Most likely we’ve all seen it multiple times by now, flashed up on our TV screens, the ‘Yes23’ Campaign’s ‘Voice’ referendum television advertisement. It’s also on YouTube and can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oGRIz7yccw
Their advertisement can be summed up in four words: misleading, disingenuous, misinformation and disinformation. How so?
Misleading is defined as: “giving the wrong idea or impression.” A Misleading Impression can be defined as: “a failure to understand correctly: a misapprehension, misconception, misinterpretation or misunderstanding.” However, this advertisement is not just misleading. It is also disingenuous, misinformation, and in fact, disinformation.
Disingenuous is defined as: “slightly dishonest, or not speaking the complete truth, not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.” Misinformation is defined as: “false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.” Which leads on to disinformation.
Disinformation is defined as: “deliberately misleading or biased information; manipulated narrative or facts; propaganda.” It is can also mean “false information disseminated by an agency in an act of tactical political subversion that is knowingly (intentionally) spread.” As we shall see, the ‘Yes23’ television advertisement is all of the above.
The advertisement opens with the words: “Australia’s Constitution is 122 years old and still doesn’t recognise Indigenous Australians.”
This statement is correct; after 122 years the Australian Constitution does not “recognise Aboriginal people.” However, in point of fact, it does not ‘recognise’ anyone, and that is deliberate. The purpose of the Constitution is a document that, in essence, sets out the working relationships between the States and the newly formed Commonwealth of Australia. It was never intended to ‘recognise’ anyone. The Constitution only refers to “the people” of Australia, as it should, of whom all Aborigines and immigrants and people native born in Australia are included.
WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:
Australia’s Constitution does not ‘recognise’ or mention any group of people, just as it shouldn’t. It is intentionally blind to race and religion, and should never mention any specific racial group as being more important than any other group, irrespective of their origins, as this would immediately be hierarchical, divisive, and indeed, even racist.
Clearly, the ‘Yes23’ campaign is intending to create the impression that there has been some mistake in that ‘Aborigines’ have, for some reason, either been inadvertently omitted or deliberately excluded from the Constitution. This is untrue and misleading and deceptive behaviour, which is “giving an appearance or impression different from the true one”. This deception is designed to make people think that this omission is a ‘mistake’ that should be corrected, which is not true. Note too that the tone of voice of the male speaker is pitched in a complaining manner as if something is amiss. This adds to the emotional appeal of the advertisement.
The ‘Yes23’ website says the same thing, but gets worse: “Australia’s now 122-year-old constitution still doesn’t recognise our first Australians; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It’s time it did. By voting “Yes” you’ll ensure that they are finally recognised in our constitution in a simple and meaningful way: through a Voice to Parliament that will ensure they are heard on the issues that affect their communities.”
Of course this ‘simple’ statement does not tell the whole story, and omits key facts. For Aboriginal people to be recognised in the Constitution in a “simple and meaningful way; through a Voice to Parliament …” is more misleading, deceitful and disingenuous propaganda. To attempt to convince the population that the proposed ‘Voice’ would be “simple” is to deny the enormous complexity of the proposal, its enormous financial cost and the massive political and social impact it will have on our democracy and way of life. Further, the ‘Voice’ clearly would not be restricted to issues “that affect their communities” only. This again is both misleading and a lie. The ‘Yes23’ campaign clearly hopes to garner support for a ‘Yes’ vote by stealth, that is, my misleading people and by not providing them with all the information they need to make a properly informed decision.
The next misleading error is the following statement from an Aboriginal woman:
“We’ve been here for 65,000 years.”
In follow-on from the first misleading statement, the Aboriginal woman, also in a complaining voice, implies that the length of time Aboriginal people have allegedly been in Australia makes this ‘exclusion’ or ‘omission’ even worse.
