Misrecognition and social inequality: Public relations,Indigenous voice,and the failure of Australia’s 2023 referendum

Abstract

Australia is home to the oldest known civilisation on Earth, however, the country’s relationship with its Indigenous population has attracted much criticism, including accusations of human rights violations. On 14 October 2023 Australians voted in a nation-wide referendum about whether to change the Constitution to recognise the country’s First Peoples by establishing a body called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Despite national opinion polls originally indicating widespread support to formally recognise the country’s traditional owners, the referendum did not pass. This paper explores narratives and key frames adopted by both the Yes and the No campaign, providing insights and implications for public advocacy campaigns. It mobilises recognition theory and scholarship on mediated recognition, to consider the role of public relations campaigning via media for social justice and human rights. Ironically, although the Voice sought to formally recognise Australia’s First Peoples – a move that many had argued was long overdue – it was ultimately the voices of Indigenous Australians that were drowned out.

Keywords

Indigenous First Nations Australia misrecognition voice referendum recognition public advocacy promotional communication

Introduction

While Australian public relations research has increasingly addressed diversity in relation to multicultural communities (Sengmany, 2023), the role of public relations in engaging with Indigenous Peoples has received comparatively little attention. A small but important body of work has begun to examine the experiences of Indigenous Australian practitioners and the activist strategies of Indigenous women in professional contexts (Clark et al., 2019, 2021, 2022). In addition, scholars have raised broader questions about public relations’ role in relation to Indigenous Australians and their representation (Fitch, 2020; Johnston et al., 2018; Sakinofsky et al., 2019). However, significant gaps remain, particularly in relation to how public relations may influence public discourse and advocacy surrounding Indigenous rights and justice. This is not unique to Australia but reflects a broader absence of First Nations voices in global public relations scholarship (Dutta and Elers, 2020; Motion et al., 2012).

This paper contributes to addressing this gap by exploring Australia’s failed 2023 Voice to Parliament referendum and the public advocacy campaigns leading up to it. Australia is home to the oldest known civilisation on Earth, with genomic studies revealing that Indigenous Australian’ ancestries stretch back roughly 75,000 years (Jozuka, 2016). However, domestically Australia is frequently referred to as a ‘young country’, implicating a limited recognition of the diverse cultures that have made up this continent prior to – and since - white settlement. Comparative to other nations with a colonial past, such as Canada, New Zealand, and the United States of America, Australia is unique in its lack of constitutional recognition of its First People (Arampatzi, 2019). Reflecting an often interchangeable approach to descriptors relating to traditional owners globally, a number of terms are commonly used to refer to Australia’s Indigenous population, including First Nations people, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, or Indigenous Australians (Australian Government, 2024; Australian Public Service Commission, 2022). For consistency purposes this paper will use the term Indigenous Australians or Indigenous People throughout this paper, which also aligns with the use of language for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

To situate our study, we subsequently draw upon recognition theory (Honneth, 1996, 2002, 2007), paying particular attention to scholarship on mediated recognition (Campanella, 2024; Couldry, 2010; Maia, 2014) to develop insights on practices in public relations and promotional communication. We aim to understand the role of mainstream news media and social media networks in shaping discussions about what these constitutional changes would mean for both Indigenous Australians and Australian society as a whole. A key characteristic of the campaign to recognise Australia’s First People was the desire to enshrine the acknowledgement of Indigenous Australians as the traditional owners of the land in the Constitution, as opposed to merely legislating for a formal body for Indigenous people to provide advice on prospective laws (The Voice). This decision was considered symbolic, reflecting country-wide recognition of Indigenous Australians unique role as traditional guardians of the country, as well as perceived as essential to prevent future governments’ ability to abolish the advisory body. However, in Australia, constitutional change is a challenging prospect, as pursuant to Section 128 of the Constitution, it requires support by the Australian people (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900). For a referendum to be successful, a ‘double majority vote’ must be achieved, which is the majority of voters in a majority of Australian states (at least four of the six states), plus a national majority of voters. Only eight of the previous 44 nation-wide referendums have been successful (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2023a). Indeed, the last successful referendum was held in 1977; with the last eight proposed changes not being carried. The difficulty of achieving popular support means that much campaigning occurs in the lead up to the vote, promoting the various perspectives and aiming to convince the Australian public of a particular lens. In this article, we examine the role of media in facilitating recognition at the wider social level, particularly in the context of digital networks, and the campaigning by those on both sides of the Voice referendum.

Indigenous Rights in Australia

History shows that Indigenous peoples around the world have not equally enjoyed human rights as bestowed on all humans under Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948). Societal shifts have increased debate about the lack of recognition of Australia’s First Peoples. Internationally, Australia has been publicly criticised for failing to protect Indigenous Peoples’ basic human rights, including their right to enjoy culture and family life free from arbitrary interferences (United Nations Association of Australia, 2017; United Nations Human Rights Committee, 2022). There have been increased discussions regarding inequities experienced by Australian Indigenous communities, in particular in relation to health, education and life expectancy outlooks (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2024). However, over recent years there have also been efforts by the federal government to address inequalities, such as through the Closing the Gap (n.d) Partnership Agreement between government and Indigenous peak representative organisations, with mixed success.

The inclusion of Indigenous Australians in the Constitution was first introduced by then Labor Party leader Julia Gillard in 2010 (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2023b). While space is limited for an in-depth account of the Recognise campaign, it is important to mention as a precursor to the Voice campaign discussed in this article. The Recognise campaign ran from 2012 to 2017 and was established following the recommendations of a government appointed expert panel with the aim of raising public awareness and education on constitutional change and Indigenous recognition. Despite being a multi-million-dollar campaign with over 180 supporting organisational partners, the campaign drew criticisms for campaigning prior to consulting with Indigenous people (Brennan, 2017). McCallum et al. (2016) found that while social media and the growing Indigenous media sphere in Australia made Indigenous voices more accessible than ever before, they questioned the longer-term potential impacts of this. Indeed, they draw on Couldry (2012) and Dencik and Leistert (2015) in observing that digital media transformations can be mobilised by all political actors – including both established political elites and racist movements – to enhance their opportunities to amplify their voices.

The subsequently released Uluru Statement from the Heart (2017) is an invitation from Indigenous Australians to non-Indigenous Australians, calling for substantive reform to help realise Indigenous rights through the establishment of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament and the so-called Makarrata Commission, which was envisaged to facilitate treaty-making and truth-telling between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. These developments have emerged in a communications landscape that remains one of “intensive digital disruption”, one which Waller and McCallum (2018) argue has impacted upon the ability for activists and spokespeople to build consensus narratives and a unified stance regarding Indigenous rights and recognition in Australia.

