2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum
Referendum for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Referendum for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum was a constitutional referendum held on 14 October 2023 in which the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice was rejected. Voters were asked to approve an alteration to the Australian Constitution that would recognise Indigenous Australians in the document through prescribing a body called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice that would have been able to "make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples". The proposal was rejected nationally and by a majority in every state, thus failing to secure the double majority required for amendment by section 128 of the constitution. The Australian Capital Territory was the only state or territory with a majority of "yes" votes.
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
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? | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Outcome | Not carried. A majority "no" vote nationally and in all states. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Website | Official results | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Results | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Results by state or territory, and division | ||||||||||||||||||||||
On 21 May 2022, the Australian Labor Party won government, with party leader Anthony Albanese becoming Prime 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 the Uluru 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 the House 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 an Indigenous 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.[2][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]
The Liberal 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). The Nationals' 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 a writ by the Governor-General to the Australian 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 a double 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 eligible Australian citizens (and some British 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]
The Australian 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 and National Indigenous Australians Agency in the October 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 the 2023 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 their Yes and No cases, with the text of each essay approved by a majority respectively of the Yes and No supporters.[22] This approach was criticised by organisations such as The 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 the no case as "false" or "misleading".[24][25] No campaigners disputed this however, arguing that fact checkers were labelling claims as "false" 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 the Australian 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]
The design principles were that:[38][41]
The Voice will give independent advice to the Parliament and Government
- The Voice would make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
- The Voice would be able to make representations proactively.
- The Voice would be able to respond to requests for representations from the Parliament and the Executive Government.
- The Voice would have its own resources to allow it to research, develop and make representations.
- The Parliament and Executive Government should seek representations in writing from the Voice early in the development of proposed laws and policies.
The Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities
- Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the Executive Government.
- Members would serve on the Voice for a fixed period of time, to ensure regular accountability to their communities.
- To ensure cultural legitimacy, the way that members of the Voice are chosen would suit the wishes of local communities and would be determined through the post-referendum process.
The Voice will be representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, gender balanced and include youth
- Members of the Voice would be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, according to the standard three-part test.[lower-alpha 2]
- Members would be chosen from each of the states, territories and the Torres Strait Islands.
- The Voice would have specific remote representatives as well as representation for the mainland Torres Strait Islander population.
- The Voice will have balanced gender representation at the national level.
The Voice will be empowering, community-led, inclusive, respectful and culturally informed
- Members of the Voice would be expected to connect with – and reflect the wishes of – their communities.
- The Voice would consult with grassroots communities and regional entities to ensure its representations are informed by their experience, including the experience of those who have been historically excluded from participation.
The Voice will be accountable and transparent
- The Voice would be subject to standard governance and reporting requirements to ensure transparency and accountability.
- Voice members would fall within the scope of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
- Voice members would be able to be sanctioned or removed for serious misconduct.
The Voice will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures
- The Voice would respect the work of existing organisations.
The Voice will not have a program delivery function
- The Voice would be able to make representations about improving programs and services, but it would not manage money or deliver services.
The Voice will not have a veto power
The following tables summarise the positions of registered political parties at the federal level. Disagreement between federal party rooms and state-level party branches within the Liberal–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 | Leader Bob Katter (federal MP for the Division 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 the Legislative Assembly of Queensland have 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 on Facebook 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, however Queensland Premier Annastacia 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 leader Jacqui 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 leader Peter Dutton had requested more information before his party decided on a position; however some members declared their own stances. Federal members of the party's Tasmanian 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 including Bridget Archer and Andrew Bragg as well as conservative backbencher Russell 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 | [60] | |
| Party | Stance | Notes and references | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Animal Justice | Support | [61] | |
| Democrats | Support | [62] | |
| Citizens | Unknown | ||
| Christians | Oppose | "Our aspiration is to nurture a generation of children and youth who step into the future with confidence, hope, and freedom – a vision that should resonate with everyone."[63][64] | |
| Democratic Alliance | Support | [65] | |
| Fusion | Support | [66] | |
| Great Australian | Unknown | ||
| 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] | |
| Shooters, Fishers and Farmers | Unknown | ||
