Pauline Hanson and Lidia Thorpe will jockey with Coalition members to have their opinions on the Indigenous voice detailed in a 2,000-word essay from the no campaign, as politicians navigate an obscure process to write a pamphlet which will be sent to all homes for the referendum.
The Australian Electoral Commission is writing to all politicians to give guidance on the essays, but tensions are already emerging as members and senators have to decide among themselves how to navigate competing ideas and write one argument for each side.
Monday’s passage of the constitutional alteration bill kickstarts a short 28-day deadline for the AEC to receive the essays. The essay for each side must be authorised by a majority of those who voted for or against the change in parliament and only one essay can be received for each side, with a 2,000-word limit. They are then compiled into the referendum pamphlet, which is sent out several weeks before the referendum date.
The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, hasn’t set that date, but is expected to do so in early August, for a mid-October voting day.
Exactly how the final essays will be decided is not wholly clear. Groups akin to parliamentary committees will be set up, potentially with a secretariat and staff, to debate and write the essays.
In the scrapped 2013 referendum, the AEC said it would accept a majority of signatures, or the authority of the committee chair, as proof each essay was backed by a majority.
The committee of those voting no will be dominated by the Coalition, but also includes One Nation, UAP’s Ralph Babet, and former Greens senator Thorpe. The yes side is dominated by Labor but also includes the Greens, the “teal” independents, David Pocock, and the Jacqui Lambie Network, as well as some Liberals.
The numbers mean the Coalition and Labor majorities would be able to write the no and yes essays respectively, without needing approval of the others. The no voters are expected to be heavily guided by the advice of Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, the shadow Indigenous Australians minister and leader of the Fair Australia campaign against the voice, on the essay.
But Hanson’s office said she would “fight tooth and nail” for input into the pamphlet, noting One Nation was the first party in parliament to officially oppose the referendum.
Thorpe’s office also told Guardian Australia she would seek to contribute to the no essay.
Resolving the views of Thorpe and Hanson, at polar extremes of the voice debate, into one essay is expected to be a key issue for the no committee.
David Littleproud, whose National party represents most of the no votes, said he was committed to ensuring the no essay was “factual”. On Radio National on Monday, he again disagreed with Coalition leader Peter Dutton’s claims the voice would “re-racialise” Australia, and shrugged off key criticisms of Hanson.
“Obviously Pauline will vote no, but she will be one voice within what will probably be 20 or 30 … the majority within that group, will form not only the tone, but the set of words,” he said.
“My input would be that I don’t support what Pauline Hanson is advocating.”
Liberal MP and longtime voice advocate Julian Leeser has told the government he wants input into the yes essay, while Pocock, the Greens and teal crossbenchers are also expected to seek contributions.
Albanese said he expected “continued misinformation” from voice critics, but pledged the government would “run a positive campaign about why this makes a difference.
“I am very confident a positive campaign will produce a positive result.”
Albanese said the pamphlet would be “one thing that [voters] consider” but also pointed to the government’s referendum education campaigns, saying some Australians didn’t know much about the constitution. He claimed understanding of the proposal among the public would increase as the campaign unfolded.
Yes23 campaign director Dean Parkin said direct, respectful conversations between people will be important to make Australians feel they can get involved, ask questions and seek information in a safe way.
“Up until now, the process has been dominated by politicians and lawyers.
“This referendum is about uniting and bringing all Australians together, and that’s where our efforts will be focused over the coming months. We have a lot of faith in the decency of Australian people, and we know they want outcomes to be better for us, and want to see practical change. The voice is the means for us to do that.”
