Key Points
- Referendum pamphlets for the Voice to Parliament vote will be distributed this year.
- There are concerns it could include misinformation.
- The Australian Electoral Commission says it cannot check the claims due to its impartiality.
Official referendum pamphlets designed to better inform the public about the Indigenous Voice to Parliament could contain “wild and exaggerated claims” because authorities can't vet them, according to a leading constitutional law expert.
About $10 million of taxpayers' money has been set aside to prepare, print, and mail out the glossy documents to every Australian household in the weeks leading up to the referendum.
The pamphlets will contain essays authored by parliamentarians from both the Yes and No sides of the debate, which the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) said will not be independently fact-checked.
What is the referendum pamphlet?
The pamphlet has been a mandatory part of the referendum process since 1912 when the constitution was in its infancy and referendums to change it were commonplace.
The Labor government of the day was concerned that voters kept rejecting proposed changes to the constitution because they didn’t know enough about the issues.
A new law creating the pamphlet was introduced to better inform the public.
According to UNSW constitutional law expert, George Williams, the legislation has not been updated in more than a century.
“You’d have to say the pamphlet is pretty quaint,” he said.
“I think we could do better today, yet this is the only thing provided for in the law by way of the Yes and No cases.
“There have been a few technological advancements since 1912, yet unfortunately, the pamphlet is the best that we’ve got.”
How does the pamphlet process work?
Before the pamphlet writing process begins, parliament must finish voting on the bill to allow the Voice referendum to take place.
The House of Representatives passed the bill in May and the Senate is expected to follow in June.
According to Professor Williams, once that happens, parliamentarians who voted for the bill and those who voted against it will form two separate committees.
“What they’ll need to do is sit down, agree on a draft and send that to the AEC,” he said.
“That in essence becomes the pamphlet that will be sent to the Australian people.”
The wording for the arguments must be authorised by a majority of parliamentarians on each side of the debate.
“It can be really difficult for people to agree on the content of these pamphlets, but in the end, it’s a political numbers game. The majority rules and if the majority says these are the words we want, they can ignore the minority,” Professor Williams said.
Will the pamphlets be fact-checked?
The AEC is responsible for distributing the pamphlets to Australians.
Electoral Commissioner Tom Rogers said it's important Australians understood the AEC would not make any changes to the arguments put forward by parliamentarians.
“Whatever we are provided by those committees will be what is distributed to the community and that includes grammatical and spelling errors or any claims that are made,” he said.
“We take no steps to fact-check those documents. If we did, it would open us up to claims of not being neutral and that’s something we want to avoid.”
Will the pamphlets be truthful?
When the Fisher Government first introduced the pamphlet system in 1912, the Attorney-General at the time, William Hughes, envisaged a system where referendum arguments would be put forward in an ‘impersonal, reasonable and judicial way’, appealing to ‘reason rather than to the emotions and party sentiment’.
According to Professor Williams, history has shown that’s not always the case.
“The idea is that this pamphlet would be a haven of reasonableness and rationality, but it’s worked out often to be the opposite,” he said.
“Australians must be cautious when reading these pamphlets. In the past, they’ve often contained hyperbole and wild and exaggerated claims.
“It’s not a requirement that they’re truthful and very often they’ve included lies and misinformation.”
Is there a better way?
Public policy think tank, the Australia Institute, has been lobbying parliament to introduce truth in political advertising laws.
The group formally raised concerns about the pamphlets during an inquiry investigating the machinery of the referendum process last year.
Bill Browne, who heads the Australia Institute’s democracy and accountability program, acknowledged there was merit in delivering uniform printed material to all Australians ahead of the Voice referendum.
“Unlike TV or radio advertisements, printed material can be returned to over time,” he said.
“It also ensures everyone’s seeing the same claims, which makes it easier for them to discuss and debate the issues.”
Mr Browne is calling on parliamentarians to take extra measures to ensure more trust in the process.
“The pamphlet could be prepared by independent experts who are required to present the case neutrally instead of in an inflammatory or provocative manner,” he said.
“That approach is used in NSW, a state that has a very good record of having its referendums pass.
“Alternatively, the sides drafting the Yes and No essays could, of their own volition, agree to have those essays fact-checked. You wouldn’t need to make a legislative change provided you had the will among politicians.”
The proposals suggested by Mr Browne have not been adopted.
When will voters get the pamphlets?
Australians will receive the pamphlets no later than two weeks prior to the referendum.
The material will also be translated into more than 50 languages, including roughly 20 First Nations languages, which will be available on the AEC website and via its telephone translation service.
The AEC commissioner said the organisation is rolling out a large-scale communication campaign to ensure Australians understood the Yes and No cases have not been written, fact-checked or endorsed by the Commission.
“I do worry about that, because it could impact on our neutrality,” Mr Rogers said.
“That’s why we’re going the extra mile to make sure citizens understand where the information is coming from.”
He's optimistic those writing the Yes and No arguments will rise to the occasion.
“Given we’re talking about mature parliamentarians, I’m sure that they’ll take their role very seriously and it will be a high-quality document."
