIC came into operation in 1990 under legislation introduced by the Hawke Government. It was established at a time when the federal government had promised a treaty between Aboriginal people and the Commonwealth of Australia, in response to the Barunga Statement presented to Hawke in 1998.

Audio excerpt – Bob Hawke:

“There shall be a treaty, negotiated between... between Aboriginal people and the government on behalf of all the people of Australia.”

DANIEL:

This was all part of a new attempt by Bob Hawke at making Australia whole: he was promising Indigenous people a say in the future of their communities. And, he was promising a treaty that would recognise the dispossession of the past.

But ATSIC wasn’t placed in the constitution… it was only legislated by the Parliament.

MICK:

We finally had a national voice that could put all that stuff to government. But the big difference was at the regional level. So it started there. And what struck me and it struck the people I work with was that ATSIC was about local decision making. If we can actually start getting what we wanted and we identified within central Queensland what we wanted and they did. It was a way to go forward.

DANIEL:

ATSIC was an elected representative body of 35 office holders elected directly by Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander people across 35 ATSIC regions.

Audio excerpt – Paul Keating:

“The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander commission is also evidence… the council indeed is the product of imagination and goodwill.”

DANIEL:

And it was just beginning to have an impact across Australia when Prime Minister Paul Keating gave his now famous Redfern address.

Audio excerpt – Paul Keating:

“All over Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are taking charge of their own lives and assistance with the problems which chronically beset them is at last being made available in ways developed by the communities themselves.”

DANIEL:

The Commission had the power to develop policy across all portfolio areas affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as you allocate the funding, worked on community development, cultural heritage, preservation and advocated on behalf of its constituents. ATSIC ran community-owned rental homes in Indigenous communities, offered legal support and could help tailor programs to meet the diverse needs of Indigenous communities right across Australia.

MICK:

Two of the biggest programs I think never funded were health and education. And if you think about a way out for disadvantaged people like us, I think education and health, you can't think of things we wouldn't talk about until we finally realised the power of an elected body having a say over programs that they don't fund.

All of a sudden I saw these regional councils call education officials to report on things like achievement, attainment, retention, attendance and expulsions, suspensions, and all of a sudden these people realised I had someone outside looking in at them and things started to change.

DANIEL:

It finally felt like Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples had a say over how money was spent on their behalf, but from the very outset there were those who thought ATSIC shouldn't exist.

That it was setting up one part of the population as being special above all other.

Audio excerpt – Broadcast:

“ATSIC was troubled from the first vote, it was supposed to be a revolution in Aboriginal affairs, and attempt at self-determination that put control back into Aboriginal hands through elected representatives, but nearly three years later its critics remain and they were not all conservative or white.”

MICK:

Oh they were scared, I think I just thought we were this ATSIC mob sitting there and and unfortunately, mate, there was also Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander bureaucrats who wouldn't even come and talk to. You know, there's a lot of political stuff going on around the creation of ATSIC taken, people like that. People hated it.

Audio excerpt – Unknown:

“I think it's one of the biggest disasters in Aboriginal affairs policy in the last 40 years”.

Audio excerpt – Unknown:

“It’s been established for three years with an annual budget of 1.13 billion dollars and as far as I can see they’ve made very little inroads into affecting resolutions.”

MICK:

Yeah, the commission needed reform, we knew that, but we wanted regional councils to stay in place. And I talk to people now, they said to me, who are at the centre of this decision-making sign, we changed. We made a blue getting rid of the regional council. So there's a there's some recognition that regional councils were actually working. And after all, when you think about us as Aboriginal people. Isn't that the essence of us local people making decisions about their stuff? This is, you know, it's like me, I can't interfere with Darumbal people who are the traditional owners in Rockhampton? I look after my mob, the Gangulu Mob.

DANIEL:

To the public service. And as political masters, it was a huge disrupter and many wanted it abolished, not least of all the newly elected Prime Minister, John Howard.

Audio excerpt – John Howard:

“I feel many emotions tonight, but the deepest emotion is all I feel is that of humility that the Australian people have given me the privilege of leading the government of this country.”

MICK:

Well, you got to understand a bit of history. John Howard never liked ATSIC. The first Cabinet meeting of the Howard Government was about abolishing ATSIC. It was always that from 96 when Howard got elected it was almost on a war footing. I was sort of secretary to the Board of Commissioners at this stage. We met on the Sunday commissioners came in, plus other leaders like Mick and Patrick Dodson and others came in to strategise about how this was going to go. It was like war sitting in there and pretty soon after that the Howard government redid all the budgets and we lost $400 million dollars out of the ATSIC budget and we had to have all these meetings to work out where to make the cuts. It was open hostility between the Howard government and ATSIC from day one.

