Apparently during the recent referendum, there were a number of social media posts that suggested if Australia had voted for the proposed Voice to Parliament all sorts of dire consequences would occur.

Some claimed that we would all lose our homes. The same claim was made at the time of the Mabo Decision in the High Court and despite a number of government departments knowing where I live, how much I earn, who I bank with, my phone and email contact details – it never happened. Granted I am still not in the same home as I was when land rights legislation was implemented – but that was my decision. Governments and the Native Title Legislation had nothing to do with it.

Another claim made was that all immigrants since a certain [variable] date would be repatriated back to where they came from. That bit of the referendum question must have been in the 25 or so pages of the Uluru Response that only those with tin foil hats could see. The additional pages never existed, neither did any documented evidence that any immigrant would be repatriated.

Conservative political leaders were at best bending the truth to suit their narrative. Dutton’s claim that the concept of a Voice to Parliament was divisive had nothing on his and his Coalition Colleagues divisive actions over the past 20 years in regard to refugees, social security recipients, conservationists and even First Nations people. Dutton, Price, Mundine and Thorpe all showed that they are incapable of listening to others opinion, considering alternative points of view or understanding that not everyone gets exactly what they want all the time.

Of course Dutton and his fellow travellers were ably assisted by sections of the media who, instead of encouraging people to look at both sides of this or any other issue and make up their own mind – pushed a dumbed down agenda which some obviously swallowed without thinking. ‘If you don’t know – vote no is an insult to everyone’s intelligence. It is assuming that we are incapable of finding out information, thinking about it and making a decision. Very 1950ish ‘father knows best’ really – isn’t it? It could also be described as a scam as there was little if any factual information being presented.

The sad reality is that people have been falling for scams for centuries. Governments have introduced legislation to mitigate scams in certain areas. For example, it is illegal to sell a product in Australia that claims some medical benefit without evidence to support the claim. All new motor vehicles must have certain features to mitigate harm before they are allowed to be sold in Australia (and most countries around the world of that matter). You can’t legally give yourself a whole list of titles such as Medical Doctor, Lawyer, Architect or even a Justice of the Peace unless you are actually qualified to use the title.

So why did we endure months of lies and misinformation from those with a political axe to grind in the lead up to the referendum? The real reason is there is no legislation requiring truth in political advertising. Not only that, but anybody with an axe to grind and sufficient money to spend can make any ludicrous statement they want to and buy the publicity to do so. As recent events have demonstrated yet again, we all suffer as a result.

The government’s response to the failure of the referendum should be multi-pronged. First, find a way to commit to Truth, Voice and Treaty that is acceptable to our First Nations People where they don’t have to rely on the ‘good graces’ of the Coalition. Second, point out to Dutton and his political mouthpieces that if there is a need for a Royal Commission into child abuse or grants expenditure, it should examine the problem across the country – as limiting it to Aboriginal communities is divisive. Lastly, but not least importantly there should be a massive overhaul of the Electoral Act to prohibit falsehood in political advertising and comments by politicians.

Despite the claims of Dutton, Thorpe, Price and Mundine there had to be some serious money from ‘elites’ going to the ‘no’ case as well as the ‘yes’ case. The ‘yes’ case were disclosing donations, who the ‘elites’ funding the ‘no’ case will be disclosed in a year or so by the AEC. Funding of political campaigns must be online and real time so that you and I are aware of who is potentially providing the script for politicians to act out. At the moment, federally it isn’t.

Obviously the Coalition wouldn’t support any of these measures. The second referendum for recognition without a ‘voice’ promised by Dutton in the lead up to the referendum a week or so ago was quietly taken out the back and strangled within hours of the referendum result being obvious to all. The Greens and independents probably would support advertising and financial truth in politics. It’s about time Albanese’s ALP Government worked with them to achieve real and hopefully meaningful change to our political processes. While politics should be the contest of ideas, the ideas have to be grounded in facts rather than the obvious falsehoods some relied on in the recent referendum.

As for the financial disclosure, if a multitude of on-line shopping websites can tell you within minutes that Anthony A of Marrickville purchased a “Comfy” camping chair – complete with image and price for your fear or missing out to trigger and get the identical product – the software exists for the $20,000 donation to any political party to be given similar publicity. It can’t be that hard.

A ban on lies in political advertising is popular according to a survey by The Australia Institute. All we need is the Parliament to work together and make it happen.