After the No Vote: The Endurance of Indigenous Political Representation
10.04.25
In this post, I’m going to share some thoughts about what this No vote might suggest about the place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in contemporary Australia.
I'd like to offer three points on Indigenous political representation that have helped me make sense of where we are now, and why representation matters more than ever. First, that the political status of Indigenous peoples is now a contemporary choice, not an historical legacy; Second, that you can Vote No to constitutional enshrinement of a representative mechanism but that you cannot Vote No to First Nations peoples’ Voices; And finally, that we all have an important role to play in the volume and quality of that representative terrain going forward. Let me take each point in turn.
Political Status of Indigenous Peoples today is a Contemporary Choice, Not an Historical Legacy
When we talk about the political marginalisation and subjugation of First Nations peoples, it's often framed in historical terms —something that began in the 18th century and is little more than a legacy of that moment. The referendum tells us that that our status as a deep and permanent minority, for whom the Commonwealth is authorised to make laws, but who lack any substantial electoral power to inform political decision-making, is now 21st century decision. The referendum makes what was old, new again.
The No vote was not a passive event. It represented an active choice. Australians had an opportunity to create a constitutionally protected forum for Indigenous voices in matters that affect us, and the majority chose not to. This a decision that maintains the status quo, but the status quo is now a new decision and not incidental to past conditions. It’s no longer grounded in the colonial logics of yesteryear, but in the colonial logics of today.
Where once the politically subjugated status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples could be dismissed as historical, grounded in outdated mentalities of early colonisers, the referendum affirmed that this was no longer the reason. Instead, voters decided anew that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people ought to have no protected right to be heard by the Parliament on matters that affect them. During the referendum campaign, we heard a lot of discussion about "division" and "detail." But underneath those talking points, was something more fundamental: a hesitation to share political space and decision-making power with the First Peoples of this continent.
The outcome is that due to our limited electoral power, we remain a group of citizens (not entirely unlike children) who have laws that can be made specifically about them, with no effective form of political representation through which we can be heard on those laws.
In short, the No vote conveys that our political marginalisation remains somehow acceptable within Australia's version of democracy. The status quo was not just inherited; it was chosen anew.
The Constitutive Power of Indigenous Representation Beyond Government Channels
Despite this sobering outcome, my second point is to say that I think there's something important about Indigenous representation that the referendum result does not change: its influence and power extend beyond government-sanctioned channels.
Indigenous representation existed long before the Australian state and continues to operate outside of it. Before colonisation, Indigenous political representation was happening within and between nations across this continent. We know that in Northern Australia, Aboriginal peoples maintained international relations with Macassan traders for hundreds of years before Europeans arrived. And that these were not just trading relationships – they involved what we might recognise as complex political diplomacy and negotiations. Similar relations and practises have characterised Torres Strait political life, before and since European colonisation.
We also know that since colonisation, First Nations peoples have continued to represent their political interests through various channels – petitions, protests, community organising, direct action. The Yirrkala Bark petitions, the Barunga Statement, the Kalkaringi Statement – these were not just documents; they were expressions of political representation that were grounded in the values and identities of coherent political communities that are grounded in millennia deep ontological relations between humans, and between the human and non-human world. This is what it means to have a political life, that manifests in Indigenous law, composed of distinctive kinship systems, rules for social order and responsibilities to Country. Being grounded in this deep history, enlivens trajectories toward the future that uniquely belong to those communities. They are not just futures preoccupied with the moment of colonisation or the state’s contemporary governance arrangements; they also articulate to other conditions beyond the state – to other First peoples, to Country, to distinctive values and ideals about what makes a good society that is grounded in our long histories. These articulations are what I describe as Indigenous political representation: they are how Indigenous peoples express their political authority, grounded in a deep past, and assert their right to determine their own futures once again not only in response to the state but often irrespective of it. And this practice of Indigenous political representation endures, no matter how the Australian nation votes, and in turn this political representation can still affect the social and political attitudes of the nation.
This is to say that the No vote does not eliminate Indigenous political representation – it just rejects giving it constitutional protection. That is a significant setback, certainly. But it does not erase the potential of Indigenous representation that continues through community organisations, creative expression, participation in international forums, and public advocacy.
In short, you cannot Vote No to Indigenous political representation. To suggest that any democratic vote results in the end of political representation is nonsensical. As we’ve heard, to take the No vote as a proxy for anything else also a bit of a legal nonsense. At the political level, the referendum outcome simply represents a point of departure for renewed public discourse – not the end of it.
Representation Through Multiple Channels Remains Essential for Change
The referendum outcome shows exactly why diverse and persistent forms of representation are more necessary than ever.
Representation builds political power through its organisation and the wider conversations it generates. Since the referendum rejected a constitutionally protected Voice, we need to double down on building those connections between all our different representative forms and government decision-making.
For decades, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have provided expert and evidence-based advice to government authorities, inquiries, and commissions. Think about all the testimonies from people removed from their families, people dealing with discriminatory child protection services, people grieving for family who've died in custody, people watching rising sea levels wash away the bones of their ancestors.
And that's all on top of the everyday work of community members who make things happen in spite of governments, not because of them.
The Voice was meant to address this problem – the lack of a direct, permanent, protected connection between Indigenous representation and Parliament. But its rejection does not mean we do not need that connection anymore – it makes it even more urgent.
The history of Indigenous policy in Australia is basically a story of this disconnection – government decisions made with little or no meaningful input from the Indigenous representative landscape. Governments have gotten away with tuning out Indigenous voices or cherry-picking who they listen to based on who already agrees with them.
We all have a role going forward then, to contribute to and strengthen this representative field. One thing the referendum showed was very poor quality public discourse on matters of Indigenous history and policy. There were numerous examples of inaccuracy, of misinformation and disinformation particularly on social media platforms, of poorly reasoned logics around so-called special rights fundamentally understanding principles of equality in democratic terms. Particularly frustrating, was also how these poor quality examples of information and communication were often given equal airing as an effort to present all sides to the debate. While justifiable in some ways, as we have continued to see in politics globally, poor quality information can also works to deteriorate rather than promote democratic conditions. From my perspective, the single most outstanding of the poor quality discourse in democratic terms was the slogan: If You Don’t Know, Vote No. This deliberate effort to orchestrate ignorance in the public sphere fundamentally undermines the role of political representation in democratic societies. So the more we can invest in improving both the volume and quality of Indigenous political representation in the public sphere, the more likely we are to see this field thrive and be able to better shape social attitudes and public sentiment.
By developing representative power across different forums – from local community organisations, through treaty forums such as in Victoria’s First Peoples Assembly, to international forums such as the UN – we see Indigenous political representation as it has always been practised, continuing as a contemporary and dynamic expression of who we are. Without a constitutionally protected connection to the Commonwealth parliament, there is no doubt that the power of this representative landscape is more diffuse and indirect. But as long as this representative landscape endures, then demands from First Nations people to have it more directly inform and influence political decision-making will also endure. I daresay, that this demand is more likely to come from the wider Australian public now, starting with each and every one of those who voted Yes – as a result of this failure – than previously.
Conclusion
The referendum offered an active and ongoing public discourse that correctly identifies that Indigenous policy failure is located in the failure of governments to listen well to those affected by the laws and policies they create. The challenge now is to build on this to increase widespread understanding that that is exactly why it’s important to maintain rich and varied representative practices. It’s not just necessary to remedy the political subjugation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It’s also good for democracy. And that is needed now more than ever.
__
Sana Nakata is Associate Professor and Principal Research Fellow at the Indigenous Education and Research Centre, James Cook University.
