 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
14 October 2023 (2023-10-14) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to recognise theFirst Peoples of Australia by establishing anAboriginal andTorres Strait IslanderVoice. Do you approve this proposed alteration? | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Outcome | Not carried. A majority "no" vote nationally and in all states. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Website | Official results | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Results | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 Results by state and territory.svg) Results byfederal electoral divisionResults by state or territory, and division | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article is part of a series on the |
| Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice |
|---|
| Proposed Australianfederal Indigenous advisory body to represent Indigenous communities. |
The2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum was aconstitutional referendum held on 14 October 2023 in which the proposedAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice was rejected. Voters were asked to approve analteration to theAustralian Constitution that wouldrecognise Indigenous Australians in the document throughprescribing a body called theAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice that would have been able to make representations toFederal Parliament andthe executive government on "matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples".[1]
The proposal was rejected nationally and by a majority in every state, thus failing to secure thedouble majority required for amendment bysection 128 of the constitution. TheAustralian Capital Territory was the onlystate or territory with a majority of "yes" votes. Analysis of surveys following the referendum identified the main reasons why the majority of Australians voted no was a scepticism of rights for some Australians that are not held by others and a fear of constitutional change.
On 21 May 2022, theAustralian Labor Party won government, with party leaderAnthony Albanese becomingPrime Minister. During his victory speech, Albanese committed to holding a referendum to enshrine an Indigenous Voice to Parliament in his government's first term of office, acting on the 2017 request of Indigenous leaders for such a body made with theUluru Statement from the Heart.
| Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Parliament of Australia | |
| |
| Territorial extent | Australia |
| Passed by | House of Representatives |
| Passed | 31 May 2023 |
| Passed by | Senate |
| Passed | 19 June 2023 |
| Legislative history | |
| First chamber:House of Representatives | |
| Introduced by | Mark Dreyfus |
| Introduced | 30 March 2023 |
| First reading | 30 March 2023 |
| Second reading | 30 March 2023 – 31 May 2023 |
| Consideration in detail | 31 May 2023 |
| Third reading | 31 May 2023 |
| Second chamber:Senate | |
| Received from theHouse of Representatives | 13 June 2023 |
| Member(s) in charge | Murray Watt |
| First reading | 13 June 2023 |
| Second reading | 13 June 2023 – 16 June 2023 |
| Committee of the whole | 16 June 2023 – 17 June 2023 |
| Third reading | 19 June 2023 |
| Amends | |
| Constitution of Australia | |
| Summary | |
| Amends the constitution to prescribe anIndigenous Voice to Parliament | |
| Status: Not passed | |
The government settled on and announced the text of the question on the ballot and the actual amendment on 23 March 2023.[1][3] These were formally approved by parliament through the passage of the amendment bill, Constitutional Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 (Cth). The bill was examined and endorsed by the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum, subject to two dissenting reports authored by Liberal and National party members respectively.[4]
TheLiberal Party of Australia report put forward several changes, including the deletion of sub-section 128(ii) (to reduce a risk that representations from the body must be considered), a new section 77(iv) (to allow the parliament to control the applicability of judicial review under section 75(v) of the Constitution), the addition of the words "and the legal effect of its representations" to sub-section 128(iii) (to clarify the power Parliament has to legislate regarding the Voice), and the replacement of the words "executive government" to "ministers of state" (to reduce the possible ambit of people to whom the Voice may make representations). TheNationals' report, on the other hand, rejected the proposed bill entirely.[5]
Following the passage of the bill, the referendum date was announced by the Prime Minister on 30 August 2023.[6] The referendum was officially triggered on 11 September 2023 with the issuing of awrit by thegovernor-general to theAustralian Electoral Commission.[7]
Referendum ballot papers asked voters:[8]
A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.Do you approve this proposed alteration?
The proposed amendment to the Constitution was the insertion of the following chapter:[8]
Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
- There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
- The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
- The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
For any amendment of the Constitution to proceed, it must receive adouble majority of votes: that is, a majority in each of a majority of the states (i.e. at least four of the six states), as well as a majority overall (i.e. including votes in the territories).[9][10][11][12]
Voting in the referendum was mandatory for all eligibleAustralian citizens (and someBritish subjects).[13][14] A total of 17,676,347 voters were registered on the electoral roll, and therefore required to either vote in person, by post or by phone. This was 2.6% larger than the electoral roll of the 2022 election.[15]
TheAustralian Electoral Commission (AEC) estimated the cost of the referendum would be about $450 million, where the federal government had supplied $364 million in the most recent budget to deliver the referendum. Funding for the referendum was provided to the AEC andNational Indigenous Australians Agency in theOctober 2022 Australian federal budget, with a total distribution of $75.2 million (excluding Contingency Reserves) over two years (FY2022–24).[16][17]
There is an additional $160 million of the federal Contingency Reserve available to deliver the referendum.[16] In May 2023 the government announced a total of $10.5 million in the2023 budget to improve mental health services for Indigenous people in the lead-up to the referendum.[18]
