A market-researcher turned whistleblower has alleged that he was instructed to manipulate data for a project commissioned by the Australian Electoral Commission in the lead up to the Voice to Parliament referendum last year.
The research concerned was benchmarking, tracking and evaluating AEC advertising about the process of the referendum and how to participate.
The whistleblower, who is being represented by the Human Rights Law Centre, says he was told to submit data from Indigenous people in Sydney as being from South Australia and regional NSW.
Palawa woman Maggie Walter, Distinguished Professor of Sociology Emerita at the University of Tasmania, is a founding member of the Indigenous data sovereignty organisation Maiam Nayri Wingara and an executive member of the Global Indigenous Data Alliance.
Professor Walter told NITV that the allegations of data manipulation were extremely disheartening.
“It goes to the heart of Indigenous data sovereignty, which is about having the data that Indigenous people need, and that data actually reflecting First Peoples’ realities,” she said.
“Support for the Voice from First Peoples communities was a big issue in the debates leading up to the referendum, and so the numbers did matter.
“People believe numbers, and those numbers were a really important part of the Voice debate, and they were used politically, and now we find out that they were likely incorrect.”
On McNair’s website they advertise that the company specialises in ‘CALD [culturally and linguistically diverse] and Indigenous research’.
McNair YellowSquares managing director Angela Brooks told NITV in a statement that they were aware of the allegations and they were investigating.
“We take pride in the robustness, quality and accuracy of our work, always seeking to act impartially, with integrity and in line with best practice frameworks and processes,” she said.
“If any employee is found to be misrepresenting survey data or requesting it, this is a major breach of our code of conduct, and further action will be taken.”
An AEC spokesperson said in a statement that they were extremely disappointed to hear that this may have occurred but from the information available, it would seem that the issue only related to a very small number of respondents as part of a much larger body of research work.
“As our benchmark, tracking and evaluation research is conducted across five waves, sample sizes are not sufficiently robust for analysis of First Nations responses by location,” the spokesperson said.
“Rather the findings provide overall insights as well as information related to types of regions (eg metropolitan vs regional vs rural).
“We, of course, seek a range of locations to get information coming from various parts of Australia within those broader categories though.
“We also do separate research – known as developmental or formative – by a different research company on awareness and attitudes.”
‘It causes harm’
But Professor Walter said the alleged data manipulation speaks to a cavalier attitude about Indigenous people.
“We can conjecture that possibly people from the regions or people from South Australia would have had different opinions to people from Redfern in Sydney, but we just don’t know, and it just makes you question all of the data,” she said.
“It just speaks to a really cavalier attitude about Indigenous data, that somehow it didn’t matter, that it wasn’t actually going to be reflective of what they said it was going to reflect.
“And for First Peoples, that what we think about such an issue as the Voice that the company doesn’t even care enough to make sure they actually get the data that they then purport to be true, is a real blow.
“It causes harm to First Peoples – and they get to walk away at the end of the day with their contract paid.”
Regina Featherstone, representing the whistleblower, explained that her client had followed correct legal procedures, making a report to the company, then to ASIC – and that only after there was he told his story to Guardian Australia, who broke the news on Tuesday.
“Ultimately it took nearly a year for this information to come out and so I think … it really raises questions as to what data was provided to the Australian public and whether it’s actually accurate, and especially for something as potentially history- and life-changing for First Nations Australians as the Voice,” she said.
“It calls into question the data that we’ve received before about attitudes and opinions.
“How can the AEC then respond to informing or educating everybody, if they don’t actually know the truth of where everyone’s at, what their true opinions are, or the true sentiment or understanding of what the referendum was?”
Professor Walter said misrepresenting data from urban populations as coming from regional areas was effectively silencing people.
“People were denied, they did not get to speak,” she said.
“And I know people were influenced by what the data was saying about other Aboriginal people’s opinions about things.
It was silencing a whole group, again, casting them off as not mattering.
Professor Walter believes had the research been conducted by an Indigenous organisation, the alleged misrepresentation of data wouldn’t have happened.
“Especially if they were abiding by Indigenous data sovereignty principles … corners would not have been cut and savings made by going to a convenient, available population to save money,” she said.
“Because we value and we know the value of data and how important it was to get this data right.
“They lied. We can’t rely on those numbers and nobody seems to care.
“And for First Peoples, that seems to be the story of our lives.
“Nobody cares – it’s not important enough to do it properly.”