Australia’s most successful referendum was held in 1967, passing with an overwhelming majority of 90.77% of the population voting to support Indigenous Australian’s recognition as part of the nation. These amendments enabled Indigenous peoples to be counted as part of the Australian population, but consequently also enabled the Commonwealth to make laws for Indigenous Australians. Notably, full voting rights for Indigenous Australians were not realised federally until 1984 (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, 2023). The success of the 1960s campaign should be understood in the context of the changing media landscape and the beginning of a global cultural shift regarding civil rights. This period saw the internationalisation of debates about Indigenous recognition, with the media performing a key role in drawing attention to Australia’s reputation concerning its treatment of Indigenous people (Clark, 2008). Although this referendum was the most successful, the failure at the most recent referendum highlights the challenging nature of public relations and promotional campaigns to further the human rights of socially and economically disadvantaged populations. Here, we acknowledge Bourne and Edwards’ (2021) call for the use of social theory in public relations research as a means of understanding the impacts upon voice and diversity in the context of campaigning which occurs in a digitally networked media landscape, as well as Edwards and Ihlen’s (2023) recent calls to utilise social theories in public relations research such as Castells (2000) ‘Network Society’. While this is beyond the scope of this paper, it points to the importance of understanding public relations campaigning in terms of social media network logics which we unpack below.

This study critically examines trends in media coverage and mediated communication in the lead up to the 2023 referendum, in which the Australian population voted as to whether the Constitution should be amended to enable recognition of its First People through the establishment of a formal advisory body to parliament, The Voice. These changes to the Australian Constitution would have enabled a significant leap in social justice by realising Articles 18 and 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) through participation and representation, as well as consultation with government. It is noteworthy that Australia was originally one of only four countries that voted against the adoption of UNDRIP in 2007. It has since formally endorsed UNDRIP in 2009 (Parliament of Australia, 2023), however, no moves have been made to incorporate or implement UNDRIP into domestic law.

Media and recognition

Conceptually, this study is informed by work on media and recognition (Maia, 2014), and the relationship between the media and marginalised groups in their struggles for acknowledgement and social justice. Here, we are concerned with the circulation of information - including mis- and disinformation - by diverse groups and how various social actors contributed to the discourse around what The Voice would mean and how it might, or might not, best represent the interests of Indigenous Australians.

A number of studies have looked to processes of recognition in media environments (see e.g. Cottle, 2007; Couldry, 2010, 2012; Lorenzana, 2016; Maia, 2014; Muscat, 2019), as well as social media and processes of datafication in relation to recognition processes (Campanella, 2024). In these studies, the media are understood in terms of their power and the ways in which they can promote certain discourses and representations, as well as misrepresentations, of marginalised groups. Here, the role of the media in relation to recognition, operates in terms of the social, rather than the legal or affective dimensions (see Campanella, 2024; but also, Honneth, 1995). Central to the process of recognition is the ability to exercise one’s voice, and media plays a crucial role in this. It circulates not only voices that align with neoliberal values, but also has the potential to amplify marginalised voices, allowing those in positions of power to hear (see e.g. Couldry, 2008, 2010; Dreher, 2009, 2012). As such, media perform a crucial role in the struggles for recognition by marginalized or minority groups by facilitating social visibility, enabling a plurality of voices, and providing positive representation. This has the potential to challenge broader social exclusion. In his work on social media, Campanella (2024) builds on earlier research on mediated recognition to highlight the importance of the economic logics of social media platforms. He emphasises how these logics influence not only visibility but also how individuals shape their own representation to be seen on these platforms. While social media spaces can facilitate connections among diverse voice and enable marginalised groups to challenge dominant narratives, the platforms themselves still shape the social landscape. Their algorithms tend to prioritise certain perspectives and voices over others (Campanella, 2024). Our work builds on the focus on social media to explore mediated recognition, with particular attention to the often underexplored aspect of misrecognition.

While media and communication studies have long explored themes of recognition and misrecognition, the field of public relations has only recently begun to meaningfully engage with Indigenous perspectives. A growing body of research, led by Clark and colleagues, has provided insight into the lived experiences of Indigenous Australian public relations practitioners and communicators, illustrating how cultural identity, resistance, and advocacy are negotiated within professional settings (Clark et al., 2019, 2021, 2022). Their work highlights the ways Indigenous practitioners navigate mainstream communication structures while drawing on cultural knowledge and activist strategies. Other scholars have extended this conversation by critically examining how public relations contributes to the representation - and often misrepresentation - of Indigenous peoples. Fitch (2020), for example, proposes an alternative vision of public relations grounded in reconciliation, calling for practitioners to reflect on race, power, and historical injustice. Similarly, Johnston et al. (2018) highlight tensions between the interests of Indigenous communities and dominant narratives of the public good, pointing to persistent gaps in political and media representation. These concerns are echoed in Peterson’s (2016) study of Aboriginal community-controlled organisations (ACCOs), which shows that while public relations is often practiced informally and with limited resources, it plays a vital role in community empowerment and social change. Sakinofsky et al. (2019) also draw attention to structural inequalities in media and public relations practice, using a mining case study to explore how First Nations voices are frequently sidelined in public discourse. Collectively, these works reveal how public relations can serve either to reinforce dominant power structures or to amplify Indigenous perspectives, depending on how it is conceptualised and practiced. Despite these advances, research critically examining how public relations influences Indigenous rights discourse - whether through internal professional cultures or the development of advocacy campaigns - remains limited. Globally, public relations scholarship continues to marginalise Indigenous voices, with a few notable exceptions such as Motion et al. (2012) and Dutta and Elers (2020), who advocate for culture-centred and decolonialised approaches that prioritise Indigenous agency. These contributions emphasise the need for more inclusive and critically reflexive public relations scholarship that not only listens to but is shaped by Indigenous perspectives.

In addition to voice, listening has increasingly been recognized as an essential component of communication across political, media, and organizational contexts, including in public relations scholarship (Couldry, 2009, 2010; Dreher, 2010; Macnamara, 2013, 2016a, 2016b, 2018, 2019). Macnamara’s interdisciplinary body of work moves listening from an implicit ideal to a theorized and empirically grounded organizational practice. He defines organizational listening as an active, ethical, and structured process that involves recognizing and giving consideration to the rights and views of others. Among the seven core elements of effective listening, he includes “recognition of others as people or groups with legitimate rights to speak” and “consideration of what others say” (Macnamara, 2016a: 151, see also 2016b, 2018, 2019). Despite normative claims about dialogue and engagement, he argues that public relations remains one of the least developed and least practiced fields in terms of listening (2018, 2016a). Drawing on empirical research across government, corporate, and NGO sectors, he demonstrates that more than 80% of communication resources are typically allocated to speaking rather than listening (Macnamara, 2018, 2019). He furthermore critiques the rhetorical use of ‘voice’ in contemporary communication, noting that opportunities to speak often lack accompanying processes for meaningful listening, thereby limiting recognition and reinforcing communicative inequality (Macnamara, 2019). In digital and algorithmically mediated environments, where platform logics shape whose voices are heard or amplified, this tension between voice, listening, and recognition becomes even more pronounced. Edwards (2018) adds to this conversation by exploring how public relations can support recognition through the strategic amplification of marginalized voices, such as in the UK-based YouthVoice initiative, where both traditional and social media enabled visibility and local-level engagement (2018: 329).

