Gabrielle Appleby - The Failure of the Voice Referendum

Dr Gabrielle Appleby - Professor at the Law Faculty of University of New South Wales

INTRO: As we know, the 2023 Voice to Parliament referendum was not the result many Australians wanted. The authors of a new book examine the reasons why the proposal may have failed. RTR’s Allan Boyd caught up with one of the editors…

Conversation Article: Why the Voice referendum failed – and what the government hasn’t learned from it - February 2, 2026 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

On october fourteenth, twenty twenty-three, Australians were asked to vote on an indigenous voice to Parliament. The proposal, based on the Uluru Statement From the Heart, was the product of more than a decade of work and careful policy design by First Nations people. As we know, the referendum did not succeed. But why? A new book, The Failure of the Voice Referendum and the Future of Australian Democracy, argues the defeat came down to a blend of political misjudgments, rushed preparation, misinformation, and a lack of sustained public education. And from the moment a victorious Prime Minister announced the referendum on election night 2022, big decisions were made without meaningful consultation. The referendum's timing, the wording of the constitutional amendment, and the makeup of advisory groups were all decided without input by those who designed the voice. So why did it ultimately fail? And what can we learn from the Voice to Parliament? Joining me is one of the co-editors of this book, Dr. Gabriel Appleby, Professor at University of New South Wales. Welcome, Professor.

SPEAKER_01 0:57

Thanks, great to be here.

SPEAKER_00 0:58

So can you tell us a bit about the book you've co-edited with Dr. Megan Davis?

SPEAKER_01 1:03

Yeah, sure. I mean, I think one of the important parts of this book is that we've brought together a really wide range of views to reflect on the referendum loss. And so that's uh that's a group of experts. So it includes constitutional lawyers and political scientists and historians, but it also includes practitioners, health policy experts, indigenous affairs policy experts, people who've worked in this area. And of course, it includes a range of voices from non-Indigenous and First Nations as well. So it's a really broad range of perspectives. And one of the things that we uh talk about in our introduction to the book is that it's not necessarily a single easy lesson that can be learnt from the referendum. It was a very complex political time. Um, and so easy, clean stories as to why it failed, we think are unlikely to be the true explanation. But we do also really try, as you as you said, to give an account that perhaps isn't on the public record. And a lot of the contributors, and Professor Megan Davis and myself included, were involved at different parts of the campaign and and putting on the public record what our experience was of that campaign, particularly in working with the government and trying to get the reform over the line.

SPEAKER_00 2:23

There was a lot of negative feedback, a lot of it from the coalition and Advance Australia. And many said that the the referendum was that it was doomed to fail. You guys don't say that it was doomed to fail, but what where did it go wrong?

SPEAKER_01 2:35

Yeah, look, I think, as I said, it's a complex mix of mix of factors. But I think one of the strands that we try to to draw to draw out, um, and we think was really important, was kind of a lack of appreciation of the size of the task that's ahead of you when you take on a referendum, um, or even if you take on a big structural policy reform, right? Like even if you don't have the constitutional hurdle of amending the constitution and getting a majority of the vote.

SPEAKER_00 3:03

Which is huge. That's a big thing.

SPEAKER_01 3:04

It is a big thing, but so is big structural reform, you know. So it's it's not limited to referendum, but you know, we're obviously talking about a referendum here. And so there needs to be like a huge level of preparation and humility in coming into that task. And and what we really saw, and I should say that Megan Davis has been involved as um uh constitutional human rights expert for more than a decade in relation to First Nations recognition. And I've been heavily involved since 2017 and was involved with the Allari Statement from the Heart. So we we we we've been very involved with this reform. And what we saw from government throughout, really from the date of the announcement, which of course was election night around the commitment, was a lack of a willingness to do that hard work of preparation and sort of that blindness to the need for that work also led, we think, to a real political misjudgment. Um, misjudgment of where the coalition was after the election, what the Aston by election soon after the election meant for the coalition and where that was likely to place them. Um, and so putting the referendum on the table as a key, if not the key reform that Albanese was going to pursue. It was his first statement as soon as he was announced that he would be elected, and really um indicating that this was going to be sort of, you know, a make or break for his government meant that it became a focus for the opposition in a way that it might not otherwise have become. We in our chapter, in our introductory chapter, really try to put on the public record what the experience was working with government.

