No, the Indigenous organisations on this listing don’t represent a Voice to Parliament

CheckMate September 15, 2023

This week, we debunk a preferred listing being shared on social media that claims to indicate all of the “voices” Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals have already got.

We additionally look into the controversy surrounding the Sure marketing campaign’s use of John Farnham’s Nineteen Eighties hit, and whether or not taxpayers picked up the tab for it.

Why this listing of Indigenous ‘voices’ is filled with holes

A web-based listing being circulated by advocates for a No vote within the upcoming referendum has employed acquainted and deceptive rhetoric to counsel that an Indigenous Voice to Parliament is just not vital as a result of “there are already voices”.

Shared broadly on social media in current weeks, the listing purporting to indicate these current voices contains obscure descriptions corresponding to “3,278 Aboriginal firms”, “122+ Aboriginal companies” and “three advisory our bodies”, together with plenty of claims about authorities spending on Indigenous Australians.

However as CheckMate has discovered, the listing accommodates plenty of deceptive assertions and inaccuracies.

Most significantly, not like the proposed Voice to Parliament, not one of the so-called voices is a constitutionally enshrined advisory physique to the federal parliament.

The listing’s reference to “3,278 Aboriginal firms” and “243 native title our bodies”, for instance, refers to the variety of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander firms registered with the Registrar of Indigenous Firms.

Because the registrar’s web site makes clear, these are merely firms owned and managed by Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander individuals. The registrar’s workplace regulates these firms, advising on good governance and guaranteeing compliance with the legislation.

Amongst these included on the register are numerous sports activities golf equipment, a charity devoted to serving to educate Indigenous college students STEM topics, quite a few building firms and an organisation that helps Indigenous individuals observe their ancestry.

Elsewhere, the listing attracts consideration to “48 land councils” and “35 regional councils” however gives no extra element on them.

In any case, the previous rely is inaccurate: NSW alone is dwelling to 120 native Indigenous land councils, which work with the state’s peak physique to handle land and advocate for land rights.

Nor might CheckMate discover proof of 35 regional councils, a quantity which seems to stem from the variety of regional councils included within the closing construction of the now-defunct Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Fee (ATSIC).

As for the declare that Indigenous individuals have already got “three advisory our bodies”, a current article from the Parliamentary Library means that the one remaining federal advisory physique is the Coalition of Peaks, which companions with Australian governments on the Nationwide Settlement on Closing the Hole.

Based on the library, nevertheless, the Coalition of Peaks has “said that it views the proposed Voice to Parliament as complementary to its function”.

In the meantime, the reference to “122+ Aboriginal companies” was too obscure to substantiate, although it echoes a problematic listing of 109 “separate Aboriginal companies” shared earlier this yr.

That specific listing mirrored a grab-bag of organisations and concepts lifted from a Wikipedia article titled “Organisations serving Indigenous Australians”, which included all the things from music awards and dance faculties to native soccer golf equipment and the idea of an “outstation”.

Many entities on that listing not exist, together with an organisation that disbanded practically 100 years in the past, and the Wikipedia article now carries a disclaimer: “Not one of the companies on the listing advise Parliament on issues particularly affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, nor are any constitutionally enshrined.”

Individually, CheckMate discovered related shortcomings with an inventory of 51 supposed Voice-like companies, discovering that it included, for instance, report titles, analysis establishments and a Canadian meeting modelled on the United Nations.

As for the newest listing, there are certainly “145 well being organisations” managed by Aboriginal teams, although their function is to not present a “voice” however to handle group well being clinics. (They’re represented by a peak physique that advises the federal government on well being coverage.)

The listing additionally refers to “11 federal MPs”, which is an accurate determine if counting the three Indigenous members within the Home of Representatives and the higher home’s eight senators.

Whether or not they present a “voice” for First Nations individuals is a unique query, nevertheless.

In 2018, the Joint Choose Committee on Constitutional Recognition regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples reported frustration amongst Aboriginal communities that Indigenous parliamentarians “don’t signify us. They signify the Liberal or the Labor Occasion, not Aboriginal Individuals.”

The listing additionally identifies plenty of “culturally vital days” for Indigenous individuals, as per a Queensland authorities web site, although such days evidently don’t share the identical goal because the proposed Voice to Parliament.

Lastly, numerous variations of the listing referred to greater than $30 billion per yr in “direct authorities expenditure” on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals.

CheckMate has beforehand clarified and offered essential context about such claims, which relate to a 2017 Productiveness Fee report on federal, state and territory spending.

Whereas the report confirmed that direct authorities expenditure on Indigenous Australians was $33.4 billion in 2015-16, the overwhelming majority ($27.4 billion) of that was merely the Indigenous share of “mainstream expenditure” — that’s, expenditure “offered for all individuals”, together with spending on faculties, hospitals, welfare, defence and “public order and security”.

The rest ($6 billion) was spent on “providers and applications … offered to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander group particularly”.

As CheckMate defined, per-person direct expenditure was roughly twice as excessive for Indigenous than non-Indigenous Australians, however this was largely resulting from larger ranges of drawback amongst First Nations individuals.

Additionally enjoying a job was the inhabitants’s youthful age profile, which had led to comparatively larger spending on training, baby care and different providers.

Did taxpayers foot the invoice for Farnham’s Voice anthem?

With the current launch of a video commercial by one of many referendum’s main Sure marketing campaign teams, some advocates of a No vote — and music followers — have taken concern with its use of John Farnham’s Nineteen Eighties hit You are the Voice, accusing the singer of throwing his help behind the Voice to Parliament in change for taxpayer {dollars}.

“I simply learn that Albanese’s permission to make use of John Farnham’s track ‘voice’ concerned paying John Farnham 30 million taxpayer {dollars},” wrote one Fb person.

And, in response to one broadly shared tweet, “the Sure marketing campaign have purchased the rights with taxpayer {dollars} and paid for them for an undisclosed quantity”.

So what are the info?

The commercial in query was produced by the Uluru Dialogue group, which is co-chaired by Indigenous well being professional Pat Anderson and UNSW legislation professor Megan Davis.

In a press release revealed to X (previously Twitter) on September 4, Farnham’s administration confirmed that he had “gifted his efficiency of ‘You are the Voice’ for its use within the Uluru Dialogue Sure Marketing campaign ads”.

Notably, in response to the Sydney Morning Herald, the singer shares the so-called “sync” rights to his efficiency of the track with Sony Music Australia.

Based on the Herald, each events had on this event waived their charges, which by one tough estimate might have been price upwards of $100,000.

Separate to those rights are these of the track’s 4 writers — Chris Thompson, Andy Qunta, Maggie Ryder and Keith Reid — (or their heirs), who might have been compensated for its use within the Sure marketing campaign advert.

As for whether or not taxpayer {dollars} have been used to fund the licence charges or royalties related to the track, the federal government is prohibited by legislation from spending cash to advertise both facet of the referendum case.

As Part 11(4) of the Referendum (Equipment Provisions) Act 1984 states:

“The Commonwealth shall not expend cash in respect of the presentation of the argument in favour of, or the argument towards, a proposed legislation [constitutional amendment]”.

Earlier this yr, the Coalition pushed for taxpayer funding of the Sure and No circumstances, however its proposal was rejected. And whereas Labor’s Could 2023 federal finances allotted $364.6 million for working the referendum, none of this was earmarked for the Sure marketing campaign.

Edited by Ellen McCutchan and David Campbell

Bought a indisputable fact that wants checking? Tweet us @ABCFactCheck or ship us an e mail at [email protected]