Recognition connects to value, and is understood as a moral, as well as social and political act. As Honneth highlights, “acts of recognition are oriented not towards one’s own aims but rather towards the evaluative qualities of others” (Honneth, 2002: 513). He further argues that “to recognise someone is to perceive in his or her person a value quality that motivates us intrinsically to no longer behave egocentrically, but rather in accordance with the intentions, desires and needs of that person” (Honneth, 2007: 337). The focus of this paper is on recognition, and more importantly acts of misrecognition, and how these may play out via social and traditional media. Mediated misrecognition then has the potential to be harmful, in the ways in which it is evaluative and denies the value of the other person, their needs, perspectives, or desires. Here, the work of Maia (2014) is useful in providing a framework for understanding misrecognition in a media context. In a comprehensive overview of media studies, Maia (2014: 30) emphasises the significance of examining media representation in relation to recognition research. She underscores that media representation can shape individual perspectives and provide mental frameworks for understanding individuals and groups. As our analysis illustrates, the use of certain frames and the emphasis on certain voices in both social and mainstream media function as a form of misrecognition, which we will unpack further below. Indeed, Lamont et al. (2016) argue that misrecognition at any level ‘operates as a form of violation of human rights, as it denies the individual the opportunity for appropriate self-confidence and self-respect’ (as cited in Wells and Friedland, 2023: 685).

Conceptualising misrecognition or misrepresentation in the media environment involves examining how it manifests through invisibility, stereotyping, and exclusion (Maia, 2014: 34). We will outline these concepts before discussing how they are amplified in the context of social media. First, invisibility is important in terms of the absence of representation of certain groups and issues, as highlighted by Maia (2014). This lack of representation can render individuals insignificant compared to other pressing issues. Yet, as Honneth and Margalit (2001) highlight, lack of recognition and this type of figurative invisibility, is dependent on the initial condition of being visible. In outlining the aspect of stereotyping, Maia (2014) draws on the work of Hall (1997) to demonstrate that misrecognition via media can operate through oversimplified characteristics. Misrecognition can also occur in the media through ‘selective exclusion’, where differences are ignored or omitted, leading to the representation of individuals as generic identities that often carry problematic connotations (e.g. such as the focus on ethnic crime in news).

Our analysis focusses on visibility, exploring who gets to speak and how, and well as whose voices are used to represent the interests of Indigenous Australians in relation to The Voice referendum. We examine how certain voices are used to speak on behalf of Indigenous communities, how these are co-opted into broader social and political issues, and how individuals speaking for others can neutralise the diverse range of perspectives surrounding The Voice Referendum. Framing, as outlined below, can be useful in understanding the selection of certain aspects of a perceived reality which are then made more prominent in a text, which works to emphasise a certain way of understanding a problem, morally evaluating it, or how it might be interpreted (Entman, 1993). As noted above, while social media spaces and online spaces open up spaces for a plurality of voices to contribute to the information, and also to shift the ways in which they have previously been represented, the logics around how mainstream news media is structured and social media platforms operate mean that platforms have the capacity to frame the social (by this the ways in which certain narratives receive more engagement and visibility). While there may be a plurality of perspectives, these are not all equally engaged with. Certain voices and ways of discussing issues fit with the logics of social media platforms and the broader social contexts in which they are received. In the analysis that follows, we consider the outcome where the vote did not represent regional Indigenous communities and their overwhelming support for The Voice (Beaumont, 2023a; Charles and Knowles, 2023) and consider what this means in terms of the picture mirrored back to Indigenous communities.

Research questions and method

The focus of this study is on the time between the announcement of the referendum in March 2023 and the actual referendum in October 2023. While a considerable amount of media coverage emerged during this period, the aim of this paper is not to provide a structural overview of all media coverage and social media commentary. Instead, we focus on the overall themes and patterns that emerged across this period, to provide key insights that inform this case study. This paper addresses the question of how – and to what extent - Indigenous Australians are given a voice in the media. What are the various commentaries circulated regarding rights, recognition, and social justice in relation to The Voice referendum?

Drawing on social-constructivist analysis and framing theory, this study investigates public discourse surrounding the 2023 referendum. Insights are based on domestic and international media coverage between 23 March 2023, when the referendum was formally announced, and 21 October 2023, which falls a week after the referendum result. The aim was to capture domestic, mediated agenda setting, whilst positioning the significance and impact of this referendum in a global context. This is supplemented by ethnographic observations, captured via social listening using the Talkwalker platform, as well as ongoing reflexivity (Buscatto, 2021) and topic-based discussions between the researchers throughout the period under investigation. Search terms were used to refine the data collection both in terms of the social listening via Talkwalker and the same search terms were also used to look to news content via the ProQuest database during this period which were: (“Voice to Parliament”) OR (“The Voice” AND “referendum”) OR (“Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice”) OR (“First Nations Voice”) OR (“The Voice” AND “First peoples”) OR (“The Voice” AND “Indigenous”), which resulted in 14,964 news articles. Texts were collected, coded first based on headlines, followed by selective full text, and the researchers analysed these inductively to conduct a thematic analysis of the texts.

Framing involves “selecting some aspects of a perceived reality and make[ing] them more salient in a communications text” (Entman, 1993: 52). Frames intentionally highlight specific perspectives of an issue, problem or concept, thus making them more memorable or meaningful for the audience, while simultaneously downplaying alternative or opposing perspectives (Entman, 1993). In this case, frames employed by both the Yes and No campaign are of particular interest. Framing has been well researched within the news media and public relations contexts, as frames perform a crucial role in influencing public opinion and individual behaviour (e.g., Dan et al., 2020; Hallahan, 2011). In the context of this study, framing theory provides an understanding of how the Voice to Parliament was positioned by different promotional actors and how these frames ultimately influenced the outcomes of the referendum. Within this context, the researchers acknowledge their positionality as non-Indigenous scholars, recognising that their framing of the research is shaped by their own perspectives and backgrounds, which may differ from the ways Indigenous researchers would approach or interpret the same issues.

This study is of significance given the referendum results which saw an overwhelming rejection of the proposed amendments to the Constitution, despite early polls indicating between 70 and 75% of the Australian population supporting the proposal and opposition at between 14 and 32% (Markham and Sanders, 2020). The national result to reject the Constitutional amendment contrasts voting patterns in Indigenous communities that largely voted in favour (Beaumont, 2023b; Charles and Knowles, 2023). In our findings below, this paper will provide reflections on the mediated debates surrounding Australia’s positioning on human rights, how Indigenous recognition - or lack thereof - has been understood, and what this means for Australia’s (global) reputation going forward.

Findings

Announcement of the referendum (February – May)

A critical analysis of mainstream and social media coverage of the Voice Referendum reveals four distinct periods marked by spikes in media activity, each corresponding to shifts in framing and promotional strategies. The first period, following the ‘soft launch’ of the referendum, was characterised by the introduction of the various campaign groups and the provision of initial information about the Voice. During this stage, several prominent groups merged campaigning for the Yes vote, including The Uluru Dialogue, the cultural authority of the Uluru Statement from the Heart (ANTAR), Uphold and Recognise, a not-for profit organisation committed to recognising Indigenous Australians and upholding the Australian Constitution, Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition (AICR), and Parliamentary friends of the Uluru Statement, a non-partisan forum, which was however co-chaired by two Labor and one independent politicians (Allam and Butler, 2023).

