Voters were asked to approve an alteration to the Australian Constitution that would recognise Indigenous Australians in the document through prescribing a body called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice that would have been able to make representations to Federal Parliament and the executive government on "matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples".

[1][3] These were formally approved by parliament through the passage of the amendment bill, Constitutional Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 (Cth).

The bill was examined and endorsed by the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum, subject to two dissenting reports authored by Liberal and National party members respectively.

[4] The Liberal Party of Australia report put forward several changes, including the deletion of sub-section 128(ii) (to reduce a risk that representations from the body must be considered), a new section 77(iv) (to allow the parliament to control the applicability of judicial review under section 75(v) of the Constitution), the addition of the words "and the legal effect of its representations" to sub-section 128(iii) (to clarify the power Parliament has to legislate regarding the Voice), and the replacement of the words "executive government" to "ministers of state" (to reduce the possible ambit of people to whom the Voice may make representations).

Referendum ballot papers asked voters:[8]A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

[16] In May 2023 the government announced a total of $10.5 million in the 2023 budget to improve mental health services for Indigenous people in the lead-up to the referendum.

[22] This approach was criticised by organisations such as The Greens, who wanted these statements to be independently fact-checked, as there was no legal requirement for the pamphlets to be truthful.

Nationals leader David Littleproud announced on 28 November 2022 that his party would not support the Voice, with Senator for the Northern Territory Jacinta Price speaking out strongly against it.

[86] Later, Julian Leeser (the member for Berowra) resigned from the Shadow Cabinet to support the Voice and campaign for an improved wording, although he did not quit the party and still remains in Parliament as a Liberal backbencher.

However Anne Twomey, argued that there is no such obligation in the proposal, and that past High Court rulings have found that the term extends to ministers and government departments, but not statutory bodies, which are distinct legal entities.

Retired superior court judges, including David Jackson,[169] Nicholas Hasluck,[170] and Terry Cole,[171] suggested that the changes could have unintended effects and would introduce inequality of citizenship into the Constitution.

[172] In October 2023 a paper by Aroney and lawyer Peter Congdon highlighted that the proposed alteration to the Constitution had the potential to significantly expand the powers of the Commonwealth over the states,[175] citing the examples of raising the age of criminal responsibility to reduce rates of Indigenous incarceration, or legislating land management issues affecting farmers and Indigenous people.

[177] Vice-president of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia Chris Merritt suggested that the proposal would "clearly restrict the sovereign power of the Commonwealth in a way that nobody has even considered".

[178] The Constitutional Expert Group appointed by the government to provide advice about constitutional law relating to the Voice (comprising Greg Craven, Megan Davis, Kenneth Hayne, Noel Pearson, Cheryl Saunders, Anne Twomey, George Williams, and Asmi Wood[179]) were unanimous in their opinion that the Voice would not have veto powers over legislation.

[181] He also advised that the Voice would help in "overcoming barriers that have historically impeded effective participation by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in political discussions and decisions that affect them" and would also "rectify a distortion in the existing system".

[189] The government launched its official advertising campaign about the referendum in May 2022, to provide information about what the proposal is, what the Voice would do and how it would be set up, and to encourage Australians to prepare themselves for it.

[216] By the end of September, online advertising by both camps was heavily focused on the Tasmania and South Australia, which were regarded as "battleground" states.

[225] In July 2023, a cartoon ad promoting the No campaign in the lead-up to the referendum was published by Advance Australia in the Australian Financial Review, featuring caricatures of Thomas Mayo a signatory and advocate of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, along with, MP and Yes advocate Kate Chaney, and her father businessman Michael Chaney.

[229][230][231] In early October, the AEC asked the Yes campaign to remove a social media post that contained a misleading graphic that could cause No voters to cast an invalid vote.

[233][234][235][236] Some opponents of the Voice, primarily right-wing and far-right politicians and commentators, internet trolls, and members of the sovereign citizen movement, have spread misinformation, disinformation and unfounded conspiracy theories regarding the referendum online.

[239] A preprint study in September 2023 showed Yes tweets dominating the Twitter platform, including amplification of misinformation and conspiracy theories created by the No side, with the Yes voters trying to fact-check and correct them.

An analysis by Recorded Future confirmed the findings of Australian Strategic Policy Institute in this regard but found no evidence that Iran or Russia were trying to influence the debate.

[237] Australian Electoral Commissioner Tom Rogers said that social media had not adequately dealt with misinformation and disinformation on their platforms; of 47 reported by the AEC as being of concern, only 16 had been taken down.

Despite "Yes" having a large lead in opinion polls initially, public opinion slowly began shifting in favour of "No" in late 2022, with the latter coming out ahead in every poll taken from July 2023 (a month after the Constitutional Amendment bill passed through the Senate) onward.On 4 October, the AEC reported that 903,570 votes had been cast after three days of early voting.

Labor MP for Lingiari, Marion Scrymgour suggested that 74% of the 11,000 people that live in the division's remote areas voted yes.

[270] Once the referendum result became clear on the night of 14 October, Yes23 campaign co-chair Rachel Perkins called for a week of silence "to grieve this outcome and reflect on its meaning and significance".

[271] After this period, an unsigned open letter was distributed by the public relations firm that had worked for the Uluru Dialogue (a key yes group based at the Indigenous Law Centre of UNSW Sydney)[272] that decried the result as "unbelievable and appalling" and concluded that constitutional recognition would no longer be possible.

[276][277] Aboriginal academic and pro-Voice campaigner Marcia Langton declared that Australian voters' rejection of the Voice made it "very clear that Reconciliation is dead".

[281][282][283] The Path to Treaty Act 2023 was repealed and the state's Truth-Telling and Healing Inquiry was abolished following the LNP gaining government in 2024.

[287][288] Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott said the result was a rejection of identity politics and a chance to reject or reduce Aboriginal "separatism" with the wider Australian community, such as by no longer flying Aboriginal flags equally with the national flag or by not giving an acknowledgment of country prior to speaking at an official event.