Trust is vital for informed Indigenous voice to parliament referendum debate

Given the important decision that must be made regarding the planned referendum on an Indigenous voice to parliament, being able to trust the information that is presented to voters is vital. 

This does not necessarily mean it will be a simple or single message. As we continue to demonstrate in the robust debate taking place in our pages, it is possible for intelligent minds to have differing opinions about the structure and likely impact of what voters will be asked to consider later this year.

In any referendum, government plays a vital role in conveying what it is that will be decided. In this case it is to give constitutional recognition to Indigenous Australians and provide a way for them to give advice to government on issues that concern them. This is straightforward but still extremely complex.

Anthony Albanese has sought to frame the referendum in emotional terms as a mark of respect to fellow Australians. Others are concerned that amending the Constitution in such a way will give some Australians a special status based on race. From this point, debate expands to include what role the courts will have in reinforcing the authority of an Indigenous voice and what special measures may come next, given that a voice to parliament is one part of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which has several aspects including truth-telling and treaty. The Prime Minister rightly says details of exactly how the voice will operate will be left to parliament, which will always have primacy, after the referendum is decided. Others contend that details must come first so people can make an educated decision when they vote.

We have been open in our view that we support measures that recognise Indigenous Australians and help to improve the lives, dignity and experience of fellow citizens. Publishers have a special responsibility to provide readers with accurate and authoritative information they can use to make their own decisions. It is a responsibility that we at The Australian take seriously. Our news reporting on the issue covers the widest possible points of view. Our opinion pages have presented detailed and challenging arguments across the broad spectrum of ideological, legal and political standpoints. Our foundation principle is to properly interrogate what is on offer and allow our readers to make up their own minds on what they believe to be the best course of action. This is not always the case elsewhere. It is extraordinary that the ABC has been forced to intervene and train staff in how to be objective when reporting on the voice.

The government has elected to take a minimalist approach to providing information beyond the simple question that will be put to a vote and that must get the support of a majority of voters in a majority of states to succeed. Mr Albanese has agreed to a Coalition request that a pamphlet be circulated putting both the Yes and the No cases. As things stand, the government will provide zero funding to the Yes and No campaigns, preferring that financial support be garnered from business, church and community organisations and individuals who are motivated to enter the fray. The expectation had been that, as with the same-sex marriage plebiscite, the corporate sector would be eager to participate. As the full dimensions of the issues become more apparent, together with the polarised viewpoints from all extremes of the political spectrum, this might not be as certain as it had once appeared.

In earlier times, a pamphlet outlining the Yes and No cases would be a central document on which voters could form their views. Given the ubiquitous nature of social media, this is likely no longer to be the case. As things stand, tech giants such as Google and Facebook will decide what content will appear on their platforms or be censored in the lead-up to the voice referendum. This raises some difficulties.

Unlike publishers, big tech is not obliged to deliver any sense of balance. Nor is it willing or able to adequately police material that appears on its platforms. Live broadcast of hate crimes, censoring of politically sensitive information such as the Hunter Biden laptop story in the US, the deplatforming of politicians whose views big tech does not agree with, and arbitrary intrusion by algorithms to rank and present information are all danger signs for what should be free and informed debate. The Institute of Public Affairs has gone so far as to suggest that broadcasting laws used during federal elections be expanded to capture digital platforms and crack down on disinformation campaigns through mandatory reporting and compliance measures.

Equally pressing is the need for digital giants to properly understand how their media is being abused by malicious actors. The Covid-19 anti-vaccine issue shows what is possible. A report by the Centre for Countering Digital Hate cited by the White House found the vast majority of Covid-19 anti-vaccine misinformation and conspiracy theories came from just 12 people. The dozen online personalities had 59 million followers and 95 per cent of the Covid misinformation reported was not removed. Another concern is the preparedness of foreign governments to use social media to undermine confidence in governments and democracy. ASIO director-general Mike Burgess told the National Press Club last month that authoritarian governments were working constantly to undermine liberal democracies from within. Unless it is properly managed, debate over the voice provides fertile ground for hostile actors to make mischief. This is because of the intensity with which opinions are passionately held and the intersection with extremist elements that have agendas that stretch well beyond what is being considered. This is not an argument to limit debate; far from it. It is a reminder of the important role that the media holds and one that must be recognised and respected. Australian society is a tolerant and diverse community well able to consider and judge wisely the issues that are being put before it. For assistance, Australians must be well served in being able to seek out information they can trust. The media must be free to challenge the thinking of their audience and encourage them to consider all points of view. We take our responsibility seriously and will continue to provide a full range of diverse opinions and viewpoints that our readers know they can trust is genuine and intended to inform. As the first referendum to be fought in the age of social media, it is important that tech giants are held to the same high standards as other publishers.