The government originally attempted to remove the requirement for an official yes/no pamphlet along with other proposed changes to the referendum process in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 (Cth), arguing that a physical pamphlet was outdated and that information could instead be distributed online or via television.[19] Instead, the government proposed funding an education campaign to inform Australians about the referendum and to "counter misinformation".[20] However, the pamphlet was ultimately retained in order to secure bipartisan support for the bill.[21] Following this, parliamentarians of both houses who had voted for and against the constitutional amendment bill drafted, for inclusion in the pamphlet, 2,000-word essays detailing theirYes andNo cases, with the text of each essay approved by a majority respectively of theYes andNo supporters.[22] This approach was criticised by organisations such asThe Greens, who wanted these statements to be independently fact-checked, as there was no legal requirement for the pamphlets to be truthful.[23] After the pamphlets were released, several media organisations analysed the claims in both essays, with many characterising some in theNo case as "false" or "misleading".[24][25]No campaigners disputed this, however, arguing that fact checkers were labelling as "false" claims that remained subject to debate.[26]
The yes/no pamphlet was published on the AEC website on 18 July 2023[27][28] and on 11 August 2023 it began to be posted to households.[29]
Key dates in relation to the voting process for the referendum were:[30][31]
On 23 March 2023 theAustralian Cabinet endorsed a set of design principles that would be used in the design of the Voice in the event the referendum is successful, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese stating that these principles would "underpin the shape and function of the Voice".[38][39] Additionally he stated that if the referendum is successful, another process would be established to work on the final design, with a subsequent government produced information pamphlet stating that this process would involve Indigenous Australian communities, the Parliament and the broader community, with any legislation going through normal parliamentary scrutiny procedures.[39][40]
These principles stated that the Voice would be "proactive" and "independent" when giving advice to both Parliament and the government, Voice members would be chosen according to "the wishes of local communities" and "representative" being gender balanced and including remote and youth representatives. Additionally, the Voice would be "community-led, inclusive, respectful and culturally informed". Also, the Voice would be subject to standard transparency measures, would exist in addition to current organisations, would not deliver programs nor have a "veto power".[38][41]
The following tables summarise the positions of registeredpolitical parties at the federal level. Disagreement between federal party rooms and state-level party branches within theLiberal–National Coalition is discussed below.
| Party | Stance | Notes and references | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Centre Alliance | Unknown | The party did not openly take a stance on the issue, but does support the recognition of Indigenous Australians in the Constitution.[42] | |
| Dai Le & Frank Carbone | Neutral | As of January 2023, Dai Le (the party's only federal representative) maintained a neutral position towards the Voice, claiming that it is not a priority for the culturally diverse communities in her electorate.[43] | |
| Greens | Support | The party has a preference for truth-telling and treaty processes to occur prior to the Voice but have nonetheless backed the "yes" campaign for the referendum on the Voice.[44] The party's First Nations Network (aka Blak Greens) encouraged members to abstain or vote no, on the basis that the Voice would be a "powerless advisory body".[45] | |
| Katter's Australian | Oppose | LeaderBob Katter (federal MP for theDivision of Kennedy) stated that the Voice to Parliament may not cover important issues faced by Indigenous Australians, instead proposing a designated Indigenous senator. However, he has given his support for a referendum.[46] All three of the party's MPs in theLegislative Assembly of Queensland requested more information from federal and state governments (similar to the Liberals) and said that they could possibly support the Voice. On 16 February 2023, the party announced onFacebook that its MPs would not support the Voice.[47] | |
| Labor | Support | Leader Anthony Albanese has given his support and pledged that a referendum would be held. All state and territory Labor leaders support the Voice, howeverQueensland PremierAnnastacia Palaszczuk has said that although she supports the Voice, she believes it should be explained better.[48] | |
| Lambie | Support | Having publicly called for more information about the Voice to Parliament in August 2022 and February 2023,[49] party leaderJacqui Lambie expressed support for the Voice in May 2023,[50] and disappointment at opinion polling indicating a decline in public support in August 2023.[51] | |
| Liberal | Oppose | Federal leaderPeter Dutton had requested more information before his party decided on a position; however some members declared their own stances. Federal members of the party'sTasmanian branch were divided on the issue as of 3 January 2023[update].[52] On 5 April 2023, after a party room meeting, it was announced that the party will oppose the Voice citing constitutional risks. All members of the shadow ministry are bound by this decision but a conscience vote is allowed for backbencher members. The party also proposed an alternative to Labor's initial proposal and supports constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians.[53] After the decision, some members of the party indicated they would still support a Voice to Parliament despite their party room's position.Moderate backbenchers includingBridget Archer andAndrew Bragg as well asconservative backbencherRussell Broadbent indicated their support for a Voice.[54] Furthermore,Julian Leeser resigned from his frontbench position as Shadow Attorney-General to support a Voice.[55] | |
| National | Oppose | The Nationals at a federal level stated that they oppose a Voice to Parliament, citing concerns that it would not be inclusive of regional areas.[56][57][58] | |
| One Nation | Oppose | One Nation opposes both a Voice to Parliament and a referendum on the subject.[59] | |
| United Australia Party | Oppose | Following the "If you don't know, VOTE NO" slogan, the United Australia Party stated "[we] will not support a constitutional change that divides us by race."[60] | |
| Party | Stance | Notes and references | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Animal Justice | Support | [61] | |
| Democrats | Support | [62] | |
| Christians | Oppose | [63][64] | |
| Democratic Alliance | Support | [65] | |