At this point, the opposition had yet to formally adopt a unified position on the referendum, although the party’s rhetoric became increasingly adversarial as the campaign progressed. This escalation was driven by key figures in the opposing groups. The No campaign, which opposed the Voice to Parliament and the creation of an Indigenous advisory body, was supported by Recognise a Better Way, led by Indigenous businessman Warren Mundine, and Advance Australia, an initiative backed by the opposition’s Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. Public support also came from former Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Another prominent No campaign group was the Blak Sovereignty Movement, led by Indigenous Australian independent politician Lidia Thorpe (Allam and Butler, 2023). Media coverage during this period mainly concentrated on procedural details, such as how the referendum process worked, given that this was many Australians’ first experience with potential constitutional change since the 1999 referendum on becoming a republic (Silva, 2023).

A pivotal moment for the No campaign occurred in early May when Fair Australia and Recognise a Better Way merged under the banner of Australians for Unity, led by Mundine and Price. This consolidation reinforced the opposition’s messaging, framing Australians for Unity as a voice not only for Indigenous Australians, but also for migrant communities opposing the Voice (Morse and Bourchier, 2023). Notably, both the Yes and No campaigns claimed to represent the interests of Indigenous Australians during this phase.

Ironically, despite opposing the Voice to Parliament, the No campaign extensively utilised Indigenous representation through its leadership and the co-opting of Indigenous voices from across the country. While mis- and disinformation occurred throughout the entire campaign, factually incorrect information was supplied by the No campaign even during these early stages. For example, Millwarparra man Stewart Lingiari was falsely identified as a grandson of the prominent Indigenous land rights activist Vincent Lingiari in anti-Voice materials (Morse, 2023).

Despite the appearance of unity under the No campaign, the movement was ideologically diverse. Australians for Unity argued that no group of Australians should have preferential access to political decision-making, essentially denying the lasting impacts of colonization. In contrast, the Blak Sovereignty Movement criticized the Voice as symbolic and insufficient, contending that it would fail to provide real political power to Indigenous Australians. While Australians for Unity was closely aligned with the centre-right Liberal Party, Blak Sovereignty Movement leader Lidia Thorpe, originally elected as a representative of the Australian Greens, offered a more radical critique of the aims of the Voice.

During this early phase, prominent Indigenous leader Ken Wyatt, former Minister for Indigenous Australians and a significant figure within the Liberal Party, resigned in protest against his party’s growing opposition to the Voice. Wyatt urged his colleagues “not to be afraid” of the proposal and emphasized the need for grassroots engagement to clarify the Voice’s purpose and importance (Bourchier and Tong, 2023; Elton and Ferguson, 2023). This moment underscored the diversity of opinions within Indigenous and political communities and added a layer of complexity to the referendum debate.

Passing of legislation for the referendum (June – August)

The passing of legislation on 16 June to formalise the Voice referendum marked a significant turning point, leading to the first peak in media coverage and heightened social media activity. This formalisation signalled the intensification of the campaign, as public discourse shifted to focus more directly on the referendum’s implications. Recognising a potential decline in public support, several of Australia’s largest companies publicly endorsed the Indigenous Voice (Kayne et al., 2023). Notably, no corporate entities publicly supported the No vote throughout the entire campaign, which may suggest that opposing greater recognition of Indigenous Australians was perceived to be risky. As the referendum gained momentum, much of the media coverage focused on explaining the core issues, including the significance of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the complex process of passing a constitutional referendum (Lowrey, 2023).

The No campaign effectively capitalised on the public’s lack of familiarity with both the referendum process and the details of the Uluru Statement, framing its messaging around the potential dangers of constitutional change. However, the No campaign did not present a unified front. Instead, it deployed a range of social media strategies that appealed to different segments of the Australian population. These strategies often conveyed contradictory messages, tailored to target specific demographic groups (Butler and Evershed, 2023). For example, one line of progressive framing argued that the initiative was overly bureaucratic and would result in minimal actual change, branding the Voice as “Not Enough.” In contrast, conservative framing portrayed the Voice as radical and dangerous, suggesting that it would grant special privileges to a minority, thereby undermining democratic values. A third framing strategy, likely designed to sway undecided voters, presented itself as a more neutral news source, but subtly promoted the No vote (Butler and Evershed, 2023).

During this period, the No campaign also employed messaging specifically targeted at Indigenous Australians, highlighting concerns about the lack of comprehensive representation. Critics argued that the proposed advisory body would represent only a small group of Indigenous nominees rather than reflect the diverse perspectives of the entire Indigenous population. In May, Indigenous businessman Warren Mundine launched the social media campaign #NotMyVoice, asserting that the referendum would result in division and reduce the diversity of Indigenous representation by condensing 300 Indigenous Australian tribes into just 25 representatives (Wilson, 2023).

In contrast, the Yes campaign maintained a more streamlined message, emphasising that a Yes vote would be a morally right step toward recognising Australia’s First Peoples. However, the campaign struggled to gain traction, especially in these early stages. While the Yes campaign relied on fact-based and informational messaging to explain the objectives and potential benefits of the Voice, this approach was not as compelling and memorable as the emotion-laden claims circulated by the opposition. Furthermore, the Yes campaign’s broad appeal to unify all Australians overlooked deeper societal issues, including existing health and education disparities. Often referred to as the land of the ‘fair-go’, Australians like to perpetuate the idea of an egalitarian society; a simplistic representation, which fails to acknowledge social and political disempowerment, as well as lived experiences.

The Yes campaign’s challenges were exacerbated by its need to constantly refute new misinformation from the No campaign. False claims circulated that the Voice would empower Indigenous Australians to reclaim privately owned land (Mayo, 2023), create a third chamber of parliament, and enable the enforcement of international treaties that would ultimately divide the nation (Remeikis and Butler, 2023). As the Yes campaign became increasingly reactive, focusing on dispelling these myths, it lost the opportunity to frame a more proactive and cohesive narrative, allowing the opposition’s emotionally charged messaging to dominate public discourse.

Announcement of referendum date (23 August – October)

On 23 August the date of the referendum was finally revealed, leaving a 45-day period for both the Yes and the No Campaign to convince the Australian public of the merits of their respective frames of The Voice proposal. During these final weeks the No campaign significantly intensified its use of mis- and disinformation, further increasing confusion and fear among certain segments of the Australian public. Notable claims from the No side included assertions that supporters of the Uluru Statement were advocating for “their own military” and that the Voice would lead to the transfer of native title lands to the United Nations (Canales and Butler, 2023). These militarised frames, particularly promoted by Warren Mundine, compared the Uluru Statement to a symbolic call to arms against modern Australia (Cross, 2023). Furthermore, the No campaign denied the existence of structural disadvantages facing Indigenous communities, despite factual evidence to the contrary. For example, while Mundine claimed that discussions about Indigenous disadvantage were fabrications, ABC RMIT Fact Check revealed that Indigenous Australian men are more likely to be incarcerated than to attend university (Roberts, 2023).