| 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 of First Nations' sovereignty and treaty 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] | |
| The Local Network | Unknown | ||
| TNL | Support | [74] | |
| Victorian Socialists | Support | Victorian Socialists said in a statement that it encouraged its members to vote Yes in the Voice referendum. The party also said that although a victory for the Yes side would not represent a major step forward for Indigenous rights, a No victory is likely to be a step backwards; as the No campaign has gained momentum, "racist elements have come to the fore".[75] | |
| Voices for the Senate | Unknown | ||
| Western Australia Party | Oppose | [76][77][78] | |
Nationals leader David Littleproud announced on 28 November 2022 that his party would not support the Voice, with Senator for the Northern Territory Jacinta Price speaking out strongly against it. The decision led to Andrew 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 and Victoria), although the party supports it in New South Wales,[56] and Western 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 a conscience vote on the issue, while members of the Coalition Shadow Ministry are obliged to oppose the Voice. Despite the Liberal Party's federal position, the party is supportive of the Voice in New South Wales and Tasmania.[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 for Berowra) resigned from the Shadow 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 Liberal backbencher.[87][88]
Since the resignation of Dominic Perrottet (a supporter of the Voice) as leader of the NSW Liberal Party after he led the party to defeat at the 2023 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 leader Mark Speakman[89][90] supports the Voice, while Western Australian leader Libby 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, the Victorian 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 leader John 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 a conscience 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 leader Jeremy Hanson has announced his opposition to the proposal.[96] | |
| Country Liberal | Oppose | On 19 February 2023, the Country 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 | Former New South Wales Premier Dominic Perrottet (who was Premier and Liberal leader from 2021 to 2023) 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 premier Jeremy 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] Only Jess Wilson, the Member 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 of the Nationals in Victoria, backed the federal Nationals' decision.[115] | |
| WA Liberals | Oppose | Libby Mettam, the leader of the party's Western Australian division, announced the party's opposition in August 2023. She had previously endorsed the Voice.[84] | |
| WA Nationals | Oppose | Former leader Mia Davies stated her party's support for the Voice during her time as leader.[81][82] While current leader Shane 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 leader David 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 for Treaty 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][lower-alpha 3] In May 2023, she ruled out supporting the No campaign and said she would consider abstaining.[135] On 20 June Thorpe joined the official No campaign,[136] after she had voted No 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 official Yes and No pamphlets, and claiming that she had been unfairly excluded from contributing to the official No 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 with The 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 with Beyond Blue, which she is currently 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 a version of the Voice,[152] but repeatedly ruled out holding a referendum, and vetoed attempts to do so.[153] He stated that the Voice would be a "third chamber" of Parliament.[154] | |
| Newspaper | City | Owner | Endorsement |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Age | Melbourne | Nine Entertainment | Yes[155] |
| The Australian | Nationwide | News Corp | No[156] |
| Herald Sun | Melbourne | News Corp | No[156] |
| The Spectator Australia | Nationwide | Press Holdings | No[157] |
| The Sydney Morning Herald | Sydney | Nine Entertainment | Yes[158] |
Legal opinion in Australia was divided over the suitability of the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment.[159][160][161][162][163]
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.[164] It is a broad term, which covers a wide range of people from the governor-general to the cabinet and public servants.[159] 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. However Anne Twomey, argued that there is no such obligation in the proposal, and that past High Court rulings have found that the term extends to ministers and government departments, but not statutory bodies, which are distinct legal entities.[164] Noel Pearson also stressed the importance of talking to the public service as well as politicians in effecting change.[165]
On 3 April 2023, shadow attorney-general Julian Leeser outlined his concerns about the words "executive government" in proposed sub-clause 129(ii) during an address at the National 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.[166][167] However, despite these concerns, Leeser stated he would vote yes and continued to campaign for a successful referendum, after resigning from shadow cabinet.[168]
Some constitutional law academics and judges voiced concerns about the introductory words to the proposed new section 129. Retired superior court judges, including David Jackson,[169] Nicholas Hasluck,[170] and Terry Cole,[171] suggested that the changes could have unintended effects and would introduce inequality of citizenship into the Constitution.[172] Former High Court Justice Ian Callinan had said that the changes were legally unsafe.[172][173]
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,[174] 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.[172] 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,[175] citing the examples of raising the age of criminal responsibility to reduce rates of Indigenous incarceration, or legislating land management issues affecting farmers and Indigenous people.[176] They wrote that neither side had mentioned this issue.[177]
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".[178]
The Constitutional Expert Group appointed by the government to provide advice about constitutional law relating to the Voice (comprising Greg Craven, Megan Davis, Kenneth Hayne, Noel Pearson, Cheryl Saunders, Anne Twomey, George Williams, and Asmi Wood[179]) 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 judge Kenneth Hayne wrote that the Voice would not obstruct the government's function. George Williams, law professor at the University of New South Wales agreed, calling the proposal a modest one. The Law Council of Australia supported the model, calling it a "modest step".[180]
The Solicitor-General of Australia Stephen 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".[181] 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".[182]
In early October 2023, 71 constitutional and public law teachers and professors published an open letter to the Australian public, stating that:[183][184]
Former Chief 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.[185][186] 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.[187][188]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.
