The Voice Debate as an Ongoing Conversation
10.04.25
How should we interpret the No vote at the Voice referendum? This is an interesting and difficult question. In what follows I offer the perspective of someone who studies referendums. I draw on referendum research to make two main points. First, that referendum results are shaped not only by the issue on the ballot paper but the context in which the vote takes place. Second, that referendums – including the Voice referendum – are best viewed as episodes in ongoing conversations, rather than the final word on an issue.
Thinking about referendum results: Issue + Context
In 2023, 60% of voters voted against the amendment proposal on the ballot paper. Undoubtedly many held strong views about the idea of a constitutional Voice. But research also tells us that the issue being voted on is only one variable when it comes to explaining referendum outcomes. Other influential factors include the positions of the major parties, timing, compulsory voting and question wording.
When we zoom out and look at how referendums tend to operate, we learn that referendums tend to do better when they have bipartisan support, are held on the same day as an election, employ voluntary voting, and the question contains emotive words. On the other hand, referendums tend to do worse when they are opposed by a major party, are held mid-way through a parliamentary term, and have compulsory voting.
What this research tells us is that referendums always take place in a context. There is no such thing as a ‘pure expression of the popular will’ that is delivered in a neutral environment.
What does this mean for how we understand the outcome of the Voice referendum? It helps us understand why the defeat was so comprehensive. From the start, there were three contextual factors likely to act as a ‘drag’ on the Yes vote: lack of bipartisanship, timing, and compulsory voting.
But it also offers a glimmer of hope for Voice supporters. It suggests that a change in context could, perhaps, help deliver a different result if a future referendum were held. For example, making a tweak to referendum timing – holding the referendum on election day – might help narrow the gap between Yes and No.
But really the big question is about bipartisanship. The research tells us that this is the most influential contextual factor. There was not bipartisan support for First Nations structural reform in 2023, but that might change. And if it does, the context surrounding any future referendum would be much more hospitable – and the prospects of referendum success would be higher.
Referendums as an ongoing conversation
Next, I want to say something about how we think and talk about referendums. It potentially helps to explain why Voice supporters have found it difficult to gain traction after the referendum, and why some opponents have sought to interpret the No vote as a rejection of collateral issues such as treaty and truth-telling.
When we think about referendums, we often see them as a place where “the people” get to have their say, and as end-points in debates about constitutional reform. I want to suggest that these ideas are problematic, and are getting in the way of how we think about the Voice result.
First, on this idea of “the people”. After the Voice, you probably heard lots of politicians and journalists make statements along the lines of “the people have spoken”. On the one hand, this is harmless, rhetorical short-hand. But it is also inaccurate, and potentially damaging.
It is inaccurate because it conflates the winning majority with “the people”. The 6.2m people who voted Yes effectively disappear. In doing so, it papers over all the messy diversity and disagreement that sits behind the vote.
And it is potentially damaging because it can silence those on the losing side of a referendum. Attempts to revisit the issue can be rebuffed with the claim that “the people have spoken” and that it is time to move on. The issue that was on the ballot paper is treated as beyond the bounds of contestation. And the losers – by implication – are no longer part of “the people”.
Referendums create winners and losers – there is no getting around that. The Voice referendum was no different. And it is for this reason that it is crucial that winners and losers, after they leave the referendum battlefield, continue to treat each other with mutual respect. The idea that “the people” voted No is a barrier to that.
Second, the idea that referendums are an ‘end-point’ in debates about constitutional reform can also be harmful. Referendums are often thought of as events that bring an end to talking. An issue is put on the agenda, there is a long debate and a campaign, and then we vote to see where people stand. The result is treated as decisive and we move on.
The problem with this is that the losing side may still want to talk. They may not feel that the issue has been resolved satisfactorily. This is especially difficult in Australia. We hold very few referendums. The losers may feel that they have to wait a generation (or longer) to get another chance at reform.
When you think about it, this is very different to ordinary politics. If you lose an election, or a policy debate, you know that you will get another chance soon enough. But if you lose a referendum, it can feel like the end of the road.
You may feel like there is still lots to talk about, but … “the people have spoken”, and the result is seen as the final verdict. This sense that the result is irreversible is both discouraging and disempowering.
A different approach
There is room for us to shift our mindset on referendums, and I think this could help us better navigate the space that has opened up since the Voice vote. We could more aim to see referendums as part of a pluralist and open-ended process of constitutional debate.
Looked at in this way, referendum voting does not tell us what “the people” want, and it does not mean the end of talking. Instead, voting marks the end of one especially intense phase of public deliberation – but, whatever the outcome, the conversation continues. A referendum is an episode in an ongoing process, not an end in itself.
In this way, a referendum is not a traffic light that shines a green light at some and a red light at others. Instead, it is a gate that we all walk through together. On the other side, everything looks a bit different. A proposal for constitutional amendment has either been approved or defeated. And we have learned something about ourselves. But the potential for debate and disagreement continues.
This mindset helps us to better process and interpret the result of the Voice referendum, and what has come afterwards. It cautions us against assuming that Australians are all of one mind on the topic, or that their views are set in stone. It also underscores the importance of keeping debate open, rather than smothering it or shutting it down. And it draws attention to the importance of both the winning majority and the losing minority continuing to respect each other, including by avoiding opportunistic interventions on collateral issues.
But overall, this mindset helps us to better appreciate that the Voice referendum was not the final word on First Nations structural reform. A majority voted No. But the conversation continues.
__
Paul Kildea is an Associate Professor at UNSW Law & Justice and is Director of the Referendums Project at the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law.