Mundine’s narrative also suggested that the Voice would entrench segregation (Mundine, 2023), framing the No vote as a way to protect Australia from division. This message emphasised the dangers of creating racial divides, urging the public to reject the Voice in favour of national unity (Brennan, 2023), which would ultimately disadvantage some segments of society. The No campaign’s social media messaging focused on slogans like “we are one mob” and “we are ALL Australians,” positioning a No vote as a reaffirmation of inclusive Australian values (Not My Voice, 2024a). By incorporating the voices of First Nations spokespeople, the No campaign contextualised its messaging, allowing it to resonate more deeply with grassroots audiences (Not My Voice, 2024a; 2024b). Carson et al. (2024) found that the No campaign was more effective at leveraging personal narratives from everyday Indigenous Australians, while the Yes campaign focused more on elite figures and national leaders, such as Federal politicians.

This emotional appeal to unity and Australian values was further supported by opposition leader Peter Dutton, who suggested that a future referendum could be held if the Voice failed (Morse and Worthington, 2023), thereby sowing doubt and contributing to the No campaign’s momentum. This notion, regardless of its plausibility, fostered an atmosphere of uncertainty and ultimately diminished the sense of urgency to pass the existing referendum.

During this period, facts became casualties of the campaign, as the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) did not engage in fact-checking. The AEC prioritised its responsibility for process management over ensuring the accuracy of information provided by both the Yes and No campaign to the public (RMIT ABC Fact Check, 2023). This allowed misleading claims to circulate – and make their way into effectively every single Australian household via means of the official referendum pamphlet - without official challenge, contributing to the confusion surrounding the referendum.

One of the most effective slogans to emerge from the No campaign during this final stage was “If you don’t know, vote no,” which gained traction among undecided voters. This slogan, with its simple, folksy alliteration, resonated deeply with a public already anxious about the potential consequences of the referendum. The slogan was not designed to inform or clarify, but to exploit the uncertainties of the Australian public, transforming existing anxieties into a rallying cry for the No vote (Manns, 2023). This emotional appeal proved particularly effective among vulnerable groups, highlighting the powerful role of fear and uncertainty in shaping public opinion during the referendum.

Referendum result and aftermath (14 October)

While the lead up to the referendum focused on the elaboration of the various positions, coverage on the referendum focused on providing results. During this period there was greater international coverage of the referendum, which highlighted what this meant for Australia as a whole in the context of its past with Indigenous Peoples (Menon et al., 2023; Miller, 2023; Turnbull, 2023) focusing on historical injustice. Domestically, the framing was focused on the implications from a political standpoint focusing on responses from key individuals from the sides of the campaign (YES23 campaign director Dean Parkin, Linda Burney, Thomas Mayo Warren Mundine), prominent academics (Prof. Marcia Langton and Prof. Megan Davis), as well as the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and opposition leader Peter Dutton (Butler, 2023). Shortly after the election outcome, it was also revealed that Indigenous communities had overwhelmingly voted yes in the referendum and this also included the community where the prominent No campaigner Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s family came from (Beazley, 2023). Following the No victory, there was some absence of Indigenous voices and commentaries in media with Indigenous leaders who had campaigned for the Voice to Parliament calling for a “week of silence” and mourning (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 2023). Well before the referendum vote, Noel Pearson had indicated as early as February 2023 that he would “fall silent” should the referendum fail (Elton, 2023). This also made international news, with coverage emphasising the divisive nature of the referendum while, in some instances, highlighting the mental health impacts that the No outcome on Indigenous Australians (Rowlands, 2023). After this period, Indigenous leaders came out to speak to the no outcome and how it worked to reinforce “deep- seated racism” and repeat mistakes of the past (Bannister, 2023). During this period, coverage also sought to understand the perspectives of everyday voters, giving voice to ordinary Australians and explaining their voting choices. One example is Mareeba, where more than 85% of residents voted against the Voice (Dansie and Byrne, 2023). While the No campaign drove messaging around how a Voice to Parliament could be divisive and racist, during the aftermath Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner June Oscar gave accounts that the no outcome and the no campaign had further fuelled intolerance, with accounts of Indigenous schoolchildren being targeted and facing increasing instances of racism post-referendum (National Indigenous Television, 2023). Overall, the days, weeks, even months following the Voice referendum were marked by silence, as Indigenous Australians retreated to reflect on the results. Ironically, the voices that the referendum sought to empower were effectively silenced – at least for the time being.

Discussion and implications

The failure of the Voice to Parliament referendum in Australia highlights the complex interplay between recognition, misrecognition, and the silencing of marginalised voices. While the Voice was intended to provide a formal platform for Indigenous Australians, the broader societal response illustrates deep-seated tensions around identity, power, and fairness within a multicultural nation. Drawing on Honneth’s theory of recognition (1996, 2002, 2007) and mediated recognition by Maia (2014), we argue that misrecognition occurred not simply through exclusion, but through selective visibility, where certain voices dominated discourse while others were marginalised or rendered invisible.

The No campaign proved more effective in tapping into existing public concerns, in part through emotional and populist framing that aligned with broader media and political logics. Framing theory helps explain how both conservative and radical Indigenous perspectives were strategically highlighted to give the impression of widespread dissent. Figures such as Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Warren Mundine portrayed the Voice as divisive and undemocratic, resonating with mainstream concerns about national unity and fairness. Simultaneously, critiques from the Blak Sovereignty Movement, including Lidia Thorpe, framed the Voice as symbolic and insufficient. Though ideologically distinct, these voices were unified in opposition and leveraged by media outlets to construct a narrative of Indigenous disagreement. Social media platforms were key sites for critique and Indigenous resistance to the Recognise campaign (McCallum et al., 2016) called for genuine consultation. Yet, ten years on, the opportunities for diverse voice and long-term political transformation remain uncertain. This selective amplification created the appearance of grassroots legitimacy for the No campaign and shaped public understanding of what the Voice represented.

Such dynamics demonstrate how media structures - particularly social media platforms - privilege emotionally resonant and polarising content. As Campanella (2024) highlights, visibility in digital spaces is shaped not by deliberative value but by engagement metrics and algorithmic incentives. In this environment, the Yes campaign’s reliance on rational, information-based appeals struggled to gain traction. Moreover, by relying on and showcasing elite figures who were highly polished spokespeople, the campaign overlooked everyday Indigenous voices and grassroots experiences. This misalignment reflects what Honneth and Margalit (2001) describe as a form of misrecognition: those who are nominally visible, but effectively unheard.

The implications of this case extend beyond campaign strategy. The referendum outcome emphasises the limitations of symbolic inclusion in the face of communicative inequality. It also reveals how media logics can reinforce dominant ideologies by elevating dissenting voices that fit prevailing political narratives, while sidelining those that reflect the diversity of Indigenous communities. These findings raise significant questions for public relations practice, particularly concerning voice, legitimacy, and representation.

This article contributes to public relations scholarship by applying recognition theory to the analysis of advocacy campaigns, showing how communicative structures influence who is seen, heard, and legitimised. It also advances Indigenous public relations scholarship by examining the representational politics of Indigenous visibility, that is not only who speaks, but how, where, and on what terms. The differential amplification of Indigenous perspectives in this campaign highlights the need for approaches that support representational justice, centre Indigenous agency, and ensure that Indigenous voices are not merely used to serve broader political agendas.

