Coalition politicians who oppose the Indigenous voice to parliament are vastly outspending other parliamentarians on Facebook, and in some cases, using taxpayer-funded expenses to boost ads that personally target yes campaigners and raise doubt about the reliability of the voting process.
According to a Guardian Australia analysis of federal politicians’ advertising data in Meta’s ad library, Coalition politicians have spent over four times more on Facebook ads about the voice than Labor politicians.
Among the top 10 Facebook accounts belonging to politicians that shared ads supporting a yes or no vote, the majority were from the Coalition.
The top five between 1 August 2022 to 21 August 2023 were Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who leads the official no campaign Fair Australia, alongside Coalition members of parliament Keith Pitt, Rick Wilson, Jason Wood and Senator Michaelia Cash – all of whom are advocating a no vote.
Labor MP Dr Michelle Ananda-Rajah and independent MP Zali Steggall were the only two from the top 10 who shared messages in support of the voice or promoted pro-voice community forums.
Politicians are given an annual office expenses budget that they can use for advertising on social media platforms.
“They’re not required to sit on the sidelines,” said Peter Chen, a senior lecturer at the University of Sydney who researches media and politics. “Just like we saw with the same-sex postal survey, there’s a reason for politicians to attach their brands to various sides.”
Coalition MP Rick Wilson was one of several politicians among the top 10 who told Guardian Australia the advertising blitz had been paid for by the annual capped budget for office expenses.
“As the member for a 1.1 million square kilometre electorate … I have a responsibility to inform all those communities,” he said. “Social media is a very effective way to inform those many and diverse regional and remote communities.”
Facebook’s ad library only provides the upper and lower range of ad spend, but politicians sharing content against the voice may have spent up to $175,341, while those in support spent up to $37,163.
Overall, the official yes campaign vehicle, Yes23, remains the biggest spender on Facebook ads on the referendum, followed by the Australian government which is running a neutral multi-language education campaign about the voice called “Be ready for the conversation”. The no campaign accounts Advance Australia and Fair Australia as well as the Australian Electoral Commission round out the top five.
Some Australian politicians are paying to make their personal case for why Australians should vote yes or no.
Top 10 spender Ananda-Rajah has paid to boost videos in Victoria and across Australia in which she explains the voice, and makes the case for why “First Nations people get special privileges in the constitution when other minorities don’t”.
Steggal paid almost $4,000 for ads promoting a community event with the director of Yes23, Dean Parkin, as well as a webinar about the referendum.
Queensland MP Phillip Thompson, also in the top 10, paid up to $2,000 for posts that detail why he and his wife, who is Indigenous, will vote no. “Race-based constitutional change puts one person in our marriage above the other, which goes against our entire belief system,” his ad states.
Coalition boosting ads that target voice campaigners
Some Coalition accounts have also paid to boost content on Facebook that personally targets campaigners for the voice, including an attack ad about Thomas Mayo. Mayo is on the government’s referendum working group and is one of the more prominent public advocates for the voice.
The clip, created by Advance Australia, splices together several of Mayo’s public addresses about the voice set to ominous music.
Victorian Liberal MP Jason Wood spent up to $598 boosting the video on both Instagram and Facebook, according to Meta’s ad library tool. Western Australian MP Andrew Hastie spent up to $499, while Queenslanders Garth Hamilton (up to $299), Andrew Willcox (up to $199) and Phil Thompson (up to $2,000) also put money behind the ad.
The singling out of Mayo has prompted a sharp rebuke from figures including Liberal MP Julian Leeser. In a speech in Wagga Wagga in July, Leeser was critical of the no campaign’s attempt to “target a small number of high-profile Aboriginal people”.
“The spliced videos of the no case using Thomas Mayo’s words are meant to get you angry, and get you voting against a person, even though this person is not on the ballot paper,” he said.
Lawyer and Wiradjuri and Wailwan woman Teela Reid has also been the subject of paid ads from Andrew Willcox and Jason Wood – the latter of which paid up to $499 to promote an Advance Australia video about Reid on Facebook. “Another one of Albanese’s handpicked voice advisory members … and she’s got a lot to say,” Wood’s ad reads.
The Advance Australia video features clips of Reid discussing reparations and the voice, and like the Mayo clip, is similarly spliced together with sinister music in the background.
Raising doubt about the voice and voting process
Some politicians in the top 10 spenders have run ads that could mislead about the scope of the voice. Henry Pike, for example, has run an ad across Australia that implying the voice may “cancel” Australia Day. Likewise, an ad shared by Jason Wood states “Aukus at risk under Labor’s voice”, referring to the trilateral security pact. The voice will have no ability to abolish public holidays or veto defence policy.
Coalition politicians have also been criticised for sharing content that raises doubt about the process of the referendum vote.
Michaelia Cash and Wood have collectively spent up to $700 so far on ads about whether crosses on the referendum ballot paper will count as a no vote. “If ticks count for yes, then crosses should count for no, otherwise it gives the yes case an unfair advantage,” the ad shared by Cash read.
The discussion stems from a recent Sky News interview with the electoral commissioner Tom Rogers, who emphasised that voters should only write “yes” or “no” on the ballot. But he also acknowledged well-established rules called “savings provisions” that allow the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to count votes that don’t strictly follow such instructions. These might include a “tick” as yes, but would not include a cross as “no”.
This distinction was seized upon as “another attempt to stack the deck” by the no campaign, but was smacked down by the AEC.
In a statement last week, the commission said much of the commentary was “factually incorrect”. “The AEC completely and utterly rejects the suggestions by some that by transparently following the established, public and known legislative requirements we are undermining the impartiality and fairness of the referendum,” it said.
Chen said it was “worrisome” that the AEC has had to weigh in on the opposition’s statements. “They border on American-style election paranoia, which has been very toxic,” he said of the claims.
Senator Cash said in a statement: “We should not have a rule that risks counting votes for the yes side but ignoring them for the no case. The sensible thing would be to make a simple rule so that ticks and crosses are treated equally, and neither side gets an advantage.”
The AEC’s formal voting instructions for the referendum are to clearly write either “yes” or “no”, in full, in English.
All politicians named in the story were approached for comment. Price, Wood, Thompson, Pike, Hastie and Hamilton did not respond by publication. Willcox and Antic declined to comment.
Notes
A database of ads from 1 August 2022 to 22 August 2023 was compiled by searching the Facebook political ad database via API
Ads were classified as related to the voice to parliament using a mix of machine-learning classification, keywords and advertiser identifiers. You can read about the methods in more detail here
An ad was considered yes or no if it advocated for a particular side, mentioned only one side or the benefits of voting yes or no, or promoted an event with only campaigners from one side of the campaign. Neutral ads mostly includes posts promoted by government organisations such as the AEC, media promoting news stories, and people or organisations promoting information events which did not appear to take a side based on the content of the ad
Facebook accounts were then classified by side based on this data, where an account had any instance of yes-leaning ads, they were classified as yes, no ads as no, and if they were entirely neutral they were classified as neutral
