News location:

Monday, October 12, 2026 | Digital Edition | Crossword & Sudoku

No voice, no change: two years on from referendum

Uluru Youth Dialogue co-chair Allira Davis says the voice referendum was a moment of deep sadness. (Darren England/AAP PHOTOS)

By Keira Jenkins

Two years ago Australians rejected an Indigenous voice to parliament, but its key proponents say despite the referendum loss, it started something powerful. 

To Allira Davis, who co-chairs the youth arm of the Uluru Dialogue, which has advocated for voice, treaty and truth-telling processes, the referendum was a moment of deep sadness, coupled with “deep learning”.

“The Referendum campaign didn’t just ask people to vote for constitutional change: it created millions of conversations,” she told AAP.

“People who have never thought about certain parts of Australia’s history, or about how power is distributed, or about who makes decisions for First Nations people, are now having these important conversations.”

Uluru Dialogue co-chairs Pat Anderson and Megan Davis said two years on from the referendum, the status quo remains.

“First Nations people still have no voice, and this manifests in the relentless and unyielding gap in disadvantage,” they said in a statement.

“Many mobs are still struggling with the fundamental building blocks of a dignified human life – housing, water, electricity and violence to name a few.”

Ms Davis said despite the pause in momentum at a national level the referendum had changed the landscape of Indigenous affairs in real ways, and communities across the country have spent the past two years regrouping and refocusing.

Part of this refocus are state-based truth-telling and treaty processes, which she said were critical for the future.

Victoria’s Yoorrook Justice Commission, which recently handed down its findings, is a shining example of what truth-telling can look like when it’s taken seriously, she said.

“It has real powers, real accountability, and it’s paving the way for treaty,” she said.

“South Australia’s Voice is another step forward, creating new pathways for representation and local decision-making.”

But this is not consistent across states and territories, with Queensland abandoning a truth-telling inquiry after a change in state government in 2024.

“These processes must be protected from politics, resourced properly, and allowed to do the deep work of healing and truth,” Ms Davis said.

“They’re not just state projects; they’re part of our national story of reckoning and repair.”

But Ms Davis said the referendum loss didn’t close the door on national reform, with the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart, calling for voice, treaty and truth remaining a guide for the future.

“Even though the Voice didn’t succeed at a national level, the truth-telling and treaty work happening across the states can help rebuild the foundation for future reform,” she said.

“Change in this country takes time — decades in our case — but history tells us it always begins with persistence.”

News all day, every day at CityNews.com.au.

Who can be trusted?

In a world of spin and confusion, there’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in Canberra.

If you trust our work online and want to enforce the power of independent voices, I invite you to make a small contribution.

Every dollar of support is invested back into our journalism to help keep citynews.com.au strong and free.

Become a supporter

Thank you,

Ian Meikle, editor

Australian Associated Press

Australian Associated Press

Share this

One Response to No voice, no change: two years on from referendum

David says: 14 October 2025 at 11:17 am

It’s hard to see where progress has been made or where any truth telling has actually occurred. There’s fundamental Catch-22, on one hand there’s the push to close the gap, i.e. aim to make all people the same. On the other hand we have the concept of some sort of treaty etc which aims to acknowledge that we are different. Hard to make progress when you are asking for seemingly opposite things. Maybe we need either to treat everyone the same, and give everyone the same opportunities, and focus on closing the gap. No treaty or special laws. No one thinks they are any different to anyone else so no “I want to be just like you but you have to treat my differently”. Or, we give people their own land that they can live on it completely devoid of anything that wasn’t established here 300 years ago. Make it illegal for anything less than 300 years old to go near that land and the people on that land are not allowed to leave it to access anything less than 300 years old. That shuts down the “you need to acknowledge everything we’ve given you” argument. People on that land can have their own laws and there is no need to worry about closing the gap. May be much easier to get the majority behind a much simpler and more understandable objective.

To pick an option between the two requires compromise and acknowledgement of what each side really benefits from the other. That’s the real truth telling that is required. Do you really think we are going to make progress focusing on the negatives? Truth telling requires telling all sides of the story, if you only tell one side then it is only a half truth. If you cannot acknowledge what the other side has given you, you are doing your side harm.

Ask yourself why the referendum failed, was it because the majority didn’t like what was presented, or, did they turn away because of what they thought wasn’t presented?

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

*

Related Posts

Follow us on Instagram @canberracitynews