| Fusion | Support | [66] | |
| Indigenous-Aboriginal | Support | [67] | |
| Legalise Cannabis | Unknown | Rachel Payne announced that the Victorian state branch of the party supports a Voice to Parliament in May 2023, but the party did not make its position clear at a federal level.[68] | |
| Liberal Democratic Party | Oppose | [69] | |
| Reason | Support | [70] | |
| Socialist Alliance | Support | The Socialist Alliance recommended a 'critical Yes' vote, expressing concern that the Voice would have served as a token gesture towards the recognition ofFirst Nations' sovereignty andtreaty demands. They considered grassroot activism important in ensuring that "...First Nations people's quest for justice can overcome either constraint by a bureaucratic Voice or demoralisation by a majority No vote."[71][72] | |
| Sustainable Australia | Support | [73] | |
| TNL | Support | [74] | |
| Victorian Socialists | Support | Victorian Socialists said in a statement that it encouraged its members to voteYes in the Voice referendum. The party also said that although a victory for theYes side would not represent a major step forward for Indigenous rights, aNo victory is likely to be a step backwards; as theNo campaign has gained momentum, "racist elements have come to the fore".[75] | |
| Western Australia Party | Oppose | [76][77][78] | |
Nationals leaderDavid Littleproud announced on 28 November 2022 that his party would not support the Voice, with Senator for the Northern TerritoryJacinta Price speaking out strongly against it. The decision led toAndrew Gee leaving the party to sit as an independent.[79][80] The Nationals oppose the Voice on a federal level and in two states (South Australia andVictoria), although the party supports it inNew South Wales,[56] andWestern Australia.[81][82]
Federally, the Liberal Party opposed the Voice, with leader Peter Dutton repeatedly asking for more information before they could make a decision, before deciding on 5 April 2023 to reject the Voice. The Liberals offered an alternative proposal and do support the constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. Only backbenchers have been allowed aconscience vote on the issue, while members of the CoalitionShadow Ministry are obliged to oppose the Voice. Despite the Liberal Party's federal position, the party is supportive of the Voice inNew South Wales andTasmania.[58][83] The Western Australian branch was initially supportive, but changed their position in August 2023.[84] On 3 September, Dutton committed to hold a second referendum on Indigenous recognition if the Voice referendum failed, while also expressing support for his party's election proposal for a series of legislated local bodies (without a national one).[85]
Former Liberal MP, and Indigenous Australians Minister,Ken Wyatt, quit the Liberal Party on 6 April 2023, in response to the Federal Liberal Party's opposition to the Voice.[86] Later,Julian Leeser (the member forBerowra) resigned from theShadow Cabinet to support the Voice and campaign for an improved wording, although he did not quit the party and still remains in Parliament as a Liberalbackbencher.[87][88]
Since the resignation ofDominic Perrottet (a supporter of the Voice) as leader of the NSW Liberal Party after he led the party to defeat at the2023 state election, most of the support for the Voice from Liberal members has come from Tasmania or from backbenchers, despite state branches refusing to bind their party or frontbenches by a stance (despite the federal Coalition binding its shadow ministers to oppose the Voice). Of other state Liberal leaders, New South Wales leaderMark Speakman[89][90] supports the Voice, while Western Australian leaderLibby Mettam initially supported the Voice, but then began opposing it due to the state's controversial Aboriginal heritage laws. The Liberals for Yes campaign was launched in 2023 as an attempt to attract support for the Voice from centre-right, liberal conservative individuals.[91]
Similar to New South Wales, theVictorian Liberal Party has allowed its members a conscience vote on the issue. The Victorian branch has not yet declared its stance on the Voice. However, party leaderJohn Pesutto confirmed his personal stance[92] and other members have voiced their personal opinions (see below).[93]
| Party | Stance | Notes and references | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Canberra Liberals | Ambiguous | The Canberra Liberals have given its MPs aconscience vote on the issue.[94] The party's leader,Elizabeth Lee, supports the Voice.[95][93]Mark Parton has announced his support for the Voice, while former opposition leaderJeremy Hanson has announced his opposition to the proposal.[96] | |
| Country Liberal | Oppose | On 19 February 2023, theCountry Liberal Party's rank-and-file voted to oppose the Voice.[97][98][99] However, members of the party have differing opinions; the party's sole federal senator,Jacinta Price, opposes the Voice, while the party's leader in the Northern Territory,Lia Finocchiaro, said in mid-March that she supported the Voice in principle, but needed more detail.[100] However, on 22 August, Finocchiaro confirmed that she would be voting "no", saying the government had not given enough information about the Voice and she was concerned that the Voice would not adequately represent Aboriginal Territorians, though she also said that party members were allowed a free vote on the issue and that she would not be campaigning against the Voice.[101] | |
| Liberal National | Ambiguous | The LNP has not stated a clear position on the Voice.[102][103] The party's leader in Queensland,David Crisafulli, announced he has an "open mind" on the issue.[58] Crisafulli later announced that he would oppose the Voice, but the LNP would be given a conscience vote on the issue and that he would not be campaigning against it.[104] | |
| NSW Liberals | Ambiguous | FormerNew South Wales PremierDominic Perrottet (who was Premier and Liberal leader from2021 to2023) supports the Voice.[83] The current leader,Mark Speakman, announced that members of the party will be given a free vote on the issue.[105] On 12 August 2023, Speakman announced that he personally supports the Voice, but would not be campaigning for it.[89] | |
| NSW Nationals | Oppose | The NSW Nationals opposed the Voice, formally opposing it at their Senior Party Conference in July 2023. However, like the NSW Liberal Party, the NSW Nationals announced that they would give their members a free vote on the issue.[105] | |
| SA Liberals | Oppose | The South Australian division opposes the state's version of the Voice to Parliament, but has not yet made a stance on the federal version.[106]David Speirs remains undecided on the Voice, but has stated that the South Australian Liberals will remain neutral and would not campaign for either side.[107] However, Speirs later stated that he and the party would oppose the Voice.[108][109][110] | |