Audio excerpt – John Howard:

“Reconciliation will not work if it puts a higher value on symbolic gestures and overblown promises, it will not work if it is premised solely on a sense of national guilt and shame. Australians of this generation should not be required to accept guilt and blame for past actions and policies over which they had no control.”

DANIEL:

A series of scandals plagued ATSIC during its final years. The scandals played into a narrative pushed by the Howard government, painting the Commission as dysfunctional and a waste of taxpayers money. The scandals centred around two of the leading proponents of ATSIC Geoff Clark, its chair, and deputy chair Sugar Ray Robinson.

Audio excerpt – CNBC Reporter:

“We’d all love a back verandah like Geoff Clarke, the man who rubbed shoulders with Prime Ministers and made headlines throughout his career - he’s got an outdoor bar, a kitchen and even a huge stone pizza oven, but questions are being asked about where all the money came from to pay for it.”

DANIEL:

Following this string of scandals, At midnight on March 16th, 2005, through legislation introduced by the Howard Government, ATSIC was formally abolished.

A review recommended that ATSIC should only be reformed... the regional councils, the history-making structure and staff could have stayed, and the problems at the top addressed… but instead…John Howard used it as grounds to destroy the whole organisation.

DANIEL:

You were the acting CEO of ATSIC at the time it was disbanded.

MICK:

Yes. I also was the last employee of ATSIC, funnily enough.

DANIEL:

What was it like during the last week? What was it like during the last day?

MICK:

My it's it's like the seven stages of grief. You're not like it. You get angry. You go into the denial. I got angry with the commissioners. I got angry with the government. I got angry with the Labor Party. But most of all, I felt for our mob losing this. And I felt for those 1500 staff who invested up to 15 years of their life in this organisation.

And I remember going over to Parliament House to get the news before they announced the abolition of ATSIC, and I came back and did a walk around the office and there were literally people in that, you know, the MLC building in Woden just sitting at the desk crying, saying What have they done, What have they done? You know, And that was one of the worst days of my life just to go around and talk to people and say, What can you say? You know, we've we got this job to do. We still represent Aboriginal people Torres Strait Island people. I remember the final decision came and I just felt totally bereft of ideas. I turned my phone off and sat playing solitaire all afternoon, went home and said to my partner, That's it. I'm resigning tomorrow. I just can't, I can't do this anymore.

DANIEL:

The demise of ATSIC saw the end of national representation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The Howard government and governments across Australia moved to service based funding models where the line between advocating on behalf of communities and being a client of government was often blurred. It felt like an opportunity lost, an opportunity unlikely to arise again.

All the apparatus around ATSIC was packed up and put away.

And the idea of the First Peoples of Australia having a direct say in the policies that affect them… it sat dormant for almost two decades.

We’ll be back after this.

[Advertisement]

DANIEL:

The Howard Years had seen ideas of Treaty of Truth and Representation Drift. Howard Forever the culture warrior, rejected what he saw as a black armband view of history and the way it impacted modern Australia. But the idea of recognition and representation for First Peoples never really went away. It could be said that in part the movement kept on going in spite of Howard.

Audio excerpt – Megan Davis:

“I'd like to begin by thanking the organisers for inviting me to speak today at this very important forum, and particularly this very important panel with such distinguished speakers.”

DANIEL:

I first heard Megan Davis speak at a conference somewhere back in time, well before the Uluru Statement. She had worked on the United Nations Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples… She was speaking to a crowded room full of people, and one line stuck with me in particular, she said, “With Aboriginal affairs. Nothing happens without agitation or litigation.” It's something that stuck with me ever since and something that's resonating throughout the course of this current debate.

Audio excerpt – Megan Davis:

“One can say there is a lengthy history of Indigenous peoples raising their concerns at the UN about the way business, especially extractive industries, conduct themselves with Indigenous peoples on Indigenous lands.”

DANIEL:

Professor Megan Davis is a Cobble Cobble woman and is now a renowned constitutional lawyer, public law expert, and a key architect of the Uluru Dialogues and the Voice to Parliament.

MEGAN:

Yes. So constitutional recognition had been, you know, floating around Australian politics since probably the 1999 Republic Referendum. So that's that's where you started to see parties taking on this aspect to their political platforms of constitutional recognition.

Recognition and constitutional recognition has been a part of the Aboriginal rights discourse for some time. And it came up at the tail end of that reconciliation period just before Howard shut it down, where he divided the world into practical rights and what he called symbolic rights which is actually substantive recognition right.

