Following the ‘No’ vote in Australia’s Indigenous Voice referendum, this interview with Professor Kevin Bell, a former Justice and advocate for human rights and Indigenous rights, delves into the intersection of education, public opinion, and Indigenous issues. Bell discusses the insufficient public understanding of Indigenous issues, the influence of educational institutions on referendum views, and the representation of Indigenous history in school curricula.
In the aftermath of Australia’s Indigenous Voice referendum, which concluded with a “No” vote, vital discussions have arisen about public awareness of Indigenous issues, particularly in education. This interview explores education’s role in shaping public perceptions and knowledge of indigenous rights and history, especially in light of this pivotal political moment.
Professor Kevin Bell, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria (2005-2020) and a prominent human rights and Indigenous rights advocate, brings a wealth of expertise to the discussion. A Member of the Order of Australia awardee in 2017, Bell has made significant contributions to law, the judiciary, and the community through his academic pursuits at Monash and Oxford Universities and his role at the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law. His involvement with the Yoorrook Justice Commission and the National Mental Health Commission underscores his deep commitment to justice and equality.
This conversation covers a range of topics, including the public’s understanding of Indigenous issues, the role of educational institutions in influencing referendum views, the portrayal of Indigenous history in school curricula, the effectiveness of educational campaigns during the referendum, the impact of misinformation, the significance of community education in Indigenous areas, and how the referendum’s outcome might shape future educational policies regarding Indigenous studies.
Professor Bell’s insights provide a thorough view of the intricate relationship between education, public opinion, and policy in the sphere of Indigenous rights and reconciliation in Australia.
What does the ‘No’ vote in the Indigenous Voice referendum indicate about public understanding of Indigenous issues from an educational perspective?
Public understanding of Indigenous issues is not high enough in Australia, although it is increasing. Australia is not exceptional in this regard. In all countries with Indigenous populations, public knowledge about issues that affect them is not high enough because they usually constitute a very small minority. For Indigenous peoples, this has a number of serious adverse consequences in terms of policy formulation and addressing historic and ongoing systemic injustices, including exclusion from participatory decision-making processing and human rights violations.
There is concern in Australia, and I hold this concern, that an insufficient level of public understanding contributed to the “No” vote and that improved history and civics education, including education about colonization and human rights, might have produced a higher “Yes” vote. It would at least have produced a more informed vote. However, I also accept that a significant number of people with a good understanding of Indigenous issues, including colonization and human rights, voted “No.”
For example, progressive “No” voters who are generally very informed did not accept that the Voice would significantly improve outcomes and address inequality, disadvantage, and human rights for Indigenous people. So, the level of public understanding about Indigenous issues is only one contributing potential explanation for the “No” vote.
How might educational institutions have influenced public opinion on the Indigenous Voice referendum?
Many educational institutions supporting a “Yes” vote, including universities, decided to take a position in the referendum. They actively promoted a “Yes” vote and provided guidance and information about the reasons in favor of a Voice and addressing the case against it. This did influence public opinion in favor of a “Yes” vote, but this influence was probably not very great. Perhaps it did little more than reinforce existing voting intentions without changing those intentions. At no stage were significant numbers of “No” voters persuaded to change their minds. The opposite happened. The “Yes” vote fell over time. Recent market research suggests that the scope for a successful “Yes” vote was virtually eliminated when support for the Voice among the main political parties ceased to be bipartisan when the referendum was announced.
Did the teaching of Indigenous history in Australian schools impact the referendum, and how can it be improved?
It is true that Indigenous history is taught in Australia to some extent but, generally speaking, nowhere near enough. The lack of deep and system-wide teaching of Indigenous history in Australia is contributing to a situation in which community knowledge of issues that affect Indigenous people is insufficient. This probably did impact the referendum, but it is only part of the explanation for the “No” vote.
There are many ways that this education can be improved, but I would emphasize three things. First, implement the human right to education and understand that this encompasses history and civics education, including the historical and ongoing injustices of colonization. Second, encourage the community to take history and civics education much more seriously. It is not a discretionary add-on to the core curriculum but provides indispensable tools for life in modern society. Third, encourage everybody to respect and value history and civics teachers, especially Indigenous teachers, much more highly.
Were the educational campaigns for the referendum effective in explaining its implications and significance?
There was not one campaign in the referendum but many different campaigns on all sides. These were pitched at different levels. At the highest and least satisfactory level, there were campaigns that promoted fear and uncertainty about the unknown. The slogan “If you don’t know, Vote no” fell into this category. It normalized and legitimized the status quo and did not encourage responsible inquiry and examination of the issues. But there were also campaigns on the “Yes” side that promoted simple messages of hope and listening to First Peoples, which did not provide much assistance on matters of detail.