The length of time Aborigines have been in Australia is of course a highly contested argument, both on the actual length of time, and the pre-existence of other races who were ‘overrun’ by the Aborigines perhaps as recently as only 3,000 years ago. We note that the figure of 65,000 years was originally, back in the mid-1980’s, only 25,000 years and has grown, based upon scant real evidence, by approximately 10,000 years every decade since. This is not science, but an appeal to ideology and dogma. Despite the scant evidence of 65,000 years of alleged habitation, of what real relevance is that to changing the Constitution anyway? The two are in no way connected, except by emotional appeal.
And again, this emotional appeal is based upon a falsehood. The viewer is being told that Aborigines’ exclusion from the Constitution is made all the worse because of the length of time Aborigines have allegedly been in Australia. This is of course not at all relevant to the purposes of the Constitution.
The advertisement then goes on to say:
“This year, Australians have a chance to fix that.”
… to fix what exactly? That Aborigines have been omitted from and not been mentioned in the Constitution, or that Aborigines have allegedly inhabited Australia for 65,000 years? The segue is vague and unclear.
The advertisement then goes on to say:
“With a referendum to give Indigenous Australians a real say in their future.”
This again is a horrendously misleading statement. The vast majority of people who identify as Aborigines are urban city dwellers, who, just like everyone else, have identical opportunities to ‘have their say’ as does every other Australian. They are not disadvantaged in that way at all.
However, the misleading advertisement implies that ‘Indigenous Australians’ don’t currently have a say. This is not true. The advertisement implies that because they are not in the Constitution they don’t have a say. In actual fact, apart from the eleven elected Aboriginal members of the Federal Parliament, Aboriginal people across Australia currently have a ‘real say in their future’ through a multitudinous plethora of representative Aboriginal organisations numbering in the hundreds, more so than any other Australian has access to. Indeed, Aboriginal Australians are organisationally the most thoroughly over-represented group in Australia. Aboriginal Australians already have every bit as much of a say as everyone else does, and they always have had that right. In fact they already have more of a say than any other ethnic or racial group in Australia.
And indeed, what is a “real” say in their future, as if to imply that the ‘say’ that they currently have is either pretend, or not valid, or real, or genuine, or insufficient, or doesn’t work, or whatever. This of course makes no factual sense. It is fraudulent!
Then there are the follow-up comments, the first by a man who appears to be Aboriginal, saying “Fair enough” (as if the current situation is unfair) and a couple of white people agreeing with him saying “I’ll second that”. Just a little bit of positive whitefella confirmation snuck in there for good measure!
The advertisement creates a false and misleading impression that Aboriginal people were:
- Deliberately or accidentally omitted from the Constitution.
- That, on the basis of the length of time Aboriginal people have allegedly inhabited Australia, this was a mistake that must be corrected.
- That a change to the Constitution is required to provide Aboriginal people with a ‘real say’ in their lives which they currently do not have.
All of these statements and implications are patently untrue!
This is a reprehensible advertisement which, as noted, is misleading anddisingenuous. It is misinformation, and in fact, disinformation. As the purveyors of the above misleading statements ‘Yes23’ appears to be mounting a case which is in fact deceitful and fraudulent.
Prime Minister Albanese clearly stated that so-called ‘misleading’ information would not be tolerated in the referendum process, and perhaps even made illegal. However, perhaps he was only referring to the ‘No’ campaigners, because here is a prime example of misleading propaganda that appears deliberately designed to deceive people into agreeing to a proposal, the facts of which are being kept from them. I guess we all knew that Albanese’s statement would not apply to the ‘Yes’ campaigners.
Let’s be under no illusion; advertisements such as the ‘Yes23’ campaign’s example, and no doubt there will be many more in coming months, are nothing more than a stalking horse towards the path of “simple and meaningful” Aboriginal sovereignty over all of Australia via the ‘Voice’, ‘Truth-telling’, ‘Treaty’ and ‘Reparations’, all things that the likes of ‘Yes23’ don’t want Australians to know about.
Complaints should be lodged with the Australian Communications and Media Authority and with the Australian Electoral Commission and the ‘Yes23’ Campaign advertisement withdrawn. Perhaps the ‘Fair Australia’ Campaign could develop their own TV advertisement to set the record straight?
