There’s still no set date for the nation to vote on a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous Voice to Parliament (though some are speculating October 14), but politicians have a fast-approaching mid-July deadline to submit copy for the official Yes-No pamphlet.
The folded flyer is the only information voters can expect to receive (in their letterboxes) from the government in relation to the Voice referendum. Each pamphlet will contain a generic statement with the proposed change to the constitution followed by 2000 words about the Yes and No cases.
Who will write the two mini-essays? What can they say? And how much design flare will the Australian Electoral Commission permit the pamphlets? Crikey calls on the Clarifier.
Who’s responsible for campaign material?
The Constitution Alteration Bill passed the Senate on June 19, meaning both Yes and No parliamentary camps now have an opportunity to put their best foot forward in pamphlet form.
The copy for each case is the property of Yes and No advocates, but method of delivery is the jurisdiction of the AEC.
Describing itself as nothing more or less than a “post-box” undertaking one of the biggest print jobs in its history, the AEC will package up and distribute 12.5 million of these Yes-No pamphlets to the Australian people.
“It’s one pamphlet per household,” a spokesperson for the AEC told Crikey. “In a share house that might mean John has the pamphlet for a day, before passing it on to Joe so he can spend some time with it.”
The official deadline for delivery to households is in line with early voting — 14 days before the nation makes its decision. The rules state that a referendum must be convened at least two months (no less) and at most six months (no more) after Parliament passes a constitution alteration bill, meaning it’s ballparked sometime between September and December. Given the possible four-month time frame for the Voice referendum to be called, the AEC said that its plan is to be ready for roll-out by the beginning of August.
To do so, it’s given the Yes and No camps a hard deadline of July 17 2023: “11.59pm and not a minute later.”
The copy will be formatted into an “appropriately dull looking pamphlet” and then translated into 35 culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) languages and a yet-to-be-determined number of First Nations languages.
The AEC said that given many First Nations languages have an oral rather than written tradition, it’s looking to produce MP3 equivalents of the pamphlets to upload to its website.
What’s in the fine print of the pamphlet?
These minor essays for and against an Indigenous Voice are bound by two rules. Firstly, the content needs formal sign-off by a majority of parliamentary members who voted Yes or No to the Constitution Alteration Bill. In short, consensus. Secondly, they’re bound by a strict word limit: 2000 words, no 10% leeway.
“2001 words? We would have to reject that,” the AEC said.
The Voice pamphlet is expected to be considerably shorter than the 38 A4 pages distributed during the 1999 Republic referendum.
For and against a Yes and No pamphlet
The legal imperative to put forward a formal (and formatted) Yes and No statement on a referendum dates back to 1912. It was introduced to ensure voters were adequately informed but has since been criticised for failing voters on facts. The legislation grants no powers for a third party to comb and correct content drafted by politicians.
In late 2022, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese proposed scrapping the pamphlets as one of many changes to the referendum machinery, deeming them to be an outdated and unnecessary method of communication in the “digital age”. Expert submissions and advice also endorsed the end of the pamphlet, but the government decided to abandon its plans in favour of keeping the two-sided hard copy mail-out.
“The pamphlets are often full of not only misleading statements but sometimes lies that we know to be false,” constitutional expert Professor George Williams told the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in December last year, adding that it’s common knowledge (and has been for 20 years) the pamphlet process is “broken and problematic”.
Constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey added that it would be worth the federal government’s while to follow the lead of New South Whales and charge public servants, not politicians, to draft “objective” Yes-No copy for public consumption.
“To make sure that it was objective and accurate, they used to send it out to a range of experts in the field to vet it before it was sent out for approval,” Twomey told the committee.
Who’s editor in chief?
The government’s decision to push ahead and publish both Yes and No versions of the Voice in a single pamphlet has not stopped it sounding alarm bells about misinformation.
In a National Press Club address yesterday, Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney — also the chief architect of the Yes copy — accused the No campaign of attempting to divide the nation using imported “Trump-style” and “post-truth” politics.
“Its aim is to sow division in our society by making false claims,” Burney said, urging Australians not to let the No campaign get away with it.
Responsible for overseeing the No copy — formally titled “chair of the coalition committee” — is shadow Indigenous affairs minister Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. In a statement, she reiterated that “no single person will be responsible for writing the No case pamphlet”.
Contributions for Yes and No copy are expected to flow from all sides of Parliament. Of note is One Nation Leader Pauline Hanson, whose writing is currently before the No committee. Coming in at 2138 words, her copy is ineligible by AEC standards, but Price was clear she would take on board “all respectful contributions”.
