Sidney Seminar: Appleby and Davis

15 May 2025

This Sidney Seminar showcased Australian professors Gabrielle Appleby (UNSW) and Megan Davis AC (UNSW) discussing the First Nations Voice proposal, drawing from their upcoming publication The Failure of the Voice Referendum and the Future of Australian Democracy (Anthem Press, 2025).

The First Nations Voice proposal was developed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people over the course of more than a decade to mitigate the impact of Australia’s constitutional order and denial of rights, democratic participation, and rule of law for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Voice was specifically conceived as a new constitutional body that would ‘make representations’ to the Executive and the Parliament on behalf of Australia’s First Nations. It was intended to provide a vehicle for the expression of self-determination for Indigenous people in the Australian state, as well as an enhancement to the practice of Australian democracy.

A series of dialogues with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people culminated in the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, where the Uluru Statement from the Heart was adopted. The statement reads in part:

We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.

We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.

On 14 October 2023, Australians were asked to vote in a referendum on whether to enshrine the Voice in the Constitution. Only 39.94% voted ‘Yes’ nationally, while over 60% voted ‘No’; no state returned a majority in favour of the proposal – falling short of the constitutional requirement for a majority of voters across the country and a majority of voters in a majority of states.

Professors Appleby and Davis posited several reasons for why the referendum failed. First, they highlighted the high levels of disinformation and misinformation that were deployed effectively by the ‘No’ campaign. Despite calls for a fact-checked and regulated campaign, the government showed little appetite to establish the necessary regulatory regime. Moreover, although civil society largely supported the referendum, they failed to mobilise effectively. When they did mobilise, it was often in response to the ‘No’ campaign rather than actively driving support for the ‘Yes’ case.

Second, the ‘No’ campaign strategically framed the Voice as a threat to equality, invoking fears of division and discrimination. These arguments were designed to appeal to both conservative and progressive voters. The ‘No’ campaign was well funded, with a global dimension, and the ‘Yes’ campaign struggled to respond to the effective campaigning.

Finally, the speakers considered an argument that the failure was caused by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders’ refusal to ‘compromise’ or ‘negotiate’ on the proposal, holding fast to the core demand. They were sceptical as to this line of argument, as it did not reflect the reality of the political positioning of the Liberal Party at the time and it overlooked the history of the development of the Voice proposal. 

Overall, the speakers suggested, these factors were part of the complexity surrounding the referendum, and understanding this complexity is essential to understanding the referendum’s defeat as well as how future structural reform might be achieved. Following the presentation, participants at the seminar gave their comments and questions, leading into further discussions. The event was chaired by Professor Erin Delaney (UCL Laws).

Watch a video recording of the seminar on UCL Laws’ YouTube channel, or view it directly below.