I have a natural political bend to the right.

I have traditionally voted conservatively, and my personal morals, values, and ethics have somewhat generally aligned with those of the conservative parties.

I have traditionally agreed that a conservative approach to change is good, particularly when undoing or altering that change in the future is arduous, as it is with editing the Constitution.

But here’s why this time will be different.

In this referendum, (not a partisan election, a referendum), we’re being asked if we want to alter the Constitution to include an Indigenous voice to our Parliament.

I won’t be supporting a conservative approach to this change for this reason: there was nothing conservative about colonisation 220 years ago.

Colonists weren’t conservative when they stole land from the traditional custodians.

They weren’t conservative when they took indigenous children out of their homes and family structures, destroying their heritage, their language, and their legacy.

NSW Governor Richard Bourke wasn’t conservative when he falsely proclaimed these lands as ‘terra nullius’.

European settlers and government officials weren’t conservative when they divided up land for themselves without consultation with indigenous folk.

There was nothing conservative about The Black Line that sought to corral Tasmanian aboriginals into the South East corner, where I now live, so they could capture them, displace them from their home country, and relocate them to the foreign Furneaux Islands where they would die in exile through starvation and disease.

The colonists took swiftly, now those who have benefited from that the most want to give back conservatively.

How convenient.

How conveniently conservative for those in power who have benefited from Aboriginal silence for much of the last 220 years.

This referendum isn’t about an indigenous voice – we’ve had access to that for 220 years – it is about whether we want our Parliamentarians to listen now like they should’ve in 1803.

But why isn’t this a no-brainer? Why is there a conservative approach at all?

Are we afraid that the voice of those we’ve muzzled for two centuries might spit in our face?

Are we afraid they might call us out for our ungodly injustices, both past and present?

Are we afraid they might use their voice to try and do the exact. same. thing. that was done to them?

The ‘No’ campaign is driven by this fear.
Fear and ‘what ifs’, as if they might try and treat white people now how white people treated them.

Fear that the voice might suggest a course of action that is contradictory to what we want for them.

What if we take the handcuffs off the whipping boy and he uses his free fist to strike back? We can’t have that…

I don’t think they will, I think they are nicer than their captors, but what if they do, could we blame them?

If they used an ounce of self-determination to lash out against two centuries of being treated as problems to pay hush money too…

Who could blame them.

I couldn’t.

I couldn’t blame them for getting a voice and screaming til their throats were hoarse.

And yet, that’s not what I’ve seen.

I’ve seen a hurt people who want to bring healing, not cause further hurt.

But our insecurity has us so fearful for what they might do with even the tiniest bit of power, because we know it took lying, stealing, and murdering to get it in the first place.

As a Christian, I believe the gospel compels me to vote ‘Yes’ to an indigenous voice to parliament, because justice and truth is more important than preservation of comfort or power.

Just like the colonists, Jesus wasn’t conservative when he came to earth.

But rather than aggressively taking land, he took sins.

Rather than introducing alcohol and tea and sugar to drug the uninitiated, he introduced mercy, and love, and grace.

Jesus left his throne in glory to endure a long painful process of bringing reconciliation between himself and his rebellious creation. I don’t have a throne to leave, but I can emulate a Christlike desire to see reconciliation no matter the cost.

Australia has a wound.

We’ve tried to bandage it, but the damage runs far deeper than we think under the bandage. We have an opportunity to remove the bandage and redress the wound, but it will require courage to look at the ugly reality of the wound, and it will require humility to acknowledge the previous treatment didn’t work.

Voting ‘No’ is a vote to ignore the wound and carry on.

Voting ‘Yes’ may not be the cure I hope and pray it is, but I can’t grow old knowing I had an opportunity to bring healing to a wounded stranger, even if it cost me, but I chose to cross the road and ignore them.

It didn’t please Jesus when he told that parable, it won’t please him now.