Home  >  The Inquiry  >  What went wrong with Australia’s Indigenous call for a voice?
The Inquiry
What went wrong with Australia’s Indigenous call for a voice?
The Inquiry
Nov 9, 2023

When the Referendum to give Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders greater political rights was first announced, it was well received, with the early polls suggesting that more than sixty percent of Australians supported it.

This was an opportunity for the establishment of an advisory body to Parliament that would allow Indigenous Peoples a voice on the issues affecting their own communities and for them to be recognised in the Australian constitution.

The ‘YES’ campaign said their proposals outlined in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, requested a modest yet profound change, allowing Indigenous Australians to take their ‘rightful place’ in their own country.

Whilst the ‘NO’ campaigners argued that the ‘Voice to Parliament’ would be racially divisive, giving Indigenous Peoples greater rights over other Australians.

In the end Australia voted ‘NO’ to changing the status quo, by an overwhelming majority.

This week on The Inquiry, we’re asking ‘What went wrong with Australia’s Indigenous call for a voice?’

Contributors: John Maynard, Emeritus Professor, Aboriginal History and Research, University of Newcastle, NSW Australia. Tim Soutphommasane, Chief Diversity Officer, Professor of Practice in Human Rights and Political Theory, University of Oxford, UK and a Former Race Discrimination Commissioner for Australia Andrea Carson, Professor of Political Communication, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia Thomas Mayo, Indigenous Rights Advocate, Maritime Union of Australia Official and Author

Presenter: David Baker Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Matt Toulson Technical Producer: Richard Hannaford Production Co-ordinator: Jordan King Editor: Tara McDermott

Image: Voice Referendum in Australia: Credit: Reuters.

Audio for this episode was updated on 20th November 2023.

More Episodes
Jun 23, 2026
Is technology ruining sport?

This year, technology has more influence in officiating sports than ever before.

At the men's World Cup, the role of virtual assistant referee technology (VAR) has been extended to include two more on-pitch scenarios while in tennis, umpires use electric line calling systems (ELC) to make final decisions.

Both bits of kit aim to improve the accuracy. It’s become easier to consider match-defining moments through these tracking and review systems’ specialised cameras. But, this information takes human officials valuable time to analyse.

Football fans criticise VAR for this reason, saying it delays match momentum. Top ranking tennis players Aryna Sabalenka and Alexander Zverev have also complained as these systems are not yet infallible. If technology is as imperfect as a human referee or umpire and can interrupt the fan experience too, why do elite sports rely on it?

We speak to Carlo de Marchis, independent adviser in sports and media technology in Italy; Dr Otto Koblinger, former sports scientist, Munich Technical University, Germany and senior data manager, Saudi Pro League; Professor Odilon Roble, sport philosopher and psychoanalyst, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Brazil and Matt Moore, associate dean, University of Kentucky’s college of social work, US.

Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Evie Yabsley Researcher: Amelia Cox Sound engineer: Nicky Edwards Production co-ordinator: Phoebe Lomas and Liam Morrey Editor: Tom Bigwood

(Photo: VAR check. Credit: Dan Mullan/Getty Images)


23min 04sec



Jun 2, 2026
Is Portugal’s drugs policy in need of reform?

In 2001, Portugal decriminalised the possession and use of all illicit drugs. It was a move designed to mitigate the country’s public health crisis, which at the time meant Portugal had one of the worst rates of overdose deaths in Europe, as well as the highest rate of HIV among drug users. Whilst drugs remained illegal, users did not receive a criminal record but were instead referred to rehabilitation and treatment programmes. It was an approach that proved so successful, that it has remained in place for a quarter of a century.

But just over 10 years after its introduction, Portugal’s drugs policy started to come under strain as the country’s economic crisis and subsequent austerity measures led to budget cuts for drug services. More recently the rising cost of living has diverted people’s attention from investment in this field. On top of this, the trafficking of cocaine and newer substances into the country along with changing demographics is putting decriminalisation under strain.

We are joined by Joana Teixeira, President of the Board of Directors, Institute for Addictive Behaviours and Dependencies (ICAD), Lisbon, Portugal; Luís Mendão, Director General, Grupo de Ativistas em Tratamentos (GAT), Lisbon, Portugal; António Leitão da Silva, Chief of Police, Braga, Portugal and Keith Humphreys, Esther Ting Memorial professor of psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University, California, USA.

Presenter: David Baker Producer: Jill Collins Technical producer: Toby James Editor: Tom Bigwood

(Photo: Discarded syringes and drug paraphernalia. Credit: Andy Buchanan/AFP)


23min 21sec

What went wrong with Australia’s Indigenous call for a voice?

--:--
--:--