Amanda Vanstone | Noel Pearson is wrong: hope isn't lost with Voice 'no' vote

It is playing the race card in the ugliest and most cynical of ways. When key Voice proponents take an ugly "Your with us or against us" stance they establish a battle ground, not a conversation.

This is not a good sign for the progress of reconciliation. It may be an ugly insight into what might happen under the Voice if it comes to pass.

Terrible things did happen under colonial rule. Terrible things have happened since then. But Australia today is not a colony.

Migration to Australia is no longer so predominantly European. We welcome many from our own region, in particular India and China.

We are, as I have described elsewhere, a "nation made of many, bound in hope as one".

Why should kids or adults today, with parents from different countries around the world, with absolutely no connection to colonial forbears be made to feel as though they are somehow responsible for the evils perpetrated by others.

Loading people with guilt for the actions of others is both unfair and hugely unattractive.

Noel Pearson's claim that if the Voice referendum is lost reconciliation is over is both ridiculous and terrible. It is of course nothing more than one man's assertion.

On one level it's just emotional blackmail. I think the vast majority of Australians genuinely want a coming together, an end to the seemingly constant division and anger.

Pearson's remarks effectively say "It's this or nothing. No more chances. A no now means we can never come together".

It's poppycock. It is an ugly proposition. The now-or-never sort of language comes over as pushy and bullying. From someone who allegedly wants reconciliation it's not very conciliatory language.

If there is to be a Voice we'd hope the messages to parliament wouldn't be as assertive, aggressive and without the possibility of negotiation.

That would be inconsistent with what proponents of the Voice highlight as its intended advisory role.

Obviously not every bit of advice will be accepted, either at all or in part.

A take it or leave it approach, as evidenced in Pearson's remarks would just leave us with a litany of disagreements.

Over time there would develop an ever growing catalogue of policy proposals that were not accepted. "We spoke and they ignored us" would be a common catch cry. It would generate an ever growing list of disagreement and division rather than the hoped-for reconciliation. What a disaster that would be.

One of the more ridiculous aspects of Pearson's remarks is that it suggests that history will just stop.

It's as if we arrive at this point, choose not to go down the road he sees as beneficial and there is no other road to take.

We just decamp from history's moving wagon and sit still. It's rubbish. Worse, for him, it effectively says he is simply incapable of imagining other proposals that would help produce better outcomes for Indigenous Australians.

There's one thing certain about change ... it keeps coming. Is there nothing more in his mental tank? For someone who usually has a lot to say, that's a very weird thing to say. It follows that if the Voice doesn't get up we needn't ask his view because he's already told us there's nothing that can be done.

MORE AMANDA VANSTONE:

Pearson's message, intended to motivate Australians to vote for the Voice is possibly heard differently by Indigenous Australians.

It says to them "This is your only chance". It is plainly untrue and potentially extremely hurtful and damaging. The last thing anyone wants or needs to hear is that there is no hope for a better future. There's an Italian saying "La speranza e l'ultima morire" ... hope is the last to die. What kind of ego allows someone to pontificate in such a threateningly doomsday fashion?

A no vote would no doubt be described as "They didn't vote to support you". It is the natural follow on from what Pearson said. That's a shocking, cruel message which would not convey the sentiments of most Australians.

What proponents of the Voice ought to do is spell out the basis on which they claim there will be better outcomes for Indigenous Australians under the Voice.

Why? Will the advice to government and parliament be different from the advice from Indigenous advisory bodies over decades?

There's no point in pretending that Indigenous people haven't had a voice ... they have. Whatever makeup is chosen for the Voice there will be disagreements amongst them. That's normal and healthy.

Don't imagine there is one unified Indigenous voice ... there isn't. For example, if you speak with traditional owners in Kakadu you will discover there are a number of different ways for managing burn backs.

Some clans do it by hand, others use helicopters. Disagreements will be everywhere. So we may end up with lots of different voices.

What I would like to hear is why the idea of the Voice isn't flipped over from a frankly colonial federal construct to one more aligned with Indigenous culture.

Start with the close association Indigenous Australians have with the land and listen carefully to the elders from that clan. Local, state and federal governments can deal directly with the local elders and make agreements with them.

They are perfectly capable of speaking with their own voice for themselves. There are of course some Indigenous activists who seem to think that it is only they and their ilk who have the necessary insight.

A final question is who will a Voice be speaking for in 200 years. Will there still be Indigenous people living remote lifestyles and what level of indigeneity will be left in the broader population? Who will be members of the Voice then, and for whom will they speak?