Privately produced anti-Voice pamphlet repeats disproven claims and misuses artwork

^{By Renee Davidson}

An unauthorised “Vote No” pamphlet distributed across the country contains disinformation about the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum and an image of Aboriginal artwork that was used without permission from the artist, Danny Eastwood, who is, in fact, a Yes supporter.

The pamphlet headlined “WHY YOU NEED TO VOTE NO TO THE VOICE”, features  an image of a 2018 painting of Uluru, but it has been digitally altered to include the words “VOTE NO” superimposed on the rock, giving the impression the words were part of the original artwork. 

The pamphlet also claims that the Voice, once enshrined in the constitution, will remain in perpetuity; that Australians will be forced into a treaty; and that they will have to pay a percentage of GDP in reparations.

An online version of the pamphlet has been shared at least 190 times across Facebook, Instagram and Twitter by supporters of the No campaign. 

Mr Eastwood, who supports the Voice to Parliament, described the actions of the No campaigners as “a very low act”, telling the ABC he was furious and disgusted when he discovered that an image of his painting of Uluru had been distributed by opponents of the Voice. 

“They used Aboriginal dot painting to use the word ‘no’ to make it look like it was part of the painting. I was very disappointed and shocked,” he said.

"It's not just the painting, [Uluru is] an icon … they've taken a very sacred place to Aboriginals all over Australia and put graffiti on it," he said.

"There are Aboriginal people who want to vote no, I won't deny that. But to do that to my artwork, it's saying I am the person saying 'no'.”

The pamphlet also contains several claims about the Indigenous Voice to Parliament which have previously been fact checked by RMIT FactLab and found to be false.

False claim: “Once The Voice is enshrined in the constitution it is there forever”. 

The Voice referendum proposes to amend the Australian Constitution to recognise Indigenous Australians as the First Peoples of Australia and to create an advisory body called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to provide advice to the Parliament and government on matters relating to Indigenous peoples.

In June, FactLab debunked the claim that the Voice, once enshrined in the Australian Constitution, would have the power to veto any future referendum that sought to remove it. 

Scientia Professor in Law George Williams, an expert in constitutional law, told FactLab at the time that the Voice could be removed by another referendum.  

“The Voice, if supported this year, could be removed via a later referendum,” he said. “The Voice could not be abolished, though, by government or parliament, it would take a future constitutional change as the Voice would be entrenched in the constitution.”

False claim: “The Voice forces Australians into Treaty”. 

In June, FactLab examined a similar claim that “the Voice is treaty by another name” and found it to be false. 

A treaty, or more specifically “Makarrata”, is one of the recommendations from more than 250 Indigenous leaders encapsulated in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which was issued to the Australian people in May 2017. Makarrata encompasses the establishment of a treaty and the process of truth-telling about Australia’s colonial history.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart calls for sequential reforms, described as Voice first, followed by treaty, then truth.

The explanatory memorandum of the Constitutional Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 Act draws a clear distinction between the Voice and Makarrata. It states: “The proposed constitutional amendment would implement the first element of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution through a Voice.”

There is no evidence to suggest that the Voice “forces” Australians into a treaty. While the Voice and Makarrata are related, they are distinctly separate aspirations of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. 

False claim: “Treaty means Australians pay a % of GDP, and are forced to pay rates/land tax/royalties to the Voice”. 

FactLab found this claim to be false in a previous fact check published in April. 

The claims relate to documents from the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) released under Freedom of Information laws in March 2023. They contain records from First Nations Regional Dialogues held across the country in 2016 and 2017.  

The 13 regional meetings were held by the bipartisan Referendum Council, and were attended by around 1,200 Indigenous Australians to discuss how best to recognise Indigenous Australians in the constitution. 

A summary of minutes from those meetings was compiled to contribute to discussions at the 2017 Uluru national convention, where delegates produced the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

The claim in the pamphlet that Australians would pay a proportion of GDP to the Voice is based on ideas shared during Adelaide and Hobart dialogues, where no suggestions were actually made that money be paid directly to the Voice.

A summary of the Adelaide meeting in April 2017, for example, merely states that "there was strong support for Agreement Making as a vehicle for implementing policies such as … economic measures like seeking a percentage of GDP".

Minutes of the Hobart meeting, held a few months earlier, mention only that participants from one of five working groups had said that a treaty must include "a fixed percentage of Gross Nation [sic] Product" and "rates/land tax/royalties".

The FOI documents do not contain proposals to be acted upon should a Voice to Parliament be established. Despite this, supporters of the No campaign have repeatedly made the false claim that the documents reveal the “real agenda” behind the Voice. 

These false claims have also been made by federal shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, in an email she sent on behalf of anti-Voice campaign group Fair Australia. 

The claims have made their way into a pamphlet distributed around Australia, but the person who produced it has not been identified. The claims and the doctored image of Mr Eastwood’s artwork are now circulating on social media platforms.

A second pamphlet that also carries an image of the doctored artwork was produced by Gold Coast-based One Nation supporter and anti-Voice activist Spencer Chalifour, according to the ABC.

He said he had printed and advertised 20,000 pamphlets available for the cost of postage, all of which had been distributed around the country. Mr Chalifour said he had apologised to Mr Eastwood after becoming aware that the image he had used in the pamphlet was a doctored version of Mr Eastwood's artwork of Uluru.

A spokesperson for the Australian Electoral Commission told FactLab that it is looking into the matter, as the pamphlets did not appear to be authorised. The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 requires campaign material to feature authorisation, including the details of who produced it.