What does the ‘No’ vote mean? A legal, historical and political analysis

Gabrielle Appleby, Megan Davis, Paul Kildea, Sana Nakata and John Williams

10.04.25

On 14 October, 2023, Australians voted no to a constitutional proposal to enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, a representative body that would advise the government and the legislature on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. 

There has been a lot of research since the referendum to show that many things influenced the vote, including matters entirely unrelated to the Voice proposal, such as the developing cost of living crisis through 2023. Another was that Australians thought Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people did not want the Voice. There was also strong evidence that Australian voters had been convinced that the proposal would create division, would give ‘special rights’ to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Australians did not want race in the Constitution, unaware that race is already in the Constitution. Also prominent was that Australians were not convinced that the Voice model would address the disadvantage suffered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

In an upcoming book, ‘The Failure of the Voice Referendum and the Future of Australian Democracy’, Professors Gabrielle Appleby and Megan Davis have written:

It could be observed that culturally the Australian nation has been quick to move on, but there has now grown a dangerous type of cultural silence. This has been exacerbated by a general reluctance to engage on the disinformation, propaganda and misinformation that engulfed the campaign. What this has allowed is the culture war proponents, who feel ascendancy after succeeding in defeating the Yes campaign, have attempted to extend it beyond the Voice proposal to limit, minimise and erase First Nations recognition in public spaces, including welcome to countries and flying the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags. But this misunderstands the nature of the October 2023 vote.

 Essential Research after the referendum shows that Australians did not vote on – or reject – the Uluru Statement. Voters (from both yes and no) did not even know about the Uluru Statement or the deliberative process that led to it. Australians did not reject the proposals in the Uluru Statement for "Voice, Treaty, Truth"; they voted on a specific amendment to the Constitution coloured by a tactical campaign rife with disinformation.

This unrestrained expansion of the scope of the vote is deeply troubling for the future of our liberal democracy.

This is the context in which this series of blog posts, based on a recent webinar, is exploring what the No vote means, by reference to history, law, and politics.

Click through to read the contributions from each of our experts:

Professor Megan Davis: Cultural Silence and the Extension of the No Vote (coming soon)

Professor John Williams: What does a No vote mean – a constitutional historian’s perspective

Associate Professor Paul Kildea: The Voice Debate as an Ongoing Conversation

Professor Gabrielle Appleby: The Constitutional and Legal Implications of a No Vote

 Associate Professor Sana Nakata: After the No Vote: The Endurance of Indigenous Political Representation