| SA Nationals | Oppose | [111] | |
| Tasmanian Liberals | Support | Tasmanian premierJeremy Rockliff openly supports the Voice. Rockliff vowed to campaign "vigorously" in favour of the Voice.[58] | |
| Victorian Liberals | Ambiguous | John Pesutto, the leader of the party's Victorian division, was initially unclear on the party's position citing a lack of detail on the proposal.[112] The Victorian Liberals decided in May 2023 to allow members to have a conscience vote on this issue.[113] OnlyJess Wilson, theMember for Kew, has publicly confirmed she will vote "yes" in the referendum, while the majority of Victorian Liberal MPs have publicly stated they will vote "no".[114] On 4 September, Pesutto declared that he will be voting "no" in the referendum but would not be campaigning against it.[92] | |
| Victorian Nationals | Oppose | Peter Walsh, the leader ofthe Nationals in Victoria, backed the federal Nationals' decision.[115] | |
| WA Liberals | Oppose | Libby Mettam, the leader ofthe party's Western Australian division, announced the party's opposition in August 2023. She had previously endorsed the Voice.[84] | |
| WA Nationals | Oppose | Former leaderMia Davies stated her party's support for the Voice during her time as leader.[81][82] While current leaderShane Love initially supported the Voice, he later announced that he and the party would oppose the Voice,[116] following a similar decision made earlier by the WA Liberal Party. | |
| Name | Stance | Notes and references | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kate Chaney | Support | [117] | |
| Zoe Daniel | Support | [118] | |
| Andrew Gee | Support | Gee defected from the National Party in December 2022, shortly after the party announced its opposition to the Voice, citing a need to support the Voice as a key reason for leaving the party,[119] although party leaderDavid Littleproud mentioned other disagreements that led to the decision.[120] | |
| Helen Haines | Support | [121] | |
| David Pocock | Support | [122] | |
| Monique Ryan | Support | [123] | |
| Sophie Scamps | Support | Scamps referred to the First Nations Voice to Parliament as a "generous invitation" in her first speech to Parliament in August 2022.[124] | |
| Allegra Spender | Support | [125] | |
| Zali Steggall | Support | [126] | |
| Lidia Thorpe | Oppose | In August 2022, when still Greens Indigenous affairs spokesperson, Thorpe called forTreaty before Voice.[127] Defecting from the Greens in February 2023, she said that she wished to lead the"Blak sovereignty" movement and campaign for such a treaty[128][129][130][131] before implementation of the Voice, which would be "powerless".[132][133][b] In May 2023, she ruled out supporting theNo campaign and said she would consider abstaining.[135] On 20 June Thorpe joined the officialNo campaign,[136] after she had votedNo to the referendum bill in the Senate on 19 June.[137][138] On 20 July, Thorpe released her own pamphlet advocating against the Voice, criticising both the officialYes andNo pamphlets, and claiming that she had been unfairly excluded from contributing to the officialNo case, which she condemned as racist.[139] | |
| Kylea Tink | Support | [140][141] | |
| Andrew Wilkie | Support | [142] | |
| Prime Minister | Term | Party | Position | Notes and references | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paul Keating | 1991–1996 | Labor | Support | Paul Keating strongly supported the Voice.[143] | |
| John Howard | 1996–2007 | Coalition | Oppose | After initially not settling on a position, John Howard stated in an interview withThe Australian that the Voice will "create a new cockpit of conflict about how to help Indigenous people".[144][145] | |
| Kevin Rudd | 2007–2010,2013 | Labor | Support | Kevin Rudd supported the Voice to Parliament, stating that Tony Abbott's stance on the issue was "wrong".[146] | |
| Julia Gillard | 2010–2013 | Labor | Support | Julia Gillard supported the Voice, along withBeyond Blue, which she was then-chairing.[147] | |
| Tony Abbott | 2013–2015 | Coalition | Oppose | Tony Abbott opposed the Voice.[148][149][150] | |
| Malcolm Turnbull | 2015–2018 | Coalition | Support | In August 2022, Malcolm Turnbull stated that despite his previous concerns, he would vote in favour of Albanese's proposal.[151] | |
| Scott Morrison | 2018–2022 | Coalition | Oppose | While he was prime minister, Scott Morrison proposed legislated local and regional voices,[152] but repeatedly ruled out holding a referendum on a constitutional voice.[153] | |
| Newspaper | City | Owner | Endorsement |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Age | Melbourne | Nine Entertainment | Yes[154] |
| The Australian | Nationwide | News Corp | No[155] |
| Herald Sun | Melbourne | News Corp | No[155] |
| The Spectator Australia | Nationwide | Press Holdings | No[156] |
| The Sydney Morning Herald | Sydney | Nine Entertainment | Yes[157] |
Legal opinion in Australia was divided over the suitability of the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment.[158][159][160][161][162]
One sticking point among experts was the inclusion of the phrase "executive government". In Australia, "executive government" comprises ministers as well as the departments they oversee.[163] It is a broad term, which covers a wide range of people from thegovernor-general to thecabinet and public servants.[158] Opponents argued that it makes it possible that the whole of the federal government, including its agencies, would be under an obligation to consult the Voice, and that the wording could allow judges to make rulings about its nature.Anne Twomey argued that there is no such obligation in the proposal, and that pastHigh Court rulings have found that the term extends to ministers and government departments, but notstatutory bodies, which are distinct legal entities.[163]Noel Pearson also stressed the importance of talking to thepublic service as well as politicians in effecting change.[164]
On 3 April 2023, shadow attorney-generalJulian Leeser outlined his concerns about the words "executive government" in proposed sub-clause 129(ii) during an address at theNational Press Club, namely that the meaning of the words is unclear and may be interpreted by the High Court in a way unexpected and unable to be modified later by legislation. He also expressed concerns with the preambular statement "In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:" as its judicial interpretation is unclear.[165][166] However, despite these concerns, Leeser stated he would vote yes and continued to campaign for a successful referendum, after resigning fromshadow cabinet.[167]