DANIEL:

So when the idea of recognising First Nations Australian in our constitution came back onto the agenda, she followed it with interest…

Audio excerpt – Reporter:

“From a hung Parliament and 17 days of indecision, Australia finally has a government. Julia Gillard tonight called on the Governor-General to tell her that she can lead a stable government. But it was a near run thing.”

DANIEL:

So it's 2010. Prime Minister Julia Gillard's government has just been re-elected as a minority government with the support of Rob Oakeshott, Tony Windsor and the Greens.

Audio excerpt – Julia Gillard:

“Today I want to say to Australians one and all, I can assure you that this political drama is over and now you are back at centre stage where you should properly be.”

DANIEL:

It was one of the most tumultuous times in Australian politics, but it also presented itself as an opportunity for those seeking constitutional reform.

MEGAN:

And so it wasn't until probably the hung Parliament where Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor and Adam Bandt from the Greens held Gillard to an agreement in that letter of agreement for her to form government in the lower House that she needs to move on. On this multi-party support for constitutional recognition. So she needs to have a process that does find out what form of recognition and then how do you get people to a ballot box? How do you get the nation to a referendum?

DANIEL:

in order to get the two independent MP support and the Greens. Gillard agreed to take the nation to a referendum on recognition for First Peoples.

Audio excerpt – Reporter:

“the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has announced that Australia will go to a referendum on the constitutional recognition of its Indigenous people.”

Audio excerpt – Julia Gillard:

“Now is the right time to take the next step and to recognise in the Australian Constitution the First Peoples of our nation, now is the right time to take that next step to build trust and respect.”

DANIEL:

To bring reconciliation back into the public realm. The Gillard government proposed a recognised campaign, a campaign to insert new words into the constitution through a referendum held at some point in the future.

Audio excerpt – ABC Broadcast:

“Australia’s politicians are taking the next step towards recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution announcing that a summit will be held in Sydney in July.”

Audio excerpt – Speaker 1:

“The Australian Constitution makes no mention whatsoever of Aboriginal peoples. If you read the document, you'd probably get the impression that the history of this continent began in 1788.

The Constitution in Section 25 also recognises that the states can stop people voting because of their race. I'm not aware of any other constitution in the world today that still contains a clause of this kind.”

Audio excerpt – Adam Goodes:

“Good day. I'm Adam Goodes. I'd like to talk to you about Recognise, recognise the movement to change the Australian Constitution and acknowledge the proud history of our First Australians.”

DANIEL:

The Recognise campaign was heavily backed by corporate Australia and some of the nation's biggest sporting codes. But it wasn't backed by huge swathes or the Aboriginal community.

MEGAN:

You have this period from Gillard to 2015 where there's a Recognise campaign and everything seems to be coalescing around this idea of symbolic recognition which is something that, you know, our mob said they didn't want. And then also most Australians in the polling and research that we did off, the expert panel was saying don't go to the effort of a referendum. It's just going to be tokenistic, symbolic recognition. You need to do something substantive that's going to change people's lives.

DANIEL:

In large part, symbolic recognition was rejected by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community itself, tired of the ongoing disparity in outcomes for the people and the disadvantage that ensued. As always, the community wanted more. There was only one thing to do: They had to go to the Prime Minister and say this symbolic recognition wasn’t going to cut it. And by this time, the Prime Minister wasn’t Julia Gillard any more… It was Tony Abbott.

Audio excerpt – Tony Abbott:

“Anglo Australian males from middle class families tend to have had a magic carpet ride through life. Still. This has not stopped the whispering in my heart that our most serious failure as a nation has been our difficulty in acknowledging the people we displaced. So I am a supporter of constitutional recognition.”

MEGAN:

What was really important about that period and then the lead up to 2015, where we see a really significant change in a in a meeting with Abbott at Kirribilli House where how much was saying symbolic recognition is off the table.

Audio excerpt – Mark Colvin:

“There appears to have been a big shift over the referendum on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander recognition in the constitution. Mr Abbott has called a snap meeting with four of the most prominent advocates for the referendum tomorrow.”

DANIEL:

A crucial meeting in 2015 occurred at Kirribilli House with Tony Abbott as Prime Minister, where Aboriginal people were saying for the first time symbolic recognition was off the table.

MEGAN:

we went, me, Noel Pearson, Patrick Dodson, Kirstie Parker. We went to Abbott and we said, people are not going to support symbolism. And so that's why the Referendum Council was set up. It was set up because of the rejection of the statement of recognition or a symbolic statement or mention of First Nations people in the Constitution as the primary reform.

