CheckMate July 28, 2023
This week, we debunk a claim made by former prime minister Tony Abbott that the National Indigenous Australians Agency, a regular target for misinformation about the Voice to Parliament, disburses $30 billion in funding each year.
We also tackle several false claims contained in an unauthorised No pamphlet being shared online, and revisit a persistent myth that the Voice will constitute a "third chamber" of parliament.
No, the NIAA doesn't spend $30b a year on Indigenous programs
Former prime minister Tony Abbott made a claim about funding disbursed by the NIAA in a radio interview.
(ABC News: Andrew Kennedy)
In the lead-up to this year's Voice to Parliament referendum, the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) has become a lightning rod for misinformation, including bogus claims that it helped author a secret list of demands for the Voice to implement.
The executive agency, which provides advice to the prime minister and minister for Indigenous Australians, is tasked with coordinating the federal government's service delivery and policies with respect to First Nations Australians — leading some to wrongly equate it with the proposed Voice, despite clear differences in its role, composition and independence.
During a radio interview with 2GB's Ben Fordham this week, former prime minister Tony Abbott also name-checked the NIAA, citing the "hundreds of people" working for the agency in Canberra as among the reasons a Voice was not needed.
Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.
Listen to Mr Abbott make the claim on 2GB radio.
He then claimed that the agency "disburses something like $30 billion a year on various Indigenous programs".
Mr Abbott's comments echo similar claims on social media that "dedicated Indigenous bodies" such as the NIAA were collectively "funded to the tune of 30 BILLION PLUS dollars".
However, in a statement to CheckMate, a spokesman for the NIAA said it "has never administered funding of $30 billion per annum".
Indeed, budget portfolio statements for the agency — which has only existed since 2019 — reveal that it had a total budget of $4.5 billion in 2022-23, which was higher than inpreviousyears.
The spokesman added that the NIAA administers programs through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS), and had "provided grant funding from the IAS of $1.6 billion in the 2022-23 financial year".
As for government funding more broadly, CheckMate was unable to find any reports or data dealing directly with total spending on "dedicated Indigenous bodies".
Rather, the $30 billion figure appears to have come from the Productivity Commission's most recent Indigenous Expenditure Report, published in 2017, which provides a breakdown of total "direct expenditure" on First Nations Australians.
The report estimated that direct expenditure on all Australians — by all state, territory and federal governments — totalled $556.1 billion in 2015-16, of which $33.4 billion (6 per cent) was spent on First Nations people.
The vast majority of that ($27.4 billion) was simply the Indigenous share of "mainstream expenditure" — that is, expenditure "provided for all people", including spending on schools, hospitals, welfare, defence and "public order and safety".
The remainder ($6 billion) was spent on "services and programs … provided to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community specifically".
In other words, Indigenous-specific expenditure accounted for 1.1 per cent of total direct expenditure on all Australians.
On average, the Productivity Commission noted, per-person direct expenditure was roughly twice as high for Indigenous than non-Indigenous Australians — largely due to higher levels of disadvantage among First Nations people. Other reasons included that the population was more likely to use government services due to its younger age profile.
As researcher James Haughton explained in a Parliamentary Library report on the 2019-20 budget, "the main driver of Indigenous expenditure is … not Indigenous-specific programs, but higher use of all government programs".
Demographic differences lead to higher per capita spending on school, university and childcare services, he wrote, while disadvantage leads to more spending on, for example, hospitals, prisons and social housing.
Writing in the Conversation about a related claim in 2016, ANU's Professor Nicholas Biddle also noted that "around one in five Indigenous Australians live in remote areas, where the cost of providing many services is significantly higher".
"So, much of the spending is to achieve the same level of services that others are accustomed to."
Familiar 'third chamber' claim resurfaces
No, the Voice will not be a "third" or "special" chamber of parliament.