Someconstitutional law academics and judges voiced concerns about the introductory words to the proposed new section 129. Retiredsuperior court judges, includingDavid Jackson,[168]Nicholas Hasluck,[169] andTerry Cole,[170] suggested that the changes could have unintended effects and would introduce inequality of citizenship into the Constitution.[171] FormerHigh Court JusticeIan Callinan had said that the changes were legally unsafe.[171][172]
In May 2023 constitutional law professors Nicholas Aroney and Peter Gerangelos highlighted what they believed were a number of issues with the proposed constitutional amendment in a submission to the Joint Select Committee,[173] suggesting that the Voice may be seen by the High Court as having a similar constitutional status as the Parliament, executive and the High Court.[171] In October 2023 a paper by Aroney and lawyer Peter Congdon highlighted that the proposed alteration to the Constitution had the potential to significantly expand the powers of the Commonwealth over the states,[174] citing the examples of raising theage of criminal responsibility to reduce rates of Indigenous incarceration, or legislatingland management issues affecting farmers and Indigenous people.[175] They wrote that neither side had mentioned this issue.[176]
Vice-president of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia Chris Merritt suggested that the proposal would "clearly restrict the sovereign power of the Commonwealth in a way that nobody has even considered".[177]
The Constitutional Expert Group appointed by the government to provide advice about constitutional law relating to the Voice (comprisingGreg Craven, Megan Davis,Kenneth Hayne, Noel Pearson,Cheryl Saunders,Anne Twomey,George Williams, and Asmi Wood[178]) were unanimous in their opinion that the Voice would not have veto powers over legislation. Other constitutional experts backed the proposal as a "safe and sensible" legal option. Former High Court judgeKenneth Hayne wrote that the Voice would not obstruct the government's function.George Williams, law professor at theUniversity of New South Wales agreed, calling the proposal a modest one. TheLaw Council of Australia supported the model, calling it a "modest step".[179]
TheSolicitor-General of AustraliaStephen Donaghue advised that the Voice would "not fetter or impede the exercise of existing powers of Parliament... and is not just compatible with the system of representative and responsible government prescribed by the Constitution, but an enhancement of that system".[180] He also advised that the Voice would help in "overcoming barriers that have historically impeded effective participation by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in political discussions and decisions that affect them" and would also "rectify a distortion in the existing system".[181]
In early October 2023, 71 constitutional and public law teachers and professors published anopen letter to the Australian public, stating that:[182][183]
Certainly it is impossible to predict exactly what the High Court might say in the future; this is the case for all constitutional and legal provisions. But we know that the vast majority of expert legal opinion agrees that this amendment is not constitutionally risky.
FormerChief Justice of Australia,Robert French, criticised the No campaign's legal arguments and other campaign tactics in a speech at the National Press Club, refuting the argument that it would have an effect on executive decision-making.[184][185] He also said that the Voice would be unable to "[engage] effectively in terms of representation with the processes of government unless you have the executive government in there", and that this was not a mistake.[186][187]
Campaigning for both sides of the question started in early 2023. Some of the groups and individuals involved are listed below.[188]
According to Mayo, all of these campaign groups were working towards the same goal.[188]
.jpg)
.jpg)
The government launched its official advertising campaign about the referendum in May 2022, to provide information about what the proposal is, what the Voice would do and how it would be set up, and to encourage Australians to prepare themselves for it.[209][210] The AEC (which is an independentstatutory authority) launched its major education phase in August 2023, aimed at helping and educating voters to prepare for the referendum.[211]
An analysis of various contributors to the campaigns published in early August suggested that theNo campaign represented byAdvance Australia were usingfear as their underlying message, and focussing on prominentYes campaigners such asThomas Mayo and Teela Reid. TheBlak Sovereign Movement argued that a treaty should be negotiated ahead of establishing the Voice. The Uluru Dialogue was using a sense of pride to show how the nation would be a better place with the Voice in place. Yes23 emphasised fairness and integrity. The report analysed the relative levels of success of the different approaches.[212]
TheYes andNo campaigns started advertising on social media in early 2023, and although both had spent aroundA$110,000 on advertising onFacebook between mid-March and mid-June 2023, it was found that each had targeted different audiences. The biggest spenders were Fair Australia and Yes23.[213] From 3 September 2023, withJohn Farnham's support, "You're the Voice" was used to advocate for theYes campaign as a soundtrack to a video ad.[214] The video for theYes campaign, which aired on several platforms, includes the 1983America's Cup yacht race (won by an Australian yacht); the handback ofUluru to itstraditional owners in 1985; and thelandmark Mabo land rights case in 1992.[215]
At the end of August, the top five items on Facebook and X included several that were critical of the Voice and served theNo campaign. Their analysis showed how negative stories can have the strongest impact on people's attention, and also how far articles ontraditional media could reach on social media. At that time, the Yes23 campaign had spent more than any other campaign group; however, they were less geographically focused than spending byNo campaigns. It concluded that while there were many moreYes thanNo ads published, its message was spread over 33 disparate themes, wholeNo ads predominantly covered only seven, which were all negative.[216] By the end of September, online advertising by both camps was heavily focused on the Tasmania and South Australia, which were regarded as "battleground" states.[217] Fair Australia started usingTikTok in May, and was using it far more extensively and proving more successful than theYes campaign by October.Yes campaigners on other social media such as Facebook, X, andInstagram had large followings. This may reflect the fact that the younger demographic on TikTok were more likely to beYes voters, and theNo campaign wanted to reach them.[218]