Finally, the referendum’s outcome has broader social and political implications. Although a majority of Australians support Indigenous Australians having a say in decisions that affect them, fears about division and fairness ultimately prevailed. The paradox of public sentiment - supportive in principle but resistant in practice (If you don’t know, vote no) - demonstrates the enduring power of political framing and media logic in shaping outcomes. In a media landscape still dominated by concentrated ownership and lacking structural diversity, space for nuanced or community-driven narratives remains limited.

One year on, Indigenous communities continue to process the implications of the vote. Yet, as Honneth, 2003, 2011 argues, misrecognition can be a catalyst for renewed struggle. The emotional and political responses following the referendum may still lay the groundwork for future efforts toward recognition, justice, and meaningful inclusion. In this context, there is a growing imperative for public relations and communication research to foreground marginalised communities - particularly traditionally underrepresented Indigenous peoples - and engage critically with the conditions that shape their presence or absence in national debates.

Conclusion

This article has critically examined the failure of Australia’s Voice to Parliament referendum through the lens of recognition and misrecognition, drawing on the work of Honneth (1995, 1996, 2002, 2007) and Maia (2014), to understand how mediated visibility and selective amplification shaped the national debate. The referendum, intended to enshrine Indigenous representation into the Constitution, instead revealed how populist rhetoric and emotionally charged framings can dominate public discourse and marginalise the very voices a campaign seeks to elevate. The failure of the Yes campaign silenced the very voices it sought to empower. The loss has been followed by a period of mourning and uncertainty about the way forward.

We have illustrated that the No campaign’s success was not merely the product of stronger political messaging, but instead deeply rooted in its strategic deployment of both conservative and radical Indigenous perspectives. These dissenting voices, while ideologically diverse, were selectively framed by media to present a picture of broad Indigenous opposition, thereby neutralising support for the Yes campaign. This reflects the uneven dynamics of recognition in a media landscape shaped by algorithmic amplification and platform incentives, conditions under which emotional appeal often outperforms rational discourse.

The article offers a significant contribution to public relations scholarship by advancing the application of recognition theory to the analysis of advocacy and communication campaigns. It highlights how misrecognition is not only an outcome of exclusion but can also emerge from the selective visibility of certain voices at the expense of others. Moreover, it emphasises the importance of engaging with Indigenous public relations as a distinct and under-theorised field. The marginalisation of grassroots Indigenous perspectives within the Yes campaign illustrates the need for communication strategies that are not only inclusive, but genuinely representative and responsive to the diversity within Indigenous communities.

This case study reinforces the need for public relations practice to be more critically attuned to power, voice, and visibility. As Australia reflects on the outcome of the referendum, there is an urgent call for both scholarship and advocacy that centre Indigenous agency and recognise the structural conditions that enable or constrain participation. Only through such reflection can the field move toward more just and equitable forms of communication, and ultimately toward a society in which recognition is not symbolic, but substantive.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Tanya Muscat

Katharina Wolf

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available.*

Author biographies

Tanya Muscat is a Lecturer in the School of Management and Marketing at Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia. She has over ten years of experience in communication research and teaching, and has published work in both public relations and journalism. Her research interests are focused on communication and cultural diversity, public relations and social inequality, as well as government communication.

Katharina Wolf is an Associate Professor in the School of Management and Marketing at Curtin University in Perth, Western Australia, and Lead of the Faculty of Business and Law’s public relations program. Katharina draws on three decades of communication and media experience, as an educator and industry professional. Her industry experience encompasses communication and research roles in Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom and Australia. Her research interests include activism, (community) advocacy, civic engagement and public interest communication.

References

Allam

Butler

(2023) Voice referendum: who’s behind the yes and no campaigns and how do they plan to convince Australia? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/20/voice-referendum-whos-behind-the-yes-and-no-campaigns-and-how-do-they-plan-to-convince-australia

Arampatzi

(2019) Linda Burney says Australia is the only first world nation with a colonial history that doesn't recognise its first people in its constitution. Is she correct? ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-10/fact-check3a-is-australia-the-only-first-world-nation-with-a-c/11583706

Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2023) Voice to Parliament referendum Yes campaigners call for week of silence after defeat. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-14/yes-campaigners-call-for-week-of-silence-after-voice-defeat/102977864v

Australian Government (2024) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples Australian government style manual. https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/accessible-and-inclusive-content/inclusive-language/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples (accessed 20 September 2024).

Australian Human Rights Commission (2023a) Referendums and constitutional change. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-social-justice/referendums-and-constitutional-change#:∼:text=Have-we-ever-had-a,of-these-have-been-successful (accessed 20 June 2024).

Australian Human Rights Commission (2023b) About constitutional recognition. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-social-justice/about-constitutional-recognition (accessed 20 June 2024).

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (2023) The 1967 referendum. https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/1967-referendum (accessed 20 June 2024).

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2024) Health and wellbeing of first nations people. Retrieved 16 October from. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-health/indigenous-health-and-wellbeing (accessed 20 June 2024).

Australian Public Service Commission (2022) First nations vocabulary – using culturally appropriate language and terminology. https://www.apsc.gov.au/working-aps/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-inclusion-news/first-nations-vocabulary-using-culturally-appropriate-language-and-terminology (accessed 20 September 2024).

10.

Bannister

(2023) Indigenous leaders break silence after voice defeat. The Canberra Times. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8394966/indigenous-leaders-break-silence-after-voice-defeat/

11.

Beaumont

(2023a) Indigenous Australians supported voice referendum by large margins; Labor retains large Newspoll lead. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/indigenous-australians-supported-voice-referendum-by-large-margins-labor-retains-large-newspoll-lead-215663

12.

Beaumont

(2023b) While the Voice has a large poll lead now, history of past referendums indicates it may struggle. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/while-the-voice-has-a-large-poll-lead-now-history-of-past-referendums-indicates-it-may-struggle-204365

13.

Beazley

(2023) Indigenous communities overwhelmingly voted yes to Australia’s voice to parliament. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/15/indigenous-communities-overwhelmingly-voted-yes-to-australias-voice-to-parliament

14.

Bourchier

Tong

(2023) Ken Wyatt calls on Peter Dutton to give liberals a conscience vote on the voice to parliament. ABC News. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-01/key-figures-from-voice-yes-and-no-campaigns-explain-positions/102040218.

15.

Bourne

Edwards

(2021) Critical reflections on the field. In: Valentini

(ed) Handbook of Public Relations. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 601–614.

16.

Brennan

(2017) Recognise campaign ends after making ‘significant contribution’. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-11/recognise-campaign-wound-up/8797540

17.

Brennan

(2023) Price, Mundine reaffirm their opposition to “divisive” voice. National Indigenous Times. https://nit.com.au/04-10-2023/7945/price-mundine-reaffirm-their-opposition-to-divisive-voice

18.

Buscatto

(2021) Practising reflexivity in ethnography. In: Silverman

(ed) Qualitative Research. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 147–162.