Audio excerpt – ABC:

“The Federal Government and the Opposition have announced the makeup of an advisory council to consult on the best prospect of recognising Aboriginal Australians in the constitution. The announcement was delayed with Tony Abbott being replaced as Prime Minister.”

DANIEL:

Megan and the rest of the panel realised they had to go back to square one: what did the First Nations people actually want?

Audio excerpt – NITV Broadcast:

“Representatives from across the country are gathering at Uluru tonight to begin the First Nations Convention. Looking to reach an agreement on a way forward for constitutional recognition.”

MEGAN:

You know, we didn't make. Really decisions about who came to the rock. We just knew that we wanted a national meeting. And I think it started in Broome, the first meeting where people started having a ballot box election. So people, the local people in the dialogue elected ten representatives and they all attended the rock at Uluru. So one of the things about the process is our mob have been let down by bureaucrats at a local, state and federal level for decades and decades, particularly in that kind of post ATSIC vacuum. People come out and talk to communities and they do what communities call a tick and flick consultation, which is superficial, and nobody ever comes back to tell them what happened. And so in order to get people's trust, there are a number of things a number of things that were raised in the meetings, such as they didn't want members of the agency there. That is to say, the bureaucrats, and they wanted everything recorded. And so we had scribes who wrote everything. So it didn't matter whether it was a radical idea or whether it was a completely unachievable idea or whether it was a conservative idea. We had scribes and we wrote out everything and then transcribed that and then at the end of every process, all the mob would come into the room and we would capture on that from the butcher's paper onto the documents, agreements, disagreements, the tensions, everything. And then they would sign off on that record of the meeting. And that record of meeting that was read out at all so that everybody's views and opinions and quotes were captured.

DANIEL:

The Uluru Dialogues, as they came to be known, were arranging meetings across the country, from town hall meetings to more intimate settings, regional dialogues and delegates from those dialogues from First Nations Communities across the country culminated in the conference at Uluru in 2017.

MEGAN:

And then we all went to the Rock where those records of meetings were read out, and then a decision was made about the primary reform. And then we wrote the one page logic to the Australian people, because that's how our people have always petitioned countries and the crown, you know, it is a common method of Indigenous peoples and that's what the Uluru statement from the Heart was.

DANIEL:

A one page offering to the people of Australia. The dialogues themselves were robust and sometimes heated. Not everyone agreed. But the vast majority of people at Uluru in 2017 put themselves behind the Uluru Statement from the Heart – and Megan was the first person to read it out loud.

Audio excerpt – Megan Davis:

“This sovereignty is a spiritual notion, the ancestral tie between the land or mother nature and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander peoples who were born therefrom remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be reunited with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil or better, of sovereignty… it has never been ceded...”

DANIEL:

I remember the Uluru Statement being read for the first time. I remember reading it myself. The thing I remember most about it is the beauty of its words. It's a humble sentiment and it's small offering to the people of Australia as a way to move forward together when it comes to reconciliation. I had no idea that from there we would lead to a referendum on the statement itself, and particularly the Voice.

Audio excerpt – Megan Davis:

“We seek Constitutional Reform to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country when we have power over our destiny our children will flourish they will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country, we call for the establishment of a First Nations voice enshrined in the Constitution.”

DANIEL:

After months of consultation, after speaking with hundreds of voices, most of them First Nation voices. The Uluru Statement was presented to the Turnbull Government in the Great Hall of Parliament in 2017.

MEGAN:

I just remember feeling very tired, but also a sense of relief, but also pride.

DANIEL:

I was there that day … In the Great Hall. A day where Aboriginal leaders from across Australia, from all portfolio areas, people who are experts in health, education, justice and the overall welfare of their people came together to present this document to Parliament.

I remember there was an expectation that day that the Turnbull Government would accept the Uluru Statement from the Heart for what it was a humble offering.

But instead the statement was immediately rejected by that Government and mischaracterised by its senior members as a third chamber of Parliament.

Audio excerpt – Malcolm Turnbull:

“I do not believe what would effectively be a third chamber of Parliament available only to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders is consistent with our constitution.”

DANIEL:

It was clear there would be no bipartisan support for the statement. The statement itself falling into the minutia of the to and fro of day to day politics.

Constitutional enshrinement was off the table. Turnbull's successor, Scott Morrison, was open to a legislative voice. But if you remember, ATSIC was legislated. It was a vivid reminder of how any government could abolish the voice with the stroke of a pen, just as the Howard government had done with ATSIC back in 2005. It wasn't until the election of the Albanese Government that the commitment to take the Voice of proposition to a referendum was guaranteed.