There has been considerable activity in news and other traditional media from both sides of the debate,[219] including TV news (used by around 58% of Australians in 2023), news published online (51%), and in print (19%).[220]
Mass media in Australia are highly concentrated,[221] with Rupert Murdoch'sNews Corp Australia dominating the landscape, owning over two-thirds of leading newspapers along with most online news websites;[222][223] three News Corp outlets occupy the top three positions in the nation, based on popularity and viewership.[224] An interim report commissioned by the Australians for a Murdoch Royal Commission group as part of its "Murdoch Referendum Accountability Project" was published in September 2023.University of Adelaide academic Victoria Fielding and a team of researchers analysed data on reporting andcommentary by News Corp about the Voice between July and August 2023, coveringThe Australian,Herald Sun,Daily Telegraph, andSky News Australia. It found that on the whole, news reporting was unbiased and accurate, but the opinion pieces were almost all in favour of theNo vote. The majority of News Corp's content was commentary, not reporting, so when the various articles and videos were examined together, around 70% of the coverage favouredNo arguments.Andrew Bolt andPeta Credlin were the top contributors in favour of aNo vote.[225]
In July 2023, a cartoon ad promoting theNo campaign in the lead-up to the referendum was published byAdvance Australia in theAustralian Financial Review, featuringcaricatures ofThomas Mayo a signatory and advocate of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, along with, MP andYes advocateKate Chaney, and her father businessmanMichael Chaney. This led to bipartisan condemnation of the ad as "racist".[226] TheAFR later apologised for the ad.[227][228]
In July 2023,Big W, an Australian chain ofdiscount department stores, announced it would stop its in-store announcements that expressed support for the Indigenous voice to parliament.[229][230][231]
In early October, the AEC asked theYes campaign to remove a social media post that contained a misleading graphic that could causeNo voters to cast an invalid vote.[232]
In early October, the AEC asked theYes campaign to move their signage away from theirs to avoid confusion, because both were of a similar purple colour.[233][234][235][236]
Some opponents of the Voice, primarilyright-wing andfar-right politicians and commentators,internet trolls, and members of thesovereign citizen movement, have spread onlinemisinformation,disinformation and unfoundedconspiracy theories regarding the referendum. This activity is most prominent onTelegram,Twitter andWeChat.[237][238] According to independent monitors andfact-checkers, online debate has focused onrace, particularly on Twitter. Ben James, editor of theAustralian Associated Press FactCheck team, which monitors content on Facebook,Instagram andTikTok, says that the amount of misinformation and disinformation had by early September exceeded that which had been observed on social media ahead of the2022 Australian election. Leading Indigenous campaignerThomas Mayo has been subjected to a great deal ofracial abuse. While some misinformation has been observed from people on both sides of the discussion, there was generally more on theNo side – although it is noted that not all of the claims emanated from the official No campaign. Social media experts have observed "bot-like behaviour" that spread the same content across social media.[239]
Apreprint study in September 2023 showedYes tweets dominating the Twitter platform, including amplification of misinformation and conspiracy theories created by theNo side, with theYes voters trying to fact-check and correct them. Politicians and media were also increasing the themes of "racial division" and "hidden agenda" on Twitter, in particularSky News Australia. Many of theNo accounts appeared to be recently created and suspicious, although there was little evidence of social bots. The preprint concluded "Overall, our findings reveal a media ecosystem fraught with confusion, conspiratorial sensemaking, and strategic media manipulation".[240][self-published source?]
It was reported[by whom?] that much of the misleading information and disinformation has been promoted by internet trolls linked to theChinese Communist Party, with China being accused ofespionage, attempting to undermine Western influence and attempting to silence Western criticism ofhuman rights abuses in China. An analysis by Recorded Future confirmed the findings ofAustralian Strategic Policy Institute in this regard but found no evidence that Iran or Russia were trying to influence the debate.[238] Chinese social media platforms such as WeChat also prominently spread misinformation and occasionally evenracism.[237]
Australian Electoral Commissioner Tom Rogers said that social media had not adequately dealt with misinformation and disinformation on their platforms; of 47 reported by the AEC as being of concern, only 16 had been taken down.[15]
RMIT FactLab, which had been checking some of the claims made by theNo campaign, including that theUluru Statement comprised more than one page, was suspended byMeta as its key fact-checking organisation in August 2023 because its certification from theInternational Fact-Checking Network had expired in December 2022.[241][242][243] However, it continues its work and is regularly published byABC News.[244]
Concerns were aired about the quality of public debate, by both campaigns and private individuals on both sides of the debate,[245] in some cases describing it as divisive and "toxic".[246] Political commentatorLaura Tingle described the debate as "bitter", criticising theNo campaign in particular.[247]
Marcia Langton was accused of callingNo voters "racists",[248] afterThe Australian published an article headlined "Langton brandsNo voters 'racist, stupid'";[249] she claimed she was referring to the tactics ofNo campaigners, not the voters, which she said were "based in racism and stupidity".[250]
There has been racism directed against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people,[251] including criticism of unrelated topics such asWelcomes to Country, claims that Indigenous people have special treatment, and promulgation of racist stereotypes.[252] "Progressive No" campaignerLidia Thorpe, who herself has been subject to racist abuse and death threats, exposed a video of a hooded man making racist remarks, burning anAboriginal flag, and giving aNazi salute.[251] Abuse towards campaigners on both sides reportedly affected the mental health of several people.[253]
Despite "Yes" having a large lead in opinion polls initially, public opinion slowly began shifting in favour of "No" in late 2022, with the latter coming out ahead in every poll taken from July 2023 (a month after the Constitutional Amendment bill passed through the Senate) onward.