Campaigning for both sides of the question started in early 2023. Some of the groups and individuals involved are listed below.[189]
According to Mayo, all of these campaign groups were working towards the same goal.[189]
.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 independent statutory 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 the No campaign represented by Advance Australia were using fear as their underlying message, and focussing on prominent Yes campaigners such as Thomas Mayo and Teela Reid. The Blak 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]
The Yes and No campaigns started advertising on social media in early 2023, and although both had spent around A$110,000 on advertising on Facebook 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, with John Farnham's support, "You're the Voice" was used to advocate for the Yes campaign as a soundtrack to a video ad.[214] The video for the Yes campaign, which aired on several platforms, includes the 1983 America's Cup yacht race (won by an Australian yacht); the handback of Uluru to its traditional owners in 1985; and the landmark 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 the No campaign. Their analysis showed how negative stories can have the strongest impact on people's attention, and also how far articles on traditional 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 by No campaigns. It concluded that while there were many more Yes than No ads published, its message was spread over 33 disparate themes, whole No 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 using TikTok in May, and was using it far more extensively and proving more successful than the Yes campaign by October. Yes campaigners on other social media such as Facebook, X, and Instagram had large followings. This may reflect the fact that the younger demographic on TikTok were more likely to be Yes voters, and the No 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's News 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 and commentary by News Corp about the Voice between July and August 2023, covering The Australian, Herald Sun, Daily Telegraph, and Sky News Australia. It found that on the whole, news reporting was unbiased and accurate, but the opinion pieces were almost all in favour of the No 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 favoured No arguments. Andrew Bolt and Peta Credlin were the top contributors in favour of a No vote.[225]
In July 2023, a cartoon ad promoting the No campaign in the lead-up to the referendum was published by Advance Australia in the Australian Financial Review, featuring caricatures of Thomas Mayo a signatory and advocate of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, along with, MP and Yes advocate Kate Chaney, and her father businessman Michael Chaney. This led to bipartisan condemnation of the ad as "racist".[226] The AFR later apologised for the ad.[227][228]
In July 2023, Big W, an Australian chain of discount 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 the Yes campaign to remove a social media post that contained a misleading graphic that could cause No voters to cast an invalid vote.[232]
In early October, the AEC asked the Yes 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, primarily right-wing and far-right politicians and commentators, internet trolls, and members of the sovereign citizen movement, have spread misinformation, disinformation and unfounded conspiracy theories regarding the referendum online. This activity is most prominent on Telegram, Twitter and WeChat.[237][238] According to independent monitors and fact-checkers, online debate has focused on race, particularly on Twitter. Ben James, editor of the Australian Associated Press' FactCheck team, which monitors content on Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, says that the amount of misinformation and disinformation had by early September exceeded that which had been observed on social media ahead of the 2022 Australian election. Leading Indigenous campaigner Thomas Mayo has been subjected to a great deal of racial abuse. While some misinformation has been observed from people on both sides of the discussion, there was generally more on the No 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]
A preprint study in September 2023 showed Yes tweets dominating the Twitter platform, including amplification of misinformation and conspiracy theories created by the No side, with the Yes 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 particular Sky News Australia. Many of the No 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 the Chinese Communist Party, with China being accused of espionage, attempting to undermine Western influence and attempting to silence Western criticism of human rights abuses in China. An analysis by Recorded Future confirmed the findings of Australian 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 even racism.[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 the No campaign, including that the Uluru Statement comprised more than one page, was suspended by Meta as its key fact-checking organisation in August 2023 because its certification from the International Fact-Checking Network had expired in December 2022.[241][242][243] However, it continues its work and is regularly published by ABC 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 commentator Laura Tingle described the debate as "bitter", criticising the No campaign in particular.[247]
Marcia Langton was accused of calling No voters "racists",[248] after The Australian published an article headlined "Langton brands No voters 'racist, stupid'";[249] it was shown afterwards that she was referring to the tactics of No 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 as Welcomes to Country, claims that Indigenous people have special treatment, and promulgation of racist stereotypes.[252] "Progressive No" campaigner Lidia Thorpe, who herself has been subject to racist abuse and death threats, exposed a video of a hooded man making racist remarks, burning an Aboriginal flag, and giving a Nazi 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 since July 2023 (a month after the Constitutional Amendment bill passed through the Senate).