SPEAKER_00 4:41

A bit of an easy target uh for the opposition on that because of the complexity, I suppose, too. And the Albanese's tendency to announce things and then organise it later.

SPEAKER_01 4:49

Yeah, and that has been observed, you know, um subsequently as well. It's not just it seems it's not just a single um event, and and commentators have noted it after the the Bondet attacks as well. And it's a it's a real shame um because of course we need big structural reforms. We need important responses to uh things like the Bonday attacks, and uh but they do need that real ability to do the preparatory work, to work across politics and and to have that humility of reform.

SPEAKER_00 5:17

What would a better prepared campaign look like in terms of the government?

SPEAKER_01 5:20

I mean that that's a that's a really really good question. Um, I think a better prepared campaign would have been a campaign where there was much greater transparency. What we saw with the referendum campaign were announcements made with no consultation, and I'm talking here about announcements of the commitment to putting the referendum forward on election night, but also the announcement that came at GAMA a few months later, um, which was the announcement of the words of the referendum proposal on the question, which had not been consulted with First Nations leaders or others in the space, and then there really was no further consultation on it. So, what would uh a referendum campaign have looked like that we think would have been better set up for success? One that took the time to explain where the referendum came from, that had a really deep understanding of the Uluru statement, um, but also one that then treated the Australian people with a bit more um respect, I think. I think one that took civics much more seriously than we saw. One that took reforming the referendum's machinery seriously. We uh were in a situation where the Attorney General had actually been a chair of a committee back in 2009, which had recommended changes to how we conduct referendums. But when he was there in charge of a referendum, we saw government shy away from all of those recommendations, from reforming the yes-no pamphlet to introducing fact-checking. None of these things were on the table, engaging a citizens' assembly, which would have brought the Australian public into the conversation about what the voice was, the types of changes it could lead to, but also a conversation with where we are right now constitutionally. A lot of the misinformation was based on a really fundamental misunderstanding of what our constitution currently says about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

SPEAKER_00 7:21

Absolutely. There's a there's the whole question of race powers in there, which I'll get to in a second. But you've mentioned misinformation there. The impact of misinformation was quite big during the campaign. Could you give us a couple of examples?

SPEAKER_01 7:31

Yeah, sure. I mean, I think one of the most damaging examples, and there's there's egregious examples like the voice is going to lead to the UN coming and taking over Australia. Um, but leaving those sort of extreme examples to the side, I think the most damaging examples, because we know from post-referendum polling that this is the reason people did vote no, were examples like they didn't want to introduce division and race into the constitution, right? In a, of course, this is a situation which currently exists under our constitution. Um, we have a constitution that has division based on race in it, and it has had it in it from the time it was drafted, and the voice was actually a response to the division now, to find a way forward from the division and not to introduce division. So that was really a fundamental piece of misinformation. And another really damaging piece of misinformation that was used, particularly in the tail end of the campaign, was that Aboriginal and Torres Ray Island people themselves did not want this reform.

SPEAKER_00 8:33

Well, that was clearly wrong when you look at look at the voting successes in those communities.

SPEAKER_01 8:36

And that's a really heartbreaking piece of information, you know, that non-Indigenous people thought, oh, well, if they, if Aboriginal and Torres Relan people don't want it, it's kind of like permission to vote no. But actually, what you see is a silencing of those people in communities who did want it, where there might have been a few very vocal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, particularly in the urban centres, saying they didn't want it, but a silencing of the really the grassroots community voices because we know from the polls that they did want it. And some of the polling in those communities was extremely high up in the 90s.