Opinion polling on whether to change theAustralian Constitution to establish anIndigenous Voice has been conducted since 2017, when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders petitioned for such an amendment as part of theUluru Statement from the Heart.[254] The number of these polls conducted grew substantially followingLabor's victory in the2022 federal election; the party had committed to holding the referendum required for this constitutional change in itsfirst term of government.[255]
At least ten firms polled Australians on the proposed amendment, greater than the number who have polled party support for any previous Australian election.[255] Some firms were commissioned by media organisations,think tanks,advocacy groups or university foundations. Other firms self-initiated their polls formarket research or strategic communications purposes.[255] Considering methodologies, polls were almost exclusively conducted online, with only one firm using SMS. Pollsters differed on whether to give a forced-choice question, as is done in actualAustralian referendums, or allow respondents to express indecision or lack of knowledge. Some pollsters also usedLikert-style questions to allow respondents to express how strong their opinion is.[255]
TheAustralian Constitution requires a proposed amendment to attain a double majority in the referendum – not only a majority of votes nationwide, but also a majority in at least four of the six states. Because of this requirement, the level of support in each state was of special interest.[255] One way pollsters investigated state-level support was to break down results from national polls. However, these polls sometimes did not survey enough people from each state to give reliable results about state-level support, especially for smaller states likeTasmania andSouth Australia. Another way pollsters investigated was by specifically surveying people from a particular state.[255]
Pollsters also often broke down their results by age, gender, and party affiliation. The last was of particular interest becausebipartisan support is often considered necessary for an Australian referendum to pass, though it is not a formal requirement.[255]
The extent of support for the Voice among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians was a key point of discussion. All publicly available polling indicated absolute majorities among this group favouring the Voice. Important caveats include the small sample size associated with certain polls, the length of time elapsed since the polls were conducted, and the lack of publicly available results and methodologies for certain polls.[256]
On 4 October, the AEC reported that 903,570 votes had been cast after three days ofearly voting.[257]
By polling day, 6 million early votes had been cast at pre-poll centres, and 2 millionpostal votes were expected.[258]
The Constitutional amendment was rejected in both the state and national vote counts, with theAustralian Capital Territory being the only state or territory with a majority "yes" vote.[259][260]
Despite some predictions of a low turnout, theparticipation rate for the referendum was 89.92%, just higher than the rate for the 2022 election of 89.82%. Similarly, despite concerns about ticks and crosses,[d] theinformal voting rate was 0.98%, comparable to the rate for therepublic referendum of 0.86% and lower than the typical rate for federal elections of around 2%.[263]
Regions with a high proportion of Indigenous Australians overwhelmingly voted yes in the referendum. Labor MP forLingiari, Marion Scrymgour suggested that 74% of the 11,000 people that live in the division's remote areas voted yes.[264] The highest vote in support of yes in an Indigenous community was inWadeye, at 92.1%. TheTiwi Islands voted 84% in favour, andManingrida recorded an 88% yes vote. However, many of these remote communities also had a very low turnout, with Palm Island, which recorded a yes vote of around 75%, having a preliminary participation rate of around 1 in 3.[265] Warren Mundine suggested that the low turn-out in remote communities indicated "that, at best, most Aboriginal people of voting age in remote communities didn't vote at all, and the percentage who voted Yes was less than 30 per cent".[266] Election analyst Antony Green argued that drawing conclusions based on a relation between the vote of an electorate and its recorded Indigenous population was an example of theecological fallacy as the data could not be used to predict the vote of individual voters.[267]
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
 No | 9,452,792 | 60.06 |
| Yes | 6,286,894 | 39.94 |
| Valid votes | 15,739,686 | 99.02 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 155,545 | 0.98 |
| Total votes | 15,895,231 | 100.00 |
| Registered voters/turnout | 17,671,784 | 89.95 |
| Source:Australian Electoral Commission[268] | ||
Votes cast in theterritories are included in the national total for the purposes of determining a national majority, but the territories are not counted for the purposes of determining a majority of states.