| External poll aggregations | |
|---|---|
 Nick Evershed and Josh Nicholas for The Guardian | |
| Kevin Bonham, electoral analyst[254] | |
| Simon Jackman, University of Sydney professor[254] |
On 4 October, the AEC reported that 903,570 votes had been cast after three days of early voting.[255]
By polling day, 6 million early votes had been cast at pre-poll centres, and 2 million postal votes were expected.[256]
The Constitutional amendment was rejected in both the state and national vote counts, with the Australian Capital Territory being the only state or territory with a majority "yes" vote.[257][258]
Despite some predictions of a low turnout, the participation 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,[lower-alpha 5] the informal voting rate was 0.98%, comparable to the rate for the republic referendum of 0.86% and lower than the typical rate for federal elections of around 2%.[261]
Regions with a high proportion of Indigenous Australians overwhelmingly voted yes in the referendum. Labor MP for Lingiari, Marion Scrymgour suggested that 74% of the 11,000 people that live in the division's remote areas voted yes.[262] The highest vote in support of yes in an Indigenous community was in Wadeye, at 92.1%. The Tiwi Islands voted 84% in favour, and Maningrida 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.[263] 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".[264] 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 the ecological fallacy as the data could not be used to predict the vote of individual voters.[265]
| 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[266] | ||
| 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[lower-alpha 6] | 43,076 | 39.70 | 65,429 | 60.30 | 820 | 71.45 |
| Australian Capital Territory[lower-alpha 7] | 176,022 | 61.29 | 111,192 | 38.71 | 2,237 | 91.36 |
| Total for Commonwealth | 6,286,894 | 39.94 | 9,125,294 | 60.06 | 155,545 | 89.92 |
| Results | Obtained a majority in no state and an overall minority of 2,838,400 votes. Not carried. | |||||
Votes cast in the territories 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.
Analysis of a survey data collected immediately after the referendum was conducted by ANU to attempt to gauge the intention and reasoning of voters. The report found, inter alia, that despite the no vote in this case a majority of voters indicated they would have voted yes on symbolic recognition in the Constitution. The data also suggested that the main reason Australians voted no was due to a dislike of "division" and a scepticism of rights that are only held by some Australians.[268]
The results also demonstrated some evidence of an urban–rural political divide.[269] The four electorates returning more than 70% of votes in favour of Yes were the namesake electorates centred on the CBDs of Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra, as well as Prime Minister Albanese's inner Sydney electorate of Grayndler. By contrast, the only five electorates to return less than 20% of votes in favour of Yes — Maranoa, Flynn, Capricornia, Hinkler and Dawson — were all rural electorates in southern and central Queensland.
Analysis by DesmosAU 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.[270]
Once the referendum result became clear on the night of 14 October, Yes23 campaign co-chair Rachel Perkins called for a week of silence "to grieve this outcome and reflect on its meaning and significance".[271] After this period, an unsigned open 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 of UNSW Sydney)[272] that decried the result as "unbelievable and appalling" and concluded that constitutional recognition would no longer be possible.[273] 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.[274] Warren Mundine responded to the letter, saying it was a "disgraceful attack on Australia and Australian people".[275]
The result was perceived by many as a significant setback to reconciliation in Australia.[276][277] Aboriginal academic and pro-Voice campaigner Marcia Langton declared that Australian voters' rejection of the Voice made it "very clear that Reconciliation is dead".[278][279]
After the referendum, in which over 64% of South Australians voted against the Voice, state Liberal leader David Speirs cast some doubt on the state based voice. South Australian One Nation MP Sarah Game announced plans to introduce a bill to repeal the First Nations Voice Act 2023.[280]
On 19 October 2023, the Queensland opposition Liberal National Party of Queensland (LNP) leader David Crisafulli announced that they would be dropping their support for a state based treaty. The LNP had previously supported a treaty in early 2023.[281][282][283]
The Victorian Liberal Party were divided in the aftermath of the referendum over whether to continue supporting the state's treaty process.[284] Alongside their fellow Coalition partners, the National Party of Victoria, in January 2024 both parties withdrew their support for treaty, leaving Victoria without bi‑partisan backing for the proposal.[285][286]
Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott said the result was a rejection of identity 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.[287] Former Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce reflected that "there's a new type of politics in Australia and it's a little bit Trumpian".[288]
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
