CheckMate is a weekly newsletter from RMIT FactLab recapping the latest in the world of fact checking and misinformation. It draws on the work of FactLab's researchers and journalists, including its CrossCheck unit, and of its sister organisation, RMIT ABC Fact Check.
You can subscribe to have the next edition delivered straight to your inbox.
CheckMate June 2, 2023
This week, we reveal how a conservative lobby group seems intent on using prominent First Nations' people in its campaign against the Voice to Parliament – whether they like it or not.
We also round up the latest in Voice misinformation spreading on social media, and check out a claim that the Greens protested against a social housing development.
No campaign accused of misrepresenting First Nations commentators in advertisements
The conservative lobby group Advance Australia has been accused of misrepresenting First Nations people in its campaign against the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament.
With legislation to bring about the Voice referendum having passed the lower house, the group has launched a new social media advertising campaign titled The Voice is Not Enough in a bid to persuade young voters to reject the proposal.
Appearing to target the so-called "progressive no" vote, or people who believe the Voice would be too weak or is the wrong priority for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, it showcases prominent First Nations activists, writers, academics and politicians who have critiqued the notion of a Voice.
But not all of those featured in the adverts are on board.
That includes Irene Watson, a law professor and the Pro Vice Chancellor of Aboriginal Leadership and Strategy at the University of South Australia, who belongs to the Tanganekald, Portuwutj, Meintangk and Bunganditj Peoples.
Her image was used in six versions of an ad published to Facebook and Instagram, which features a quote from an article she penned in 2022 superimposed over a photo lifted from her university staff profile.
In an email, Professor Watson told RMIT Factlab: "They did not obtain my consent nor the consent of the University of South Australia to use my image."
"The piece is out of context," she said, adding: "I do not support this campaign."
In another set of ads, the campaign quotes the words of Celeste Liddle, an Arrernte opinion writer and social commentator, who wrote in a May 2023 article that she was "unconvinced" by the Voice proposal.
What the ad doesn't include, however, is the very next sentence in her article: "This is not to say that I am committed to a No vote either."
Ms Liddle told FactLab she was "absolutely not" part of the Not Enough campaign, and only found out about the ads when a community member tipped her off.
Moreover, she was against her quotes being used by the group because "they're very clearly … affiliated with the No campaign" and "in no way, shape or form" represented the views she sought to put forward in her article.
The complaints follow reports, published in Guardian Australia, that independent senator Lidia Thorpe – another unwilling participant in the campaign – had labelled her own inclusion as "deceptive and underhanded".
"I'm not in the No camp," she told the ABC's Insiders program on Sunday.
"I've never been in the No camp and my position has been clear all along … that we need a treaty in this country."
Data from Meta's ad library shows the Not Enough campaign primarily targets 18-30 year olds in Sydney and Melbourne with critiques of the Voice, including that it lacks real power or cedes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty.
Simultaneously, Advance's other "No" campaign, Fair Australia, appears to be targeting a broader group of voters in Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania with arguments that the Voice is, for example, racially divisive and poses a "direct threat to our democracy and the Constitution".
Meanwhile, as reported by Crikey, the group has established a "news" page on Facebook titled Referendum News, which is dedicated to anti-Voice stories.
It's not the first time the lobby group has been accused of misrepresenting people in its campaigns.
FactLab recently revealed that a man described by the leader of Fair Australia, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, as being Vincent Lingiari's grandson denied he was related to the famed land rights activist.
And despite his picture being used on the anti-Voice campaign's website, he told FactLab he was unsure about what the proposed Voice meant.
In an email to FactLab, Advance has defended the approach of its Not Enough campaign.
“These people have made public statements about an issue that is currently the topic of major debate in the country. The idea that we can't quote them because they do not like us is ridiculous [and] potentially a restriction of political expression," the group responded.
Advance also said it had removed its post featuring Irene Watson "the moment we were advised there was a copyright issue after correspondence from the University of South Australia".
Rounding up the latest Voice misinformation
The spread of misinformation about the proposed Voice to Parliament shows no signs of abating, with FactLab taking aim at numerous incorrect and misleading claims in recent days.
A suggestion, for instance, that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people would "cede sovereignty" should the referendum be successful because of a change made to the Australian Constitution in 1973 was found by FactLab to be false.
In a video posted to YouTube, a woman going by the name of “Grandmother Mulara” warned that "the constitution that we are being asked to vote on, is not the same constitution as [that of] the founding fathers", and that an alteration made in 1973 meant the constitution had been replaced by a "model of a corporation".