SPEAKER_00 9:10

Yeah, it was. Well, I remember looking at that those stats and being extremely disillusioned by it all. What can we do to better manage the kind of disinformation propaganda? As if we're ever going to have another referendum again.

SPEAKER_01 9:21

It's a real, it's a really tricky one. And there's actually been a recent Senate Select Committee that's been inquiring into information integrity in the climate change and energy space, but a lot of the issues that they're grappling with are the issues that we saw in the referendum, right? Misinformation and disinformation. And I think it has to be a multi-pronged response to misinformation. You can force the platforms to start better self-regulating and taking off misinformation. And there was some of that happening during the campaign. You could introduce truth in political advertising laws, which is something that you know we did call for early in the referendum. Experts have said they do work to an extent, and South Australia and ACT do have examples of this. So you could you could regulate politicians speaking speaking truth. But I think one of the longer burn projects, right, is we need to develop better civics. We need to be able to better under base understanding of the constitution so you have less fertile ground for misinformation. And of course, in the media environment we operate today, it's not just basic civics that people need to know, but they need to have digital literacy. They need to know how to identify when information looks a bit dodgy. Um, just like we're all taught to identify scams on our text messages and emails. There is some really great work that's coming out of Finland, for example, where digital literacy is now a compulsory part of the curriculum, and people are taught how to sift through information, find authoritative information, and try to break that kind of echo chamber and bubble that you can get into that misinformation can really thrive in.

SPEAKER_00 11:00

Yeah, and some of these platforms are designed to keep distributing it.

SPEAKER_01 11:04

Yes, and you know, a bit of there's calls also for greater transparency around algorithm, which uh certainly I think would help. As I said, a multi-pronged approach. Because I don't think one single response to misinformation is going to get you there. You have to work with the platforms, but you also government has a role in both regulating, but then this positive role in in educating as well.

SPEAKER_00 11:25

Yeah, that education, um learning a little bit more about some civics and how it works, how does the government work? I suppose it's something that we don't get taught very well.

SPEAKER_01 11:33

Yes, look, absolutely. And I think you know, there are there are positive signs happening. I know that South Australia has done some work and is still pursuing a new civics curriculum. And I I speak to a lot of teachers, and there is civics is in the curriculum, and but they they there is assistance needed, and it's something that you need to put money and and resources into if you are serious about it. And again, that's a that's a longer-term preparation. If governments in the future want to do big structural reforms, and goodness me, I hope they do. Australia does need constitutional change, it does need structural change. We can't just stoltify, we need to keep moving forward.

SPEAKER_00 12:13

Yeah, well, not many of us have actually read the constitution. No, I mean it's a bit boring.

SPEAKER_01 12:16

It's a dry read. It is a bit boring. It's not too long, and it's something that a good teacher can can liven it up. There's lots of good stories that surround the boring text, shall I say? And that's the kind of resources and support we need to give teachers to make it not something too that students begrudge, but is actually something that they take a bit of pride and interest in.

SPEAKER_00 12:38

So just finally, with another referendum off the table for now, well probably for a long time, what do you see as a realistic path for First Nations, for representation?

SPEAKER_01 12:47

Yeah, it's it's a good question. Um, what we hear in the book and the chapters in the book, particularly from those who are connected into First Nations communities and working in in those areas, is that the the need for a greater voice for Aboriginal Torres Rhode Islander people, particularly out in community, is still desperately there in relation to criminal justice, in relation to land rights, in relation to health policy. We see progress in, for example, Victoria, a really long-term, carefully thought through, not without its challenges, reform has resulted in the first statewide treaty, which has set up a permanent voice forum, really, in the First People's Assembly there.

SPEAKER_00 13:30

So there's an example there of what we could have done.

SPEAKER_01 13:32

There is an example there of a of a government that has done the long-burn hard work of structural reform. And so it is possible. The Federation has given us the example of the experimental federation. It's not enough, I don't think, to do it at a state level. I think there needs to be a federal voice, um, and certainly First Nations people see that because so much federal money and federal policy affects them. But there is hope there, and there's certainly the need is still desperately there.