Constitutional expert and Indigenous voice supporter Prof Greg Craven is “absolutely furious” at being quoted in the no campaign’s official essay, and he says Peter Dutton’s office ignored his request not to be included.
The legal academic says he will complain to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), which published the yes and no essays on Tuesday.
Craven accused the no side of “deeply misleading” conduct and of writing an “embarrassing” essay. The AEC has said it has no ability to fact-check or edit the pamphlets written by politicians.
“The tactics of the no case make it even more imperative that the referendum gets up – this is disreputable,” Craven told Guardian Australia.
No campaign leader Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who chaired the no essay, defended its use of Craven’s quotes.
Prominent yes campaigners Megan Davis and Pat Anderson also slammed the no pamphlet as “cooked” and said it “trots out the same tired and misleading arguments”.
“The no case is a case for reliance on Canberra. It is about no ideas, no solutions, no hope, no courage, no heart,” Davis and Anderson said in a joint statement. “The no pamphlet has used taxpayers’ money to distribute misleading information aimed at holding our people back.”
Craven, a constitutional law professor and member of the government’s expert legal group that debated the constitutional amendment and referendum question, had publicly questioned details of the draft amendment before it was finalised.
Craven’s previous concern that the amendment was “fatally flawed” and would lead to “regular judicial interventions” was included in the no essay, with the essay describing him as “a constitutional law professor who supports the voice”.
However, he has since given his full-throated support to the voice, including penning a 2,500-word essay in favour of the change – stating that the voice wasn’t “merely a good idea – it is the decent thing”.
Dutton has quoted Craven’s initial concerns at length in opposing the voice.
But Craven said he contacted Dutton’s chief of staff via email last week to ask that his quotes not be included in the no essay, written by Coalition politicians and chaired by senator Nampijinpa Price.
He told Dutton’s office he would consider an AEC complaint if he was included in the essay. But the AEC said on Tuesday it had “no role whatsoever” in writing or fact-checking the essays and the commission downplayed the prospect of any action being taken.
“Legislatively we cannot amend or edit the documents,” a spokesperson said.
Craven said he was “thoroughly irritated” to be quoted. He said he was critical of the early drafting of the amendment but had supported it since the wording was settled.
“It’s well known to everyone in the no case and the opposition that my fundamental position has been I’m absolutely in favour of the voice and will campaign for the voice with great determination,” Craven said.
“That has been apparent before, after, and during the period when I was critical of the drafting, and became monumentally apparent after the wording was settled. To use me as an example of voting no, even with some minor footnote, is deeply misleading.”
Nampijinpa Price on Tuesday afternoon did not back down from using Craven’s quotes, arguing the no essay noted his support for the voice.
“Professor Craven voiced some very pertinent concerns early in the conversation. It’s only right that we should be able to promote those concerns that somebody on the yes side has with this constitutional change,” she said in a statement.
“I don’t understand why anybody that has such concerns would want to support the yes campaign going forward.” Dutton’s office was contacted for comment.
Craven said he was shocked at the use of his words.
“I had assumed the no case couldn’t possibly conceive of using [my quotes], partly because it was so misleading but also so embarrassing if some of your talent, so to speak, turned on you,” Craven said.
“When I became aware from friends in Australia this might happen, I emailed his chief of staff a few days ago, and got no reply at all.”
Craven said he had raised concerns about the draft but supported the concept of the voice, accusing the no side of an “inability to cope with the least sophisticated of positions”.
He encouraged the yes side to fire back with “big artillery”, saying he was concerned the no side would continue to make misleading claims as the referendum campaign continued.
“Absolutely now is the time for the yes case to hit the no case with what they’ve got. They need to smash such misrepresentations,” Craven said.
“The yes campaign should be carefully going through the no case and identifying where it’s inaccurate or misleading.”
Anderson and Davis said the referendum was an opportunity for national unity but the no campaign’s “cynical and misleading” campaign was divisive.
On Monday, the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, said he thought the yes campaign could be “stronger”
In response, a Yes23 spokesperson said the campaign was building an army of 15,000 volunteers who are “doorknocking, letterboxing, making phone calls, standing at market stalls, hosting community events and having kitchen table conversations with everyday Australians”.
In publishing the essays, the AEC said the yes and no cases were uploaded as they were received, without any formatting or editing.
“They’re not our words,” the electoral commissioner, Tom Rogers, said. “Each case will be published in separate, unedited, and unformatted documents, exactly as they have been received.”
The essays will be translated into dozens of languages before being mailed to every Australian household.