(ABC News: Matt Roberts)
First spruiked more than half a decade ago by leaders of the Coalition, an incorrect claim suggesting that the Voice to Parliament would constitute a third chamber of parliament remains pervasive in the lead-up to the referendum.
In a video shared online by digital media company ADH TV (which was launched by former Sky News and 2GB host Alan Jones in late 2021) commentator Damian Coory suggests that Australians are being asked "to vote yes to a special chamber with special access and rights of consideration and input over laws that affect everyone".
But as George Williams, a constitutional law expert at the University of New South Wales, told RMIT FactLab, there was no suggestion that the Voice would have any of the powers or responsibilities of the existing two chambers of Australia's parliament.
"The Voice will not be a special chamber of Parliament," Professor Williams said in an email. "In fact, it will not be a 'special chamber' at all."
Rather, Professor Williams said, the Voice would be an advisory body of Indigenous Australians able to make representations on laws and policies to parliament and government, with the latter bodies still making decisions about laws and policies "as they see fit".
"The Voice does not have a veto, nor any power akin to being a chamber of Parliament."
Other constitutional law experts agree.
Anne Twomey, professor of constitutional law at the University of Sydney, told RMIT FactLab in September that the Voice would not alter the composition of parliament.
"A 'third chamber' is intended to mean an additional body, the approval of which would be required to pass legislation, and which could exercise the same powers as the other Houses of Parliament," she said.
"A Voice to Parliament would not be a third chamber because it would not be a part of parliament. It could not initiate, debate, pass or defeat bills and would not have any of the powers or privileges of the existing houses."
The notion of a "third chamber" was initially promoted by leaders of the Coalition in 2017, after the Uluru Statement of the Heart was presented to the federal government.
Then-prime minister Malcom Turnbull said at the time that the Voice "would inevitably become seen as a third chamber of parliament", though he has since recanted, writing in the Guardian that the current Voice proposal "won't be a third chamber" and that he would be voting yes.
Then-deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce also dismissed the Voice as an "Indigenous chamber", but has similarly backed down, labelling his comments a "mistake".
'VOTE NO' pamphlet misleads on Voice, treaty and supposed GDP payments
Among the claims made in the pamphlet was recycled misinformation about the NIAA.
An unauthorised 'Vote No' pamphlet shared online ahead of the referendum has made numerous incorrect claims about the proposed Voice to Parliament, FactLab has found.
The pamphlet, which claims to be quoting Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, suggests that once enshrined, the Voice would be in the constitution "forever".
It also claims the success of the Voice referendum would force "Australians into Treaty", under which a proportion of GDP, as well as rates, land tax and royalties, would be paid to the advisory body.
But even in the event of a successful referendum this year, experts told FactLab the Voice to Parliament could be removed from the constitution by another referendum.
It's worth noting, however, that just eight of 44 referendums held in Australia have been successful.
Similarly, while the Uluru Statement from the Heart does call for a treaty (Makarrata) to be established following the establishment of a Voice to Parliament, there was no evidence that this sequence would be "forced".
In fact, the explanatory memorandum of the Constitutional Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 Act draws a clear distinction between the Voice and Makarrata, stating:
"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."
Meanwhile, the suggestion that Australians would be forced to pay a proportion of GDP (or any other payment) to the Voice to Parliament stems from a misinterpretation of documents released by the National Indigenous Australians Agency under Freedom of Information laws.
Despite previousclaimsthat the documents contain a "list of demands" to be implemented following the establishment of a Voice to Parliament, in reality they are simply the minutes of various regional First Nations Dialogues held across Australia in 2016 and 2017, the purpose of which was to discuss what constitutional recognition might look like.
The claim that Australians would pay a proportion of GDP to the Voice each year appears to be based on ideas — not concrete proposals — shared during the Adelaide and Hobart dialogues alone, and they did not suggest making payments directly to a Voice.
Importantly, many such ideas and discussions raised at the meetings went no further, with suggestions whittled down to just a handful of "consistent themes" and "guiding principles" on which agreement could be reached.