19.

Butler

(2023) Indigenous voice to parliament: Australia rejects constitutional change as Albanese says vote ‘not end of the road’. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/14/australian-voters-reject-proposal-for-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-at-historic-referendum

20.

Butler

Evershed

(2023) No campaign runs opposite claims on Indigenous voice across different social media pages. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/14/no-campaign-social-media-strategy-indigenous-voice-referendum

21.

Campanella

(2024) Recognition in the Age of Social Media. Cambridge: Polity.

22.

Canales

Butler

(2023) Voice no campaigner claims Uluru statement supporters want ‘their own military’. the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/12/voice-no-campaigner-claims-uluru-statement-supporters-want-their-own-military

23.

Carson

Strating

Jackman

, et al. (2024) Influencers and messages: analysing the 2023 voice to parliament referendum campaign. La Trobe. DOI: 10.26181/25604352.v1.

24.

Castells

(2000) The rise of the networked society. Blackwell.

25.

Charles

Knowles

(2023) The referendum failed. But data shows the majority of Indigenous communities voted yes. SBS NITV. https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/the-referendum-for-a-voice-to-parliament-failed-but-what-outcome-did-most-indigenous-voters-support/i2reavyqn

26.

Clark

(2008) Aboriginies and Activism: Race, Aboriginies and the Coming of the Sixties to Australia. Crawley, WA, Australia: University of Western Australia Press.

27.

Clark

Dodson

Guivarra

, et al. (2019) Asserting an Indigenous theoretical framework in Australian public relations. Prism 15(1): 50–65.

28.

Clark

Dodson

Guivarra

, et al. (2021) “We’re not treated equally as Indigenous people or as women”: the perspectives and experiences of Indigenous women in Australian public relations. Public Relations Inquiry 10(2): 163–183.

29.

Clark

Dodson

Guivarra

, et al. (2022) “I want to create change; I want to create impact”: personal-activism narratives of Indigenous Australian women working in public relations. Public Relations Review 48(1): 1–8.

30.

Closing the Gap (nd) Closing the gap partnership. https://www.closingthegap.gov.au/partnership (accessed 18 June 2024).

31.

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1900). https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004Q00685/latest/text (accessed 13 September 2024).

32.

Cottle

(2007) Mediatised recognition and the “other”. Media International Australia, Incorporating Culture and Policy 123: 34–48.

33.

Couldry

(2008) Media and the problem of voice. In: Carpentier

De Cleen

(eds) Participation and Media Production: Critical Reflections on Content Creation. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 15–26.

34.

Couldry

(2009) Rethinking the politics of voice. Continuum 23: 579–582.

35.

Couldry

(2010) Why Voice Matters: Culture and Politics after Neoliberalism. London: Sage.

36.

Couldry

(2012) Media, Society, World: Social Theory and Digital Media Practices. Cambridge: Polity.

37.

Cross

(2023) Warren Mundine calls Uluru statement “declaration of war” in anti-voice press club address. National Indigenous Times. https://nit.com.au/26-09-2023/7832/warren-mundine-calls-uluru-statement-declaration-of-war-in-anti-voice-press-club-address

38.

Dan

Ihlen

Raknes

(2020) Political public relations and strategic framing: underlying mechanisms, success factors, and impact. In: Stromback

Kiousis

(eds) Political Public Relations. 2nd edition. Oxfordshire: Taylor and Francis.

39.

Dansie

Byrne

(2023) More than 85 per cent of Mareeba voted no to the voice. What do residents see as the future? ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-22/mareeba-fnq-85-per-cent-no-vote-voice-referendum/102992540

40.

Dencik

Leistert

(2015) Critical Perspectives on Social Media and Protest: Between Control and Emancipation. Washington: Rowman and Littlefield.

41.

Dreher

(2009) Listening across difference: media and multiculturalism beyond the politics of voice. Continuum 23: 445–458.

42.

Dreher

(2010) Speaking up or being heard? Community media interventions and the politics of listening. Media, Culture and Society 32: 85–103.

43.

Dreher

(2012) A partial promise of voice: digital storytelling and the limit of listening. Media International Australia 142: 157–166.

44.

Dutta

Elers

(2020) Public relations, indigeneity and colonization: Indigenous resistance as dialogic anchor. Public Relations Review 46(1): 1–9.

45.

Edwards

(2018) Public relations, voice and recognition: a case study. Media, Culture and Society 40(3): 317–332.

46.

Edwards

Ihlen

(2023) Social theory and Public relations. In: Botan

Sommerfeldt

(eds) Public Relations III: In the Age of Publics. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge, 213–228.

47.

Elton

(2023) Noel Pearson says he will 'fall silent' if Voice referendum fails. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-20/pearson-says-he-will-fall-silent-if-voice-referendum-fails/102000768

48.

Elton

Ferguson

(2023) Ken Wyatt says Indigenous voice to parliament must be allowed to advise ministers. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-11/ken-wyatt-quit-liberal-party-indigenous-voice-referendum/102210228

49.

Entman

(1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43: 51–58.

50.

Fitch

(2020) Public relations, race and reconciliation. In: Fitch

Motion

(eds) Popular Culture and Social Change: The Hidden Work of Public Relations. Oxfordshire: Routledge.

51.

Hall

(1997) The spectacle of the other. In: Hall

(ed) Representation: Cultural Representation and Signifying Practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 223–290.

52.

Hallahan

(2011) Political public relations and strategic framing. In: Stromback

Kiosis

(eds) Political Public Relations. 1st edition. Oxfordshire: Routledge, 186–222.

53.

Honneth

(1995) Decentred autonomy. The subject after the fall. In: Wright

(ed) The Fragmented World of the Social. Essays in Social and Political Philosophy. New York, NY: Sunny Press, 261–272.

54.

Honneth

(1996) The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge: Polity Press.

55.

Honneth

(2002) Grounding recognition: a rejoinder to critical questions. Inquiry 45(4): 499–520.

56.

Honneth

(2003) The Point of Recognition: a rejoinder to the rejoinder. In: Fraser

Honneth

(eds) Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange. London/New York: Verso.

57.

Honneth

(2007) Recognition. In: Van den Brink

Owen

(eds) Recognition and Power: Axel Honneth and the Tradition of Critical Social Theory. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press, 323–347.

58.

Honneth

(2011) Rejoinder. In: Petherbridge

(ed) Axel Honneth: Critical Essays. With a Reply by Axel Honneth. Leiden, BO: Brill, 391–426.

59.

Honneth

Margalit

(2001) Recognition. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 75: 111–139.

60.

Johnston

Forde

Robertson

(2018) In whose interests? media, political communication and First Nations Australians. In: Johnston

Pieczka

(eds) Public Interest Communication: Critical Debates and Global Contexts. London: Routledge, 133–152.

61.

Jozuka

(2016) Aboriginal Australians are Earth’s oldest civilization: DNA study. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/22/asia/indigenous-australians-earths-oldest-civilization/index.html

62.

Kayne

Buron

Menon

(2023) Australia’s top companies back Indigenous Voice as public support wavers. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australias-top-companies-back-indigenous-voice-public-support-wavers-2023-06-16/

63.

