NATIONAL REFERENDUM STATE OF PLAY 2023: Advance Australia

 

The year 2020 began with media articles discussing the possibility of the recognition of First Nations people in the Australian Constitution and also a Voice to Parliament.

This was not new. People had been reading of these issues at their breakfast tables since at least the 1990s, many without realising that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples had been seeking long-overdue recognition, a protection of their rights and equal treatment since the 1920s. All of which had culminated in the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart - after which the Coalition Turnbull and Morrison federal governments repeatedly shoved the Statement into a corner of the room whenever questions were asked.

Although Advance Australia had registered as an official significant third party in February 2019 (with $2.4 million in seedmoney supplied by 16 donors).

The legal entity which underpins this organisation is Advance Aus Ltd formerly known as Freedom Aus Limited, registered in Queensland on 31 August 2018 and then moved to South Australia before landing in the ACT and now situated at Level 4, 15 Moore Street Canberra, CITY ACT 2601 since July 2023.

The original six directors have come and gone and now there are three:

LAURA JEAN BRADLEY; 

MATTHEW PATRICK FRANCIS SHEAHAN - self-titled 'activist'; and

VICKI ANN DUNNE - former ACT Liberal Party MLA for Ginninderra electorate.

Thus registered corporation never has reported annual income of less than $1.3 to $2.8 million, according to the AEC Transparency Register.

Advance Australia been running political issue 'talking points' and campaign advertising ever since, it wasn’t until 2021-22 when its xenophobia and prejudice began to be writ large that media coverage had increased as had awareness.

By the time 2022 came around with a firming of the political objective to hold a national referendum, it was obvious that Advance Australia had not just political backing from right-wing politicians and committed culture warriors like Tony Abbott, it had a number of financial backers with deep pockets. Pockets which appear to be financing its referendum “No” campaign against the inclusion of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament in the Australian Constitution.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 15 September 2023, p.26:

One of the calculated myths in the campaign against the Indigenous Voice is the argument that the referendum is a contest between elite insiders and ordinary folk because the case for change is powered by the wealthy and the well-connected.

The No campaign thrives on the "outsider" status it claims for itself as a movement that speaks for those without money or power, leading a cause that challenges the establishment by mobilising voters who lack the advantages enjoyed by others.

But the No campaign has an establishment of its own, full of people with money, influence and connections as well as harbourside views. It turns out that a transport company boss and a building materials millionaire are among the donors behind Advance Australia, although their names do not show up in the disclosures at the Australian Electoral Commission.

This is important when so little is known about the peak group behind the No campaign, Advance Australia, and the activist group it has set up, Fair Australia. These groups are secretive by design, but key facts about the tactics adopted by some of their members emerged in this masthead this week about the way they coached volunteers to use fear and doubt rather than facts to defeat the Voice at the October 14 referendum. It is not suggested that any of the donors identified below endorsed the controversial tactics revealed in the news reports.

Advance is a force to be watched in federal politics. If it succeeds in halting the Voice, it could unleash its conservative activism on other fronts even when critics accuse it of peddling falsehoods…..

Some Advance donors are known because they are named in the group's annual returns to the Australian Electoral Commission, or they lodge their own returns about their donations, and some have declared their support publicly, but that is not the case with all. Some of the payments are made through private companies, so we searched company records to find out who was behind the donations. This kind of disclosure is not readily available to the ordinary voter.

So who are its donors? The transport company chief is Brett Ralph, founder and managing director of Jet Couriers and a director of the Melbourne Storm football club as well as other sporting clubs. His company, JMR Management Consultancy Services, put $75,000 into Advance last financial year. He did not reply to an email about his donations.

The Sydney millionaire is Rodney O'Neil, a member of a family that made its money in building materials with companies like Australian Blue Metal and Hymix, which was run by his brother, Colin. Companies linked to Rodney O'Neil, with names like Nedigi and Sixmilebridge and based in Double Bay, contributed $85,000 to Advance last year. He did not respond to a request for comment.

Another donor is Sam Kennard, head of storage company Kennards, who has helped Advance over several years. His company, Siesta Holdings, gave $20,000 last year and $20,000 the year before. There was no response from Kennards about this donation.

