The Albanese government’s decision to produce pamphlets for the yes and no cases on an Indigenous voice to parliament could spread misinformation and “racist messaging”, according to a leading campaigner for the yes case.
Prof Megan Davis, co-chair of the Uluru dialogues and member of the government’s referendum advisory group, said she was concerned the pamphlets were written by politicians, were not factchecked and that “misinformation and fabrication and racist messaging” could be mailed to voters.
The current legislation requires that arguments supporting and opposing the proposed constitutional change, not more than 2,000 words and authorised by members of parliament who support either side, be printed and mailed to voters by the Electoral Commission.
As part of amendments to the referendum act, the Albanese government’s strong preference was to abolish the pamphlets. The special minister of state, Don Farrell, said that “methods of communication have changed significantly” since they were introduced in 1912 and there was “no longer any need for taxpayers to pay for a pamphlet to be sent to every household”.
That view was backed on Thursday by the Coalition frontbencher Simon Birmingham who said he was “not keen to see large licks of taxpayer funding spent on running campaigns”.
But campaigners on the yes and no sides told a parliamentary inquiry they wanted the pamphlets retained in a bid to combat misinformation and present their official position. Earlier this week, government sources told Guardian Australia details about what the pamphlets will look like and who would be asked to contribute are still subject to negotiation.
But Davis, one of the key architects of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, said the act provided for the pamphlets to be written by politicians, and could feed misinformation and mistrust. The government will now have to manage a fair and transparent process.
“It’s up to the parliament now to determine whether or not there’ll be factchecking, or they’re going to just allow misinformation to be published,” Davis said.
“And determine whether or not they’re going to check the pamphlets for racist language and racist assertions, that may or may not breach racial discrimination laws – that’s their job now.”
The inquiry into the Referendum Machinery Act proposals is due to report on Monday.