Lamont

Silva

Welburn

, et al. (2016) Getting respect: Responding to stigma and discrimination in the United States. Brazil, and Israel: Princeton University Press.

64.

Lorenzana

(2016) Mediated recognition: the role of Facebook in identity and social formations of Filipino transnationals in Indian cities. New Media & Society 18(10): 189–206.

65.

Lowrey

(2023) It's official — the Voice referendum is happening. Here's what comes next. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-20/heres-what-comes-next-in-the-voice-to-parliament-referendum/102498234

66.

Macnamara

(2013) Beyond voice: audience-making and the work and architecture of listening as new media literacies. Continuum 27: 160–175.

67.

Macnamara

(2016a) Organizational listening: addressing a major gap in public relations theory and practice. Journal of Public Relations Research 28(3-4): 146–169.

68.

Macnamara

(2016b) The work and ‘architecture of listening’: addressing gaps in organization-public communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication 10(2): 133–148.

69.

Macnamara

(2018) Toward a theory and practice of organizational listening. International Journal of Listening 32(1): 1–23.

70.

Macnamara

(2019) Explicating listening in organization-public communication: theory, practices, technologies. International Journal of Communication 13: 5183–5204.

71.

Maia

RCM

(2014) Recognition and the Media. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

72.

Manns

(2023) Voice referendum: “If You Don’t Know, Vote No” – an old slogan for modern politics. Lens Monash University. https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2023/10/24/1386245/voice-referendum-if-you-dont-know-vote-no-an-old-slogan-for-modern-politics

73.

Markham

Sanders

(2020) Support for a Constitutionally Enshrined First Nations Voice to Parliament: Evidence from Opinion Research Since 2017. Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University. Working Paper no. 138/2020. DOI: 10.25911/5fb398ee9c47d.

74.

Mayo

(2023) Australians I talk to are optimistic about the voice – even in the face of fear and misinformation. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/30/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-yes-campaign-no-campaign-thomas-mayo

75.

McCallum

Waller

Dreher

(2016) Mediatisation, marginalisation and disruption in Australian indigenous affairs. Media and Communication 4(4): 30–42.

76.

Menon

Jackson

Cole

(2023) Australia rejects Indigenous referendum in setback for reconciliation. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/voting-begins-australia-landmark-indigenous-voice-referendum-2023-10-13/

77.

Miller

(2023) Australia votes against giving Indigenous peoples a voice to parliament. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/14/australia-voice-parliament-indigenous-referendum/

78.

Morse

(2023) “No” campaign defends incorrectly identifying man as grandson of Vincent Lingiari in anti-voice material. National Indigenous Times. https://nit.com.au/17-05-2023/5998/no-campaign-incorrectly-identifies-millwarparra-man-as-grandson-of-vincent-lingiari

79.

Morse

Bourchier

(2023) Key ‘No’ camps merge to form Australians for unity to strengthen referendum campaign. ABC News. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-11/key-no-camps-merge-to-strengthen-referendum-campaign/102329478.

80.

Morse

Worthington

(2023) Peter Dutton pledges second referendum on Indigenous recognition if voice vote fails. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-03/peter-dutton-pledges-second-referendum-if-voice-fails/102808598

81.

Motion

Haar

Leitch

(2012) A public relations framework for Indigenous engagement. In: Sriramesh

Vercic

(eds) Culture and Public Relations: Links and Implications. London: Routledge, 54–66.

82.

Mundine

(2023) Nyunggai Warren Mundine: voice to parliament is a return to segregation. The West Australian. https://thewest.com.au/opinion/nyunggai-warren-mundine-voice-to-parliament-is-a-return-to-segregation--c-12101199

83.

Muscat

(2019) Misrecognising the value of voice: anticipating inclusion beyond mainstream mediations of race and migration. Media, Culture and Society 41(8): 1160–1175.

84.

National Indigenous Television (2023) Social Justice Commissioner says Indigenous students are facing increased racism after referendum result. NITV. https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/social-justice-commissioner-says-indigenous-students-are-facing-increased-racism-after-referendum-result/usmowsgwl

85.

Not my Voice (2024a) https://www.facebook.com/NotMyVoice/ (accessed 20 September 2024).

86.

Not my Voice (2024b) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqkzq8E4vybgXdXKrNYkwDg (accessed 20 September 2024).

87.

Parliament of Australia (2023) Inquiry into the application of the united nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples in Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islander_Affairs/UNDRIP/Report

88.

Peterson

(2016) Perceptions of Public Relations in Australian Aboriginal Community-Controlled Non-profit Organisations. (unpublished Master’s thesis). Perth, WA: Murdoch University.

89.

Remeikis

Butler

(2023) Voice referendum: factchecking the seven biggest pieces of misinformation pushed by the no side. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/12/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-referendum-misinformation-fact-checked

90.

RMIT ABC Fact Check (2023) The Yes and No arguments have been published without fact checking. Here's what you need to know. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-19/fact-check-yes-no-campaign-pamphlets-aec/102614710

91.

Roberts

(2023) Leading No campaigner Nyunggai Warren Mundine addresses National Press Club. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-26/nyunggai-warren-mundine-at-the-press-club/102900580

92.

Rowlands

(2023) Indigenous Australians call for ‘week of silence’ after referendum failure. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/15/indigenous-australians-call-for-week-of-silence-after-referendum-failure

93.

Sakinofsky

Janks

Clark

, et al. (2019) Power imbalance in media representation: an Aboriginal Australian public relations experience. PRism 15(1): 18–33.

94.

Sengmany

(2023) Understanding Australian multiculturalism in public relations practice through a social justice lens. Public Relations Inquiry 13(1): 9–32.

95.

Silva

(2023) What is the Indigenous voice to parliament? Here's how it would work and who’s for and against it. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-15/what-is-the-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-referendum-australia/102317242

96.

Turnbull

(2023) Hurt ripples in wake of Indigenous Voice vote. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-67114612

97.

Uluru Statement from the Heart (2017) https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement/view-the-statement/ (accessed 20 June 2024).

98.

United Nations (1948) Universal declaration of human rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights (accessed 20 June 2024).

99.

United Nations Association of Australia (UNAA) (2017) UN statement on Australia’s “disturbing”, “alarming” and “deeply troubled” Indigenous policies. https://www.unaa.org.au/2017/04/21/un-statement-on-australias-disturbing-alarming-and-deeply-troubled-indigenous-policies/ (accessed 20 June 2024).

100.

United Nations Human Rights Committee (2022) Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 3624/2019. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. Available at: tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2f135%2fD%2f3624%2f2019&Lang=en.

101.

Waller

McCallum

(2018) How television moved a nation: media, change and Indigenous rights. Media, Culture and Society 40(7): 992–1007.

102.

Wells

Friedland

(2023) Recognition crisis: coming to terms with Identity, attention and political communication in the Twenty-First Century. Political Communication 40(6): 681–699.

103.

Wilson

(2023) Not my voice: no camp's new strategy targets Indigenous voters. Crikey. https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/07/25/not-my-voice-no-campaign-voice-to-parliament/