These donors join some who have already been in the headlines for their help for Advance - such as former health company chief Marcus Blackmore, who donated $20,000 last year. Blackmore is a public supporter of the No campaign. One of the best-known donors to Advance is a former fund manager, Simon Fenwick, who has backed the conservative group for years. He and his wife, Elizabeth, donated $650,000 and $350,000 before the last election. The Fenwick family trust also donated $50,000 last year. Earlier this year, Fenwick promised to match donations worth up to $250,000 to Advance to help stop the Voice….. [my yellow highlighting]

Australian Electoral Commission List of Individuals & companies donating to Advance Australia in financial year 2021-22

• Marcus Blackmore (Liberal & National parties donor) multi-millionaire Executive Director of Blackmores Ltd - $20,000 to Advance Australia

• Brazil Farming Pty Ltd, principal multi-millionaire Franklyn Roger Brazil - $34,000 to Advance Australia

• Louis Denton, Chief Operating Officer Devcos International - $75,000 to Advance Australia

• Rayleen Guisti, Personal Assistant to Managing Director Garnaut Private Wealth - $37,500 to Advance Australia

• Gabrielle Hull - $20,000 to Advance Australia

• John Francis Hull (Liberal National Party of Qld donor) Retired UK director - $45,000 Advance to Australia

• J M R Management Consultancy Services Pty Ltd, Managing Director Brett Ralph - $75,000 to Advance Australia

• Nedigi Pty Limited (inaugural Advance Australia Donor 2018-19), Son of property magnate Denis O'Neil, Director Rodney O’Neil - $25,000 to Advance Australia

• Sixmilebridge Pty Limited (inaugural Advance Australia Donor 2018-19), (Liberal Party, Liberal National Party Qld, National Party donor) Company Secretary Rodney O’Neil - $45,000 to Advance Australia

• Telowar Pty Ltd (inaugural Advance Australia Donor 2018-19), Director Rodney O’Neil - $25,000 to Advance Australia

• Andrew Abercrombie (Liberal Party donor) millionaire president of the Buy Now Pay Later company Humm - $20,020 to Advance Australia

• Willimbury Pty Limited,(inaugural Advance Australia Donor 2018-19), Director Colin O’Neil - $25,000 to Advance Australia

• Siesta Holdings Australia Pty Ltd (Liberal Democratic Party donor) Director Sam Kennard - $30,000 to Advance Australia

• Karl Morris (Liberal Party Donor) CEO Ord Minnett Ltd & Chair Bravehearts Foundation Fund - $10,000 to Advance Australia

• Silver River Investment Holdings Pty Ltd (Liberal Party, Liberal Democratic Party & Drew Pavlou Democratic Alliance donor) Director Simon Fenwick, Institute of Public Affairs board member  - $50,000 to Advance Australia

• Ian Tristram Chairman Trisco Foods Pty Ltd - $25,000 Advance Australia

Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) issues media release in response to factual errors and misleading comments concerning national referendum voting instructions

 

Despite the legislation concerning national referenda being clear (as evidenced by the above interview with Antony Green), misinformation and at times deliberate disinformation is to be found in both mainstream and social media concerning the proposed 2023 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament referendum.

The level of factual inaccuracy has become a matter of concern.....

Australian Electoral Commission, AEC Newsroom, Media releases 2023

Media advice: Referendum voting instructions

Updated: 25 August 2023

Australian voters are rightly proud of their electoral system – one of the most transparent and robust voting systems in the world. As a result, there is an intense, and highly appropriate level of public interest in all aspects of that system, and associated commentary online and in mainstream media. Sometimes this commentary is immediate and based on emotion rather than the reality of the law which the AEC must administer.

There has been intense commentary online and in mainstream media regarding what will and will not be a formal vote for the 2023 referendum; specifically around whether or not a ‘tick’ or a ‘cross’ will be able to be counted. Much of that commentary is factually incorrect and ignores:

• the law surrounding ‘savings provisions’,

• the longstanding legal advice regarding the use of ticks and crosses, and

• the decades-long and multi-referendum history of the application of that law and advice.