"They are tricking us to say that our original people of this country should be on the constitution," the woman states.
“If we say 'yes' to the Voice, we come on to this [replacement corporation] charter … it means the original people will cede their sovereignty."
As FactLab reported, the alteration made in 1973 changed a reference to the Queen from "the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'' to the "Queen of Australia".
Constitutional law expert George Williams told FactLab the change to the monarch’s title in the preamble had "no effect on the constitution, nor on the legitimacy of the Australian government".
"The change in the Queen's title has no relevance for, or effect upon, the upcoming referendum on the Voice," Professor Williams said.
Similarly, another claim being shared on Facebook and Twitter that the 1967 referendum allowing greater Commonwealth involvement in Aboriginal affairs had removed "race" from the constitution is also false: mentions of race remain in two sections, 25 and 51(xxvi), of the document.
And, finally, the government is not spending more than $1 million to fund the "Yes" campaign as asserted in Facebook posts that went viral.
Rather, as FactLab reported this week, the government has committed $1.5 million to a strictly neutral education campaign to raise awareness of the constitution and referendum process.
The facts about a supposed Greens protest against social housing
The Victorian Minister for Housing has taken aim at the Greens for "protesting against a project in Port Melbourne to build more social housing".
"They say they care about renters and people in need of social housing but oppose project after project to boost supply," MP Colin Brooks tweeted on Saturday alongside a photo of Greens leader Adam Bandt at the protest.
A follow-up tweet from Mr Brooks directed readers to a government website which he said had "more information about our plans for more social housing and more supply at this Port Melbourne site, which will remain in government ownership".
But is that a fair characterisation of the protest and of the Port Melbourne project?
According to a press release issued by the Greens, the purpose of the protest, which was organised by the Victorian branch of the party, was "to fight an 'appalling and cruel' Victorian Labor Government decision to knock down" and privatise the Barak Beacon public housing estate.
Homes Victoria, which manages the state’s public housing, explains in a fact sheet that residents of the 89-dwelling estate are being relocated and the existing homes demolished to make way for 300 to 350 new homes.
In a statement, a spokesperson for Homes Victoria told CheckMate the new homes would be "a mixture of social, affordable, market rental and disability accommodation".
"The redevelopment will also achieve a minimum 10 per cent increase in social housing at the site and help tackle housing affordability in Victoria, particularly in inner Melbourne," the spokesperson said. However, they did not specify the number of social housing homes to be built.
Importantly, while the homes currently on the estate are managed by the government as public housing, the plan to build new social housing does not equate to a like-for-like replacement, as Libby Porter, of RMIT University's Centre for Urban Research, explained to CheckMate.
"Social housing is an umbrella term that in Victoria includes public housing and community housing," Professor Porter wrote in an email.
She explained that public housing was owned and managed by the government through Homes Victoria, while community housing was managed by private not-for-profit providers.
"None of the post-redevelopment social housing will be public housing – it will, as I understand it, be managed by a Community Housing Provider."
Indeed, as the website to which Mr Brooks directed readers explains, while the land at Barak Beacon will remain government-owned, it will be leased to a "project group" that "will design, build, manage and maintain the housing for the next 40 years".
According to Professor Porter, it mattered "enormously" that public housing was being replaced with community housing, as the rental caps on each category of housing differed.
(Rent is capped at 25 per cent of tenant income in public housing versus 30 per cent for community housing.)
"Community housing providers' cap is higher at 30 per cent, which is where the [Australian Bureau of Statistics] measures that housing stress begins for people in the two lowest income deciles," she noted.
"In reality, tenants in community housing often pay much more than 30 per cent of their income in rent."
Professor Porter added that it was "worth remembering that the protest was about the displacement of an entire community and the poor public policy of achieving a very small number … of additional social housing homes at enormous financial and social cost. This latter cost is never counted."
A not-for-profit architectural and research firm, OFFICE, found last year that refurbishing the existing dwellings, in addition to building new social housing in open space on the site, could "deliver improved living conditions for a significantly lower direct financial investment from the government" while "retaining the existing community on site and avoiding the social impact and economic costs of relocation".
Edited by Ellen McCutchan and David Campbell, with thanks to Sonam Thomas
Got a fact that needs checking? Tweet us @ABCFactCheck or send us an email at factcheck@rmit.edu.au
