In September 1999, the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) began the largest single print job in Australian history, followed by the largest single mail-out.
Nine high-speed web presses in Sydney, Melbourne and Dubbo spewed out paper around the clock for 10 days straight, producing 12.9 million 38-page pamphlets setting out the arguments for and against changes to Australia’s constitution that would sever ties with the British Crown and turn the country into a republic.
It won’t be quite such a big job this time: the pamphlet setting out arguments for and against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament will be thinner than the 1999 edition, and the AEC is no longer required by the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act to deliver the pamphlet to every elector. Now it has to go to every household, dropping the number to 12.5 million.
But there’s one thing the two pamphlets will have in common: the AEC won’t have to check the accuracy of a single word.
“The AEC’s role under the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act with the Yes/No case pamphlet is to effectively act as a post box,” an AEC spokesperson tells Crikey. “The AEC prints and delivers the pamphlet but has no involvement whatsoever with the formation of Yes and No cases, nor with fact-checking claims within those cases.”
The AEC has dedicated a section of its website to misinformation about the process, but this is solely regarding the mechanisms of the vote.
Crikey picked up the phone to a key figure at the heart of the debate last time the nation voted on a referendum — former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, who led the unsuccessful campaign to make Australia a republic.
“There’s never been a provision for fact-checking in a referendum,” Turnbull tells Crikey. “It’s simply that there is a pamphlet produced by the majority of MPs who voted for or against the proposal. All the commissioner does is send it out.”
If 1999 is anything to go by, the parties won’t necessarily follow the honour system when it comes to truthfulness.
“There were masses of misinformation around in 1999,” Turnbull says. “There were two central planks of the No campaign. One was ‘if you don’t know, vote no’, which sounds familiar, and then there was the argument that it would be legally risky to make this change. So the reality is with any constitutional change, the No campaign is always going to run arguments of that sort.”
Another No argument that rings a lot of bells is the contention the proposed changes are “elitist and undemocratic”, and that the republic proposal was “dividing us as a nation”.
Turnbull argues that even if it were legally required to do so, it would be very difficult for the AEC to settle every individual claim of misinformation. And there are bigger problems facing any advocate for constitutional change.
“Like most Australians I’m a big supporter of compulsory voting, but there is a downside,” he says. “You drag everyone along, including people who, for a variety of reasons, might be less informed or engaged, and say, ‘Here is a proposal for change.’
“Those people are much more likely to vote No. I think compulsory voting is what knocks over a lot of referendums.”
Whilst on misinformation we should thank Turnbull for his contribution about The Voice to Parliament being a third chamber of the parliament.
+ 1,000. I added that to my list of MBT’s greatest errors yesterday.
Yes, what a weasel, spooked by the Beetrooter.
Who is responsible for assembling the content of the pamphlets and why are they not required to provide factual information ?
This is a very good question. Someone needs to be called on the issue. Ambiguity and suggestion are one thing, but if facts are monkeyed with, then accountability needs to take place.
Is this the same Turnbull who sank The Voice before the idea was launched? mmmmm
I am surprised the AEC has no role beyond being a post office. It is an official body and should have some responsibility to ensure it does not distribute false information. This reminds me of the Department of Finance paying MPs entitlements but rejecting any notion of policing them.
I wonder how this will play out if the No case attributes negative views to prominent people who have not made such comments or supported Yes. I envisage court challenges. Maybe the AEC should hold back on all that printing.
Professor Greg Craven has already indicated his initial concerns have been quoted rather than his ultimate full support – of which he notified Dutton’s office last week.
Michaelia Cash wrote an opinion piece in The West Aust, the morning tabloid, and pun factory, she mis quoted the good prof in her article published on April 4th. Let me be perfectly clear, I wrote to her bring her attention to her misuse of the quote in her article, along with some of the funding cuts the Libs have inflicted on the aboriginal race in the last 10 or so years.
I am less convinced about that. The RBA is an official body and look what happened to Lowe last week. I would hate to see the AEC in a similar situation when its decisions were opposed.
Interesting point about compulsory voting favouring the No case. This was raised some months back, if memory serves. I wonder how Dutton would react if Labor suggested that voting on the Referendum occur on a voluntary basis.
That caught my eye too. In a parliamentary election voters have to decide whether to turn left or right and only a small percentage duck the question by spoiling their ballot. In a referendum it is too easy for those who are not interested to vote No in case something bad happens. The No campaign attracts those who are afraid without any real basis.
In the republic referendum my step daughter voted no for that very reason. I was unimpressed.
Here’s a thought. Could the Labor Party wedge the Coalition by requesting a voluntary ballot? It’s no secret that many conservatives dislike the compulsory voting system, so here would be an opportunity to challenge them to either publicly back compulsory voting, or allow the Voice a better chance of succeeding.
Like that SSM postal vote thingy? Certainly produced the result I was hoping, and voted, for. And it did not require a majority of states.
Only problem is it would not effect constitutional change and the next LNP government could overturn it.
It seems unlikely that we could change the constitution on a voluntary vote.
On ‘Interesting point about compulsory voting favouring the No case.‘, one would have presumed the opposite, hence, why many of the right, inc. many LNP types, wish to follow the US and UK into non compulsory voting and Voter ID, why?
To suppress the below median age vote, as (more diverse & educated) younger would vote in numbers supporting more centrist causes inc. following climate science, human rights, environmental regulation etc. versus above median age voters who following a right wing media cartel.