| State/territory | Yes | No | Invalid | Turnout (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Votes | % | Votes | % | |||
| New South Wales | 2,058,764 | 41.04 | 2,957,880 | 58.96 | 57,285 | 90.80 |
| Victoria | 1,846,623 | 45.85 | 2,180,851 | 54.15 | 39,038 | 91.00 |
| Queensland | 1,010,416 | 31.79 | 2,167,957 | 68.21 | 27,266 | 88.25 |
| Western Australia | 582,077 | 36.73 | 1,002,740 | 63.27 | 13,454 | 87.50 |
| South Australia | 417,745 | 35.83 | 748,318 | 64.17 | 11,478 | 91.75 |
| Tasmania | 152,171 | 41.06 | 218,425 | 58.94 | 3,967 | 92.03 |
| Northern Territory[e] | 43,076 | 39.70 | 65,429 | 60.30 | 820 | 71.45 |
| Australian Capital Territory[f] | 176,022 | 61.29 | 111,192 | 38.71 | 2,237 | 91.36 |
| Total | 6,286,894 | 39.94 | 9,452,792 | 60.06 | 155,545 | 89.92 |
| Results | Obtained a majority in no state and an overall minority of 3,165,898 votes. Not carried. | |||||
Analysis of the referendum results and of survey data collected before and immediately after the referendum was conducted by theAustralian National University to attempt to gauge the intention and reasoning of voters. The report concluded that:[270]
The data suggests that Australians voted no because they didn’t want division and remain sceptical of rights for some Australians that are not held by others. The data suggests that Australians think that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians continue to suffer levels of disadvantage that is both caused by past government policies and that justified extra government assistance. They did not see the Voice model put to them as the right approach to remedy that disadvantage.
The results also demonstrated some evidence of anurban–rural political divide.[271] The four electorates returning more than 70% of votes in favour of Yes were the namesake electorates centred on the central business districts ofMelbourne,Sydney andCanberra, as well as Prime Minister Albanese's inner Sydney electorate ofGrayndler. By contrast, the only five electorates to return less than 20% of votes in favour of Yes —Maranoa,Flynn,Capricornia,Hinkler andDawson — were all rural electorates in southern and central Queensland.
Analysis by DemosAU concluded that fear of constitutional change in general was the primary reason for the referendum's failure, with 29% of the electorate opposed to any change and 23% believing it should only be changed "if it doesn't work". They concluded that the referendum would have failed regardless of the proposal without bi-partisan support.[272]
Once the referendum result became clear on the night of 14 October, Yes23 campaign co-chairRachel Perkins called for a week of silence "to grieve this outcome and reflect on its meaning and significance".[273] After this period, an unsignedopen letter was distributed by the public relations firm that had worked for the Uluru Dialogue (a key yes group based at the Indigenous Law Centre ofUNSW Sydney)[274] that decried the result as "unbelievable and appalling" and concluded that constitutional recognition would no longer be possible.[275] It also highlighted the role the Liberal and National parties had in the defeat, stating "there was little the yes campaign could do to countervail" the impact of their opposition.[276] Warren Mundine responded to the letter, saying it was a "disgraceful attack on Australia and Australian people".[277]
The result was perceived by many as a significant setback toreconciliation in Australia.[278][279] Aboriginal academic and pro-Voice campaignerMarcia Langton declared that Australian voters' rejection of the Voice made it "very clear that Reconciliation is dead".[280][281]
After the referendum, in which over 64% of South Australians voted against the Voice, state Liberal leaderDavid Speirs cast some doubt on thestate based voice.South Australian One Nation MPSarah Game announced plans to introduce a bill to repeal theFirst Nations Voice Act 2023.[282]
On 19 October 2023, the Queensland oppositionLiberal National Party of Queensland (LNP) leaderDavid Crisafulli announced that they would be dropping their support for a state based treaty and truth-telling. The LNP had previously supported a treaty in early 2023.[283][284][285] ThePath to Treaty Act 2023 was repealed and the state's Truth-Telling and Healing Inquiry was abolished following theLNP gaining government in 2024.[286][287]
TheVictorian Liberal Party were divided in the aftermath of the referendum over whether to continue supporting the state's treaty process.[288] Alongside their fellow Coalition partners, theNational Party of Victoria, in January 2024 both parties withdrew their support for a treaty, leaving Victoria without bi‑partisan backing for the proposal.[289][290]
Former Prime MinisterTony Abbott said the result was a rejection ofidentity politics and a chance to reject or reduce Aboriginal "separatism" with the wider Australian community, such as by no longer flying Aboriginal flags equally with the national flag or by not giving an acknowledgment of country prior to speaking at an official event.[291]
Speaking one year after the referendum, Megan Davis and Yes23 campaign director Dean Parkin argued that the referendum debate had been unduly captured by politicians, with Indigenous voices shut out. Davis also stated that the Albanese government and the Commonwealth has subsequently endorsed leaving Indigenous policy to the states and territories who "aren't committed".[292][293] Key figures in the No voice campaign Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Nyunggai Warren Mundine stated that Australians want the best for "the vulnerable and needy in our country (but) the voice failed to realise this"[294] and "they didn’t want racial separation and race-based rights in the constitution and that they want all Australians to be treated equally".[295]
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
This article incorporates text from this source, which is available under theCC BY 4.0 license.Labor had sought to dump the pamphlet as it prepared arrangements for the referendum, saying it was no longer needed in the "digital age", with parliamentarians able to express their views to voters directly.
This article incorporates text from this source, which is available under theCC BY 4.0 license. This article incorporates text from this source, which is available under theCC BY 4.0 license.SA Opposition leader David Speirs says it is up to individual Australians to make their own decision in voting yes or no for a national Indigenous Voice to parliament at a referendum later this year.
The words Executive Government were in there and by the way, let me just explain the importance of the Executive Government bit. It's like, yes, you want to be able to talk to Jim Hacker onYes Minister, but if you're not talking to Humphrey, Sir Humphrey, you're going to get nowhere. You've got to talk to the bureaucrats. They're the ones who affect our lives. And so having a voice to the bureaucrats, to the Executive Government is extremely important.