The AEC completely and utterly rejects the suggestions by some that by transparently following the established, public and known legislative requirements we are undermining the impartiality and fairness of the referendum.

As has been the case at every electoral event, the AEC remains totally focussed on electoral integrity. Indeed, electoral integrity is a central part of the AEC’s published values; underpinned by, and supported through, complete adherence to all relevant laws and regulations.

How to cast a formal vote

The formal voting instructions for the referendum are to clearly write either ‘yes’ or ‘no’, in full, in English.

It is that easy: given the simplicity, the AEC expects the vast, vast majority of Australian voters to follow those instructions and cast a formal vote.

Previous levels of formality

It is important to keep scale, or a lack of it in this instance, and precedent in mind when discussing this matter.

More than 99% of votes cast at the 1999 federal referendum were formal. Even of the 0.86% of informal votes, many would have had no relevance to the use of ticks or crosses.

AEC communication

Instructions for casting a formal vote – to write either yes or no in full, in English, will be:

• part of the AEC’s advertising campaign,

• on the AEC website,

• in the guide delivered to all Australian households,

• an instruction by our polling officials when people are issued with their ballot paper,

• on posters in polling places, and

• on the ballot paper itself.

This is why the level of formal voting at previous referendums has been so high and why the AEC expects the vast, vast majority of voters to follow those instructions.

The law

Like an election, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 includes ‘savings provisions’ - the ability to count a vote where the instructions have not been followed but the voter’s intention is clear.

• The AEC cannot ignore the law and cannot ignore savings provisions.

The law regarding formality in a referendum is long-standing and unchanged through many governments, Parliaments, and multiple referendums. Legal advice from the Australian Government Solicitor, provided on multiple occasions during the previous three decades, regarding the application of savings provisions to ‘ticks’ and ’crosses’ has been consistent – for decades.

This is not new, nor a new AEC determination of any kind for the 2023 referendum. The law regarding savings provisions and the principle around a voter’s intent has been in place for at least 30 years and 6 referendum questions.

The longstanding legal advice provides that a cross can be open to interpretation as to whether it denotes approval or disapproval: many people use it daily to indicate approval in checkboxes on forms. The legal advice provides that for a single referendum question, a clear ‘tick’ should be counted as formal and a ‘cross’ should not.

Media resources:

AEC Newsroom

AEC YouTube (AECTV)

AEC imagery (AEC Flickr)

AEC media contacts

~~~~ENDS~~~~

BACKGROUND

The Guardian, 24 August 2023, excerpts:

Voters in the upcoming voice to parliament referendum are being urged to write “yes” or “no” on referendum ballot papers – and being warned that if they use a cross, their vote may not be counted.

The well-established and longstanding rule which will mean ticks are likely allowed but votes that use crosses are likely excluded has prompted criticism from the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, the former prime minister Tony Abbott and the no campaign, which claims the requirement will “stack the deck” against them.

The rule has been on the books, without controversy, for 30 years and six referendum questions, and when asked about ticks and crosses on Thursday, an Australian Electoral Commission spokesperson simply said: “Please don’t use them.”….

Fair Australia tweeted: “Looks like just another attempt to stack the deck against ‘no’ voting Australians.”

Abbott claimed on 2GB that “there’s a suspicion that officialdom is trying to make it easier for one side … This is the worry all along that there is a lot of official bias in this whole referendum process.”

Dutton, also speaking on 2GB, called it “completely outrageous” and claimed the situation “gives a very, very strong advantage to the ‘yes’ case”. The opposition leader said he would ask the government to draft legislation to change the rule.

The Coalition opposition did not propose amending this rule during debate on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act earlier this year, and supported the government’s legislation....

The Sydney Morning Herald, 25 August 2023, excerpt:

Despite Dutton’s insistence that an X should denote a No vote, in his 2022 election candidate nomination form he repeatedly placed an X in a box to indicate a Yes to questions about his citizenship and the country of his parents’ birth, for example.

Click on image to enlarge

In fact across the entire Dutton_Q47P document “x” was used interchangeably by Peter Dutton to denote Yes, No, and Not Applicable.

NOTE:

History of Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 can be found at

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A02908