Like all families, mine has its disagreements. One of the most memorable was over the issue of Brexit in 2016. I was a strong supporter of Britain leaving the European Union, largely for philosophical reasons (I thought Britain should be in control of its borders and foreign policy rather than cede decisions of national importance and interest to a supranational body). I was in the minority, with my three siblings supporting Remain. The division over Brexit within my family was no different to others. It got to the point where it was safer to say nothing than debate it.

Whatever your views on the Voice referendum, the debate has been divisive. In that respect, it is a carbon copy of the Brexit referendum. Dinner parties descend into shouting matches if the issue is raised, and opinions differ. It’s easier to stay mum.

Much has been made of the sense of national unity and hope for indigenous rights during the campaign for the 1967 referendum. The assumption by many in the Yes23 camp was that there should have been a similar sense of national unity over the Voice.

What is it about the Voice that makes it so divisive when 1967 was so unifying? I think it comes down to equality. The 1967 referendum was about equality and non-discrimination. On those issues, it was hard to find an Australian who disagreed. In fact, 90.77% of Australians voted in favour of the change to ensure Aboriginal people had equal standing under the Constitution and give the Federal Government power over indigenous affairs. There was no official No campaign in 1967, with strong bipartisan support from the Holt Government and the Opposition led by Gough Whitlam.

The myth of 1967 is that it delivered voting rights to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people – for federal polls this process had been completed in 1962 under the Menzies Government’s amendment of the Electoral Act. Because the change relating to Aboriginal people was uncontentious, most of the campaigning and argument throughout the 1967 campaign related to the other proposed change to break the nexus between the number of Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives. In fact, Prime Minister Harold Holt’s speech opening the Yes case was almost entirely devoted to the nexus question (which failed, by the way). On the removal of section 127 which required that ‘aboriginal natives shall not be counted’ in the census, Holt said, ‘it is completely out of harmony with our national attitudes and modern thinking. It has no place in our Constitution in this age.’ On removing reference to ‘aboriginal race’ in Section 21 (xxvi), Holt said this was necessary because singling our Aboriginal people in this way was ‘discriminatory’.

Fast forward to 2023, and the Yes23 campaign is failing to overcome the impression that the Voice is not about equality but difference and therefore division. There is an overwhelming amount of goodwill towards Indigenous Australians and widespread agreement that they should be recognized in the Constitution. But the establishment of a body specifically for one group over another does not sit well with many Australian voters. Leading No campaigner Senator Jacinta Price has made a compelling case that the Voice would create inequality within her own family, which is part-Indigenous and part non-Indigenous, giving only some siblings access to the Voice while others would not have this privilege.

There is an Australian instinct for a fair go, that we’re all equal irrespective of where we’ve come from. This instinct makes it hard to accept the Voice. In 1967, amid the civil rights movement’s drive for equality regardless of the colour of one’s skin or background, the case for change was clear.

In 2016, the division of Brexit brought home the philosophical divisions within Britain over national identity, sovereignty, and democratic governance. It wasn’t a single policy on the table but a whole outlook on what Britain meant to each individual. The tribalism that erupted over Brexit created fissures within families that are yet to mend. In 2023 in Australia, as with the question on Brexit, we are being asked not to judge a single policy, but how we conceive of our democratic system of governance in Australia and the way in which groups are represented within it. This question goes to the core of our national identity as a liberal democracy. It’s no wonder this issue is so divisive.

Given the polls point to a No vote this Saturday, the challenge for Prime Minister Albanese will be to reset the national agenda. The experience of Brexit is that national division can last years. Resetting the agenda in favour of equality is a good place to start.

Written by Georgina Downer, originally published on Sky News Australia, 11 October 2023