Supporters of an Indigenous voice to parliament say they are “ready to prosecute their simple, hopeful message” and will submit the official yes case to the Australian Electoral Commission on Monday.
The yes and the no camps have been drafting their competing essays, limited to 2,000 words each, with the two documents to be published online by the AEC on Tuesday.
These essays will form the basis of a referendum pamphlet to be mailed to all households several weeks before the vote, which is to be held in the final three months of 2023.
The no camp has experienced some public pushback about its writing process, with Pauline Hanson and Lidia Thorpe requesting more substantive input.
But the yes camp says it has followed a “collaborative, consultative and constructive writing process which sought input from across the parliament”.
It is understood all crossbench MPs or senators who voted yes to the constitution alteration bill were offered briefings, led by the minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, and the attorney general, Mark Dreyfus.
Burney described it as “a collaborative process that has brought together the best reasons why Australians should vote ‘Yes’ for constitutional recognition through a Voice”.
Senator Dorinda Cox, the Greens’ spokesperson for First Nations, said it was “time for the country to come together and say Yes to justice for First Nations people”.
“By voting Yes, we are saying that First Nations people should have a say and this right can never be taken away,” Cox said.
The crossbench MPs Kate Chaney, Zoe Daniel and Helen Haines said they had appreciated the opportunity to contribute to the official yes case.
Chaney said the pamphlet provided “a clearly articulated case for the Voice” – an idea that the member for the Western Australian seat of Curtin labelled “a low risk, high return opportunity to unite all Australians”.
Polls suggest a drop in public support for the proposal, but Haines said: “I believe the clear, factual information we have provided will answer the important questions people have about a constitutionally-enshrined Voice to Parliament.”
The Liberal and National parties formally oppose a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament, with the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, seeking to make the case that it is legally risky, lacks detail and won’t make a practical difference.
But Sean Gordon, the co-convenor of the Liberals for Yes campaign, noted that the former prime minister John Howard had committed to constitutional recognition in 2007.
“The Yes campaign is about bringing all Australians together to walk towards a better future,” Gordon said.
“In 2017, First Nations Australians gathered in Uluru and decided how we would like to be recognised: we asked to be recognised through the creation of a new body that would give voice to our people.
“In 2023, every Australian will have the opportunity to vote Yes for a more reconciled nation and a better future for us all.”
The deputy Liberal leader, Sussan Ley, told reporters on Sunday she hoped the essays would provide “explanations to the Australian people so they can make up their own mind”.
“While there is bipartisan support for constitutional recognition of our first Australians, Anthony Albanese has tied that constitutional recognition to a concept called the Voice which he cannot explain,” Ley said.
The AEC announced last week that the authorised yes and no cases would be published on its website on Tuesday “in separate, unedited, and unformatted documents, exactly as they have been received by the deadline”.
The electoral commissioner, Tom Rogers, emphasised that the AEC’s role was “as a post-box only and this impending raw publication of each authorised case is the first aspect of our independent delivery role”.
The shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, was also contacted for comment about the essay for the no side.
