Experts warn of misinformation during Voice campaign

In a seven-plus minute video, United Australia Party senator Ralph Babet speaks out against the Voice, at one point stating that the Uluru Statement from the Heart was only written by 250 Indigenous people.

"Now that is hardly a democratic mandate," he says.

AAP factcheck found the statement to be misleading, noting that it omitted the "important context" of a months long consultation period during which more than 1200 people were engaged before the adoption of the statement, which calls for an Indigenous Voice.

In response, Senator Babet stated on Twitter that he was "completely correct ... but [AAP factcheck] found a way to discredit it."

With the question to be put to the people later this year finalised and the major parties taking sides, the Voice debate is ramping up along with misinformation and other rhetoric that may be harmful to the running of the referendum, as well as the wellbeing of Indigenous Australians.

The stakes are high, says referendum working group member Thomas Mayo.

If the referendum succeeds, it will allow the country to move forward and start effectively addressing the inequalities between non-Indigenous and Indigenous Australians, he said.

But Mr Mayo warned that if the referendum fails, it wouldn't mean maintaining the status quo, but rather going backwards.

"Indigenous people will know the morning of a failed referendum that the Australian people have given the decision makers in this country ... a mandate to ignore our very existence," he said.

Even when progressive campaigns succeed, history has demonstrated just how detrimental national debates on the rights of marginalised groups can be.

Australia hasn't had a referendum since 1999 but the country only needs to look back to 2017's marriage law postal survey to see how harmful the debate became to LGBTQIA+ people.

Surveys found that during the postal survey process, LGBTQIA+ people experienced a spike in abuse and mental health stress.

A University of Sydney study found that "increased exposure to homophobic campaign and media messages" was linked to worse mental health outcomes for gay and bisexual Australians.

ESafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said the level of online abuse experienced by First Nations people is already higher than average.

"First Nations people are twice as likely to be the subject of hate speech online compared with the national average," she said in a statement to The Canberra Times.

"This increases three-fold for those who are under 18."

Witness the racial abuse levelled at Canberra Raiders player Jack Wighton this week, simply because of his decision to change clubs.

Leading up to the referendum, Ms Inman Grant expects online debate on the Voice will trigger online abuse, threats and harassment, particularly towards First Nations people.

Indigenous leaders such as Mr Mayo are also anticipating difficult months ahead.

Mr Mayo, who has been among those at the forefront of the "yes" campaign, said negative messaging in the news made "Indigenous people feel like the whole world is talking about our identity".

He said claims the Voice would divide the country on the basis of race have been particularly misleading.

"It's not about race, it's about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage and culture and recognition of that ... but also recognition that there is a distinct set of issues that Indigenous people face," Mayo said.

"Everything that has been tried to date has failed and this is a practical way of ensuring that the solutions that come from Indigenous communities are heard ... that there's some transparency and some accountability for politicians that make decisions about Indigenous people."

Voice co-designer Tom Calma said it was important to shift away from opinion and "get down to facts".

"Media, too often ... present opinion as if they were facts and therefore people in the community believe them as being fact," he said.

"No" campaigners have aired their own gripes with the referendum.

Newly appointed opposition spokesperson for Indigenous Australians Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who has been campaigning against the Voice, has labelled the referendum "divisive".

"I mean, the rhetoric that's coming from the "yes" campaign is to suggest that anyone who opposes that is racist is nonsense. And that in itself is absolutely divisive," she told Sky News.

UNSW Canberra associate professor Benjamin Turnbull, who specialises in cyber security, said campaigns around issues like the Voice and marriage equality often tapped into fear and anger.

"We're seeing: what does this mean and what do I lose ... and we're seeing that from pundits, we're seeing it from radio personalities, from politicians as well," he said.

He said while social networks can flag and remove fake claims, there are greyer areas - expressing opinions or asking questions - where you don't want censorship.

But he added that even when platforms remove fake claims, it can take some time and they can rake up views in that period.

Governments and other bodies are already on alert.

The eSafety Commission, which acts on cases where individuals are targeted rather than a broader group, hasn't received reports of serious online abuse associated with discussions about the Voice yet but it's preparing for what could lie ahead.

The Australian Electoral Commission has launched a disinformation register although it will be dedicated to debunking allegations about the referendum process rather than fake claims from the "yes" and "no" camps.

Universities are also jumping on board to dispel misconceptions on the Voice.

Australian National University's First Nations Portfolio released a document addressing common concerns on the Voice, with questions spanning from its potential for betterment of Indigenous Iives to undermining "the nature of our constitution".

The university's council also this month announced it would be throwing its support behind the Voice.

While the opposition has condemned schools taking up a position on the Voice, shadow education spokesperson Sarah Henderson calling it "indoctrination", for First Nations Portfolio vice-president Peter Yu this falls within the university's leadership and education roles.

"There's been a significant amount of misinformation, deliberate and otherwise ... and I think it's our responsibility to provide a factual correction," Professor Yu said.

"I think to be able to be in a position to make an informed decision with consent in regards to supporting the Voice, people need to understand the facts."

READ MORE:

He added that while he wasn't aware of any hate incidents at the university linked to the referendum, he was "concerned about the nature of the misinformation" and what it could mean for the personal safety of staff and students, particularly of Indigenous background.

Professor Turnbull cautioned that misinformation, or wrong information, can be "co-opted into disinformation", which is spread deliberately, often with the intention to manipulate.

He urged those seeking out facts to avoid leaning on one reference and look at multiple sources when assessing accuracy of claims.

He also anticipated there will be much more room for disinformation compared to the marriage equality debate, with many Australians not understanding the topic of the Voice as well.

"A lot of people already had strong opinions about marriage equality. And I think here, there are a lot of people that aren't sure ... because they don't know enough," Professor Turnbull said.

"Where there are no facts, there is a void that can be filled with potentially wrong facts."

We've made it a whole lot easier for you to have your say. Our new comment platform requires only one log-in to access articles and to join the discussion on The Canberra Times website. Find out how to register so you can enjoy civil, friendly and engaging discussions. See our moderation policy here.