Why Christians Should Vote No for the Voice Referendum By James Reed

“Why Christians Should Vote No,” by James Jeffery, in the Quadrant Special Digital Edition, August 2023, is an important critique, since as far as I am aware, the woke churches have been championing the Voice as a social justice necessity; supporting the Voice is just the Christian and right thing to do, and the No vote is somehow immoral, to state matters bluntly. That is a position that needs to be attacked and defeated, at least on the intellectual level. But, we should not under-estimate the high degree of emotionalism that still will be pushed on this by woke church leaders.

Jeffery argues that Christians need to consider this issue with the highest standards of rational argument, not emotionalism as what is at stake is changing the constitution, and such a change will be unlikely to be undone, once it is made. He gives five reasons for Christians to oppose he voice. As I read it, these reasons are not explicitly theological, and that is his point: this is not a theological issue, but one of politics, and must be treated as such. The reasons are:

1. There is no such thing as an “indigenous voice.” The referendum does not speak for everyone, including Aborigines who oppose the Voice, such as Jacinta Price, Anthony Dillon and Warren Mundine. The Voice could be seen as another “racist” bureaucracy to oppress indigenous people. As Janet Albrechtsen has neatly summed it up: “The Voice will create constant opportunities for a tiny minority of activists to hold parliament and executive government to ransom by using the immense leverage and opportunities for lawfare carefully woven into the Albanese Amendment. It is no exaggeration to say it will cause the end of parliamentary democracy as we have known it.” The Voice is identity politics and Critical Race Theory on steroids.
2. The Voice is a “racist” act of retribution against white Australia for alleged historic sins, not about forgiveness, which true reconciliation would involve. The Voice will explicitly divide Australians on racial grounds, and this alone is problematic, quite apart from the divisions it will sow. And, that too is contrary to basic Christianity.
3. It follows from this point, that this racial division will be enshrined in the constitution at a time when the rest of the West is moving away from such ideas; again to quote Janet Albrechtsen. “At a philosophical and principled level, [the Voice] is illiberal, divisive, and inequitable. It creates permanent race-based privilege and turns Australia into a constitutionally endorsed two-tier society.” In short, it will be racial separatism.
4. The Voice Rejects Christian forgiveness, for both white Australians and indigenous Australian are sinners in need of forgiveness. As Jeffrey says: “The Voice offers no possibility for forgiveness or reconciliation. Rather, it seeks to remedy past wrongs by subverting the Australian political system in favour of indigenous Australians. Few things could be more harmful to racial relations in Australia.” In this respect alone, the Voice is profoundly anti-Christian.
5. The Voice is a distraction from real issues of concern to indigenous communities; as Anthony Dillon puts it: “[The Voice] send[s] the poisonous message to Indigenous Australians who suffer needlessly that their salvation lies in the Voice and [that] they are powerless to make any positive change in their lives, now or ever, through their own efforts or from receiving the help offered to them.” Furthering a culture of victimisation is contrary to human dignity, and thus, the fundamental Christian message.

In summary, these are all good debating points for Christian to raise in the church when the Yes case is pushed as being the only option for Christians. No, it is not; the No case is the correct Christian response.