Audio excerpt – Anthony Albanese:

“…and on behalf of the Australian Labor party I commit to the Uluru statement to the heart in full.“

DANIEL:

For many of us, there were mixed emotions about the Voice being taken to a referendum. Indeed, it was an opportunity to enshrine the Voice within the Constitution.

But it was also an opportunity for the national debate to be had around First Nations people and not with First Nations people.

MEGAN:

The Voice is about the right to political participation. It is deeply embedded in and reflective of those normative principles that our people should be able to choose. People will select people who then represent their voice to the primary player in this space, the Federal Parliament. But what we know now in relation to Canberra and what politicians and bureaucrats say is their work is not really directed to the things that our people say are critical right now, things like poisoned water and ageing infrastructure and the problem of not getting superannuation early and the problem of housing. And you know, the voice will really be able to make those representations so that Australians can see the difference between what the Voice says is a priority and what bureaucracy and government and Parliament say is a priority. And their priorities are always driven by resource allocation issues and where they are in the electoral cycle. Our priorities are driven by something very different and that is the care and well-being and love of our communities.

DANIEL:

The national debate on The Voice has been all consuming a bruising affair, particularly for First Nations people, many of whom have felt subjugated as part of the maelstrom spoken about more than spoken to. Whenever you go anywhere, whether it's a social setting, the back of a taxi or just chewing the fat with friends, it's all that anyone wants to ask you about. It says intoxicating as it is toxic. Even for stalwarts like Mick Gooda, it can be all too much.

How are you feeling about all that?

MICK:

It's a bit of waxing and waning, you talk about, me being an optimist and a pragmatist and but there's still days when I tell people I curl up in the foetal position under the doona and I want to get out because you're feeling pretty tired of it all. But see, we don't have that option. We don't have the option to give up. We've just got to get up there and keep going and I'll try to look at the positives. And and one positive for me is young people. These young people get it, you know, And unfortunately, when you look at the figures, you look at my generation, the boomers, we far out number young people and and we now how boomers go, when one of my kids want to insult me, they call me Boomer. So I worry about it. I try to be pragmatic about it. But then think about we just don't have a choice to give up.

DANIEL:

So your message to people, First Nations people everywhere, is that there is no choice. You just have to keep going.

MICK:

I learned to admire Rob Riley from WA he'd passed away by the time I got to away and he had a saying we sort of all remind ourselves of. I think it's great in its simplicity. And he said, You can't be wrong if you're right and you don't stop fighting because you're making people uncomfortable, you just keep fighting. That's what we got to do. You know, people are feeling uncomfortable. I feel uncomfortable. I do a lot of stuff around racism, and I can see everyone crying. But everyone in a room will cringe when we mention the R word, but we can't ignore it. We got to keep fighting.

DANIEL:

Enshrining the voice in the Constitution. How critical is that to ensure its success? Because I think the Coalition has made noises about being prepared to legislate something like The Voice. Why enshrining it in the Constitution?

MICK:

I reflect on on the power of referendums. It's not the politicians speaking. It's the people of Australia speaking. And if the people of Australia speak in the positive here, imagine a government going against that image and how powerful it is when the people of a country speak. This is people who will hold this government or government future governments accountable. Because I spoke and said they wanted this voice. We don't have, you know, what is it, 23 years since we last had a referendum. We don't do them all that often. But I tell people, eventually you're going to be in a polling booth with a piece of paper, just you and a pencil. This is where the rubber hits the road, folks. When you're standing in that polling booth having to write yes or no, it's you.

DANIEL:

It's amazing how quiet a polling booth can be, too.

MICK:

Yeah. And get rid of all that outside noise. Maybe I'm just Pollyanna here, but I think when people realise the power they have, once I get in that booth, I reckon that will change people.

DANIEL:

For many Aboriginal leaders, this will be the last bit of advocacy that they pursue on behalf of their people. They've seen what happened when ATSIC was abolished. They've seen the idea of reconciliation drift. It is now up to the people of Australia whether complacency leads to a further drift or whether action can be taken and the power of that action placed in the hands of First Australians. When it all comes down to it, it's just us, a pencil and a box. And whether we write yes or no will determine not only the outcome of the referendum, but what sort of country we see ourselves as.

DANIEL:

I’m Daniel James, this is The Fight for a Voice. Tomorrow, I speak to Senator Lidia Thorpe. Why is one of Australia’s most prominent Aboriginal leaders saying no to the Voice? And what is she calling for instead? That’s tomorrow, on 7am.

[Advertisement]