‘When historical truth is involved, the more anyone claims to possess it the more he lies.’ – Albert Camus

The optimistic intent that this country was founded on has been the first casualty of the Voice referendum. Since both Yes and No campaigns are sponsoring the concern of a divided Australia, our leaders, if demagogic or honest, should take the course to rouse ourselves to a greater purpose and remind us of the origins of our nation’s becoming. A change of attitude is what is needed for the impending referendum and not a slaughtering of history or the emotive hysterics. Perhaps this remedy is what could convert the lost majority of whom stand undecided?

All history is revisionist history, and the problem with historical revisionism involves the many patent exaggerations, omissions, and broad generalisations. What this referendum will prove – if the Yes campaign prevails – is that the embarking of ‘truth-telling’ will fail to conclude the reconciliation efforts that Australian Prime Ministers and Premiers have been role-playing for decades, since the 1967 constitutional altering. One could ask, to what effect did our government’s sincerity, their reflections, and apology instil on the broader public back in 2007 (Kevin Rudd’s National Apology), and did these previous displays of formal resolution only propel Australia to chase its own tail?

Australia in recent decades – not typically a bellicose nation – had demonstrated its national formalities of Indigenous reconciliation and apology from 1967 until now. Past efforts and debate to overcome Indigenous disparity, from Gough Whitlam to Paul Keating and to Kevin Rudd (let us not dismiss the intent these governments had) were all positive to our national esteem yet futile in bridging the divide between one race of Australians with another. The pattern of apology has channelled through to contemporary politics, however, whether one is allied with Yes or No, or undecided. As we are condemned to live together, the argument on race relations will never be final, and so the difficulties continue to exist. In any outcome of a referendum, we’d be fools to expect that a resolution will be solemnly made.

Consequently, those in the No camp are faced with ambiguous demands, which they can in no manner accept with certainty or make any distinction. And frequently there are indeed elements of scorn in both camps, too. History is moderately implied by both Yes and No when debating the referendum (in fact, history is more so bounded in this matter), and our representatives are at the forefront of attempting to satisfy one camp or the other of what history and the truth represents. Do we rely upon them to be the caretakers of our national history? Quite typically it is that they perpetuate a narrative of historical palimpsest of what they see fit for the public to readily buy, all while excluding the achievements and benefits that this country en masse has reaped.

As of recent, the representation on both the Yes and No campaigns have bypassed the salutary events of the nation that they ought to uphold – less reminiscence and more vitriol is now the theme at play. For the undecided public who are discontented with either Yes or No, finding it impossible to vouch support for either camp, will cease to take interest in our political society altogether.

In 1996 Bob Carr, then the New South Wales Premier, recognised his government’s role in reinvigorating the Indigenous reconciliation process and launched his endeavour of apology in a style, not by stoking the guilt of First Fleet by-products, but instead by noting the achievements of both groups of Australians. Carr, as levelly measured, nuanced, and historically sound, confirmed his reputation as an intellectual in the political arena when he welcomed the possibility of both societies to understand one another. Both. No messages of negativism or hostility to either group, an impartial pursuit to the social positions of all Australians. The 1996 tone of Carr is the vestibule that the Voice referendum has failed to seize, and in return has stained the narrative with even more polarising contention as to the trite reproach of ‘who’s on the right side of history’. Carr’s optimism, all while acknowledging the exclusion of Aboriginals from the former Constitution, previous to 1967, encapsulated the message that Australia desperately needs to hear today, whether one is for or against the Voice referendum. Bob Carr described the claim that Aboriginal people make on Australia is no more and no less than the claim that we Australians of the first or fifth generation make for ourselves. The claim to belong to Australia with full dignity, worth, equality, and justice.

Bob Carr has led the charge in how to balance the achievements of national pride with contentious history. His past efforts of reconciliation surmounts the surrounding arguments amongst today’s identity groups and politics, and his message was perhaps as fitting to Alfred Deakin’s words of ‘a whole people’ when Federation was proclaimed.

It was once that the citizens of the six Australian colonies viewed each other as foreigners. Each with its own policies, each with its own armies independent of one another. Australia had a bloodless ballot box in 1901 and the idea of Federation caused a brew of motives and events only to eventually create a united Australia.

Though this narrative rarely emerges, our politically elected individuals – both the Yes and No wings – must struggle to remind Australians of the obvious meaning of this country. For success of the referendum, the least they could do is attract the communities and those of whom remain indifferent to the cause. The mistakes and the contradictions that partisans of the various parties, as well as organisations and committees make in the first place, is to think it is possible to link themselves with the cause of the truth.