A lack of detail about an Indigenous Voice to Parliament could leave an information vacuum to be filled by misinformation and hateful content by the far right and other bad-faith actors, experts warn.
On Saturday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese revealed the three draft sentences that would be added to the constitution if next year’s Voice to Parliament referendum is successful. The next day, however, Albanese said that his government would not provide the legislation for the structure of the body before the referendum for fears that it would split support for the proposal.
“What I am not going to do [is] to go down the cul-de-sac of getting into every detail because that is not a recipe for success,” he said.
Previously, Albanese has said his government is committed to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. The statement calls for a “First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution”. Professor Marcia Langton and Professor Tom Calma’s Indigenous Voice Co-design Process report delivered to the last government lays out a comprehensive model for what it could look like — but the current government has not committed to following the proposal. Instead, the details will be decided by federal parliamentarians if the referendum is passed.
Institute for Strategic Dialogue analyst and misinformation researcher Elise Thomas said she already expects to see a rise in hate speech, disinformation and race-related conspiracy theories ahead of the vote.
“The fact that we currently have a big information vacuum around the exact form and nature of the Voice will make the problem worse,” she said.
Information Futures Lab Asia Pacific director Dr Anne Kruger agreed that the Voice to Parliament is a topic vulnerable to misinterpretation and misinformation. She said that proponents should learn lessons from vaccine and climate change misinformation: “Messaging should be simple, but you need to explain it.”
Kruger said that early information vacuums about COVID-19 fuelled a lot of misunderstanding and fear. Similarly, the types of arguments that undermined the scientific consensus could be repurposed to cast doubt on the Uluru Statement to the Heart process, she said.
Already misinformation and sensationalist content about the Voice to Parliament is circulating online. These range from statements that this would create an “apartheid Parliament” to false claims that the body would be given veto over legislation. Crikey has chosen not to share or name the creators to avoid giving them more oxygen.
Thomas said she’s already seen anti-vaccine, sovereign citizens and far-right groups latch on to the topic. Both Thomas and Kruger agree that clear and effective information campaigns are necessary to pre-empt bad faith campaigns.
“Rebutting this and other disinformation and distortions about the Voice will require clear, effective communication from the Yes campaign about what the Voice is, and what it isn’t,” Thomas said.
