In the news
On 14 October, Australia’s voice referendum on indigenous recognition failed with 40 per cent voting in favour and 60 per cent against. The referendum sought to recognise Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders as the first people of Australia by introducing Section 129. It would provide the indigenous community the “Voice to Parliament” giving them political representation and influence. It also aimed at providing them “executive” powers “with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.”

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese advocated for the “Voice to Parliament” stating: “The Voice vote could be a unifying force for Australia, offering Indigenous communities the political representation they deserve.” 

An indigenous community leader stated: “This referendum’s outcome reinforces the enduring challenge of achieving reconciliation and recognising Indigenous rights in Australia.”

Another indigenous community leader, Rachel Williams, asserted: “The mere fact that this referendum took place shows that Australia is willing to acknowledge and address the issues that have long plagued Indigenous communities.” 

However, opposition to the referendum was vocal with former President of the Australian Labour Party, Nyunggai Warren Mundine, explaining: “The Yes23 campaign did not effectively communicate how the Voice would work and improve lives. It’s essential that all Australians are treated as equals.”

The Washington Post deemed the failure to be a “crushing blow” for the Indigenous peoples; the Associated Press (AP) declared it a “major setback to the country’s efforts for reconciliation with its First Peoples.”

Issues at large
First, a brief note on the referendum. The Australian Indigenous Voice referendum was introduced by the Australian government, led by Albanese. This was in response to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, a document released in 2017 by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders. The Voice to Parliament was meant to be a formal body for indigenous people to advise the parliament on laws and policies related to their communities. The government believed that it would improve their lives by giving them a greater say in the decision-making.

Second, the history of Australia’s indigenous peoples. The Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders lived in Australia for over 65,000 years. The first Aboriginal Australians are from Southeast Asia; the Torres Strait Islanders are from Papua New Guinea. In 1788, the British began to colonise the continent resulting in the suppression of these communities and dispossession of land. Colonialism left disparities within Indigenous communities in areas including health, education and incarceration. They continue to experience racism, high rates of poverty, disease and social disadvantages. They currently live all over Australia, but most reside in Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia. 

Third, the political differences between the Labour and Conservative parties. There was a political division on the stance taken by Australia’s major political parties. The Labour Party supported the referendum as a necessary step towards reconciliation. However, the National Party and Liberal Party opposed arguing that the referendum would create a special status for indigenous peoples. National Party leader, David Littleproud, argued that the referendum was “not the right way to go” and that it would “divide the country.”

Fourth, the failure of the Yes23 campaign. The multi-million-dollar Yes23 campaign was initiated to mobilise people to pass the referendum. A member of the campaign, Marcus Stewart, shed light on the “bullying and misinformation” on social media that characterised their efforts. He stated that they “struggled” with getting their message across. Former Labor strategist, Kos Samar, stated that the campaign relied “on techniques that were suited to people who are super engaged with regards to this referendum.” This meant that “people voted no because they have not engaged with the referendum and [didn’t] have enough information.” Therefore, the ‘No’ campaign “capitalised” on the “communication problem.”

In perspective
First, a positive development, despite the negative vote. Although the referendum did not secure approval, it marked a positive development in Australia’s efforts to address the challenges faced by its indigenous communities. However, the referendum’s rejection implies the challenges in achieving reconciliation and recognising the rights of indigenous Australians.

Second, a divided public response. The public response to the referendum reveals a stark division within Australian society with support for ‘Yes’- strong in inner suburbs and low in outer suburban areas. Those who were part of the Yes23 campaign have gone into a collective week of silence after the “tragic” results. Those who voted No viewed the Voice proposal as “niche and bespoke,” which would cause a “land grab.” Cumberland City Councillor Steve Christou hailed the failure as a win for “equality and common sense.” There were also worries of division.

Third, alternative pathways to change. A reconsideration could be expected with alternative pathways to address indigenous issues. These alternatives include legislative reforms and treaties to recognise indigenous rights and address disparities. There is a popular narrative that those who voted ‘No’ believe in a better pathway than constitutional enshrinement.

Fourth, global response. Criticism against the rejection was not limited to the West. Japanese Nikkea Asia commented: “Australia is the only developed nation with a colonial history that doesn’t recognise the existence of its Indigenous people in the constitution.” The coverage of the referendum by global media can impact Australia’s diplomatic position within the Asia-Pacific region. Steps towards granting indigenous rights and representation are gaining traction. The Arctic Council approved the Arctic Indigenous Peoples Policy (AIPP) in June 2023 recognising the role of Indigenous people. Australia’s referendum could thus spark more dialogue in the Asia-Pacific region.