There will always be a place for emotional messages like this on both sides of a debate. However, at the deepest level — for myself, the most satisfactory — there were many campaigns in the referendum that went into the details on both the “Yes” and “No” sides of the debate. I believe that adequate information was available in accessible forms for most who wanted to access it, although apparently there were problems in the regions.
The Australian voting population voted overwhelmingly “No” despite having access to this information. One problem was that voters became less rather than more disengaged in the debate as time went on. There was no big swing to the “Yes” vote as had been expected. The “Yes” vote fell as the campaign went on. This suggests that the “No” vote was influenced by values rather than information about the issues or the lack of it.
In my view, one important value influencing “No” voters was that a fair and equal go-for-all is the Australian way and that special measures for First Peoples, such as a Voice, create division. This value was represented in “No” vote campaign slogans like “We are all Australians.” This value does sufficiently recognize the historical and continuing injustices of colonization for First Peoples, including their exclusion from mainstream political representative structures or the human rights of Indigenous peoples, not just to formal equality but to substantive equality.
What role did misinformation or lack of understanding play in the ‘No’ vote, and how can education address this in future public decisions?
Misinformation and lack of understanding played a significant role in the “No” vote. It gradually became clear that community knowledge about Indigenous issues was not sufficient and definitely less than expected. This incentivized negative campaigning against the Voice. However, this is a feature of the politics of any democratic process of change. Deep and system-wide education about Indigenous issues would help to create a more robust and resilient democracy, which would reduce the impact of purely negative campaigning and reduce the incentive for such campaigning. But it would be wrong to think that the “Yes” vote failed solely due to negative campaigning based on misinformation and lack of understanding. A significant number of people voted “No” on the merits of the issues.
One important issue was that the Voice ceased to enjoy bipartisan support. Another was that, as the overwhelming “No” vote revealed, most people in Australia hold the value of purely formal equality very dear. They did not support special constitutional measures favoring Indigenous peoples in the interests of achieving substantive equality. They may not understand why special measures like the Voice are sometimes necessary to ensure equal outcomes for groups suffering from historical and contemporary disadvantage, such as First Peoples.
How crucial is community education in Indigenous communities for referendum participation and understanding, and were there gaps?
I cannot speak for Indigenous communities. I personally think that community education is critical for referendum participation by everyone, including Indigenous peoples. As the purpose of the Voice was to ensure democratic representation by First Peoples, it was fundamental that they understood and supported the proposal from the outset. This understanding and support needed to be present for the referendum to happen. This is required by the human right to give (or withhold) free, prior, and informed consent to measures that affect Indigenous peoples.
As the proposal for the Voice was an element of the Uluru Statement by representatives of Australia’s Indigenous communities, I believe that it did have that understanding and support. It was in the substantial majority but was not unanimous. I do note some reports from some remote communities that there was a lack of information available, so there may have been gaps. However, other remote communities actively campaigned for a “Yes” vote, and the “Yes” vote among First Peoples in Australia was above 80%. I personally observed very strong educational efforts by numerous First Peoples and other organizations across Australia, which were directed to Indigenous and other communities.
What are the implications of the ‘No’ vote for future educational policies on Indigenous studies in Australia?
The main implication of the “No” vote is that any proposal for constitutional change in Australia — and not just one directed at Indigenous issues — is doomed without bipartisan support because it will not be supported by a majority of people in a majority of states at a referendum. This underscores the fundamental significance of history and civics education in Australia, including in relation to the historical and ongoing injustices of colonization, human rights, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
What lessons can educators and policymakers learn from the referendum to better include Indigenous perspectives in education?
Educators and policy makers can best learn from the referendum three things (see above): First, implement the human right to education and understand that this encompasses history and civics education, including the historical and ongoing injustices of colonization. Second, encourage the community to take history and civics education much more seriously. It is not a discretionary add-on to the core curriculum but provides indispensable tools for life in modern society. Third, encourage everybody to respect and value history and civics teachers, especially Indigenous teachers, much more highly.
Post-referendum, what role should education play in fostering reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians?
Educators should play a very strong role in fostering reconciliation between Indigenous and other Australians. The outcome of the election means that this role must be all the greater. Reconciliation means coming together in just and equal relations on the basis of respect for the human rights of all. This requires a mutual understanding of a shared history and the continuing impacts of colonization, which are part of that history. There was a big gap between the “Yes” and the “No” vote in the referendum, which suggests that this mutual understanding is insufficient.
As 80% of First Peoples voted “Yes,” and the majority of Australians voted “No,” the gap between First Peoples and “No” voters in that majority is concerning and should lead to mature and objective reflection and examination through the education process. However, the overwhelming “No” vote does not change any of the facts of the history of colonization and its continuing injustices.
It does not reduce Australia’s obligation to realize the human rights of Indigenous people and to give effect to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It only serves to underscore the significance of history and civics education to reconciliation. “No” voters were voting about a specific referendum proposal, not against all change for all time. There is much common ground that can be built and much change that can be achieved, to which history and civics education is essential.
