Voice - Legal Education website
  • Home
  • Legal Context
    • Understanding the Australian Constitution >
      • What is a Constitution?
      • The Australian Constitution
      • Changing the Constitution
      • History of Referendums
    • Courts and the Constitution
    • Legal Language
  • The Voice
    • Overview of the Voice >
      • The Referendum Question & Proposed Constitutional Amendment
      • Design Principles
      • Law Council of Australia - FAQs
    • Legal Impact of the Voice >
      • Legal Analysis by the Experts
      • Solicitor-General's Opinion
    • History of the Voice >
      • The Dialogues
      • The Uluru Statement
  • Case for Yes
    • Understanding the Yes Case
    • The Yes Pamphlet
    • Resources and Opinions on Yes >
      • Anderson - Addressing some Concerns about the Voice
      • Collins - Why the Voice Deserves Our Support
      • McIntyre - Be the Voice
  • Case for No
    • Understanding the No Case
    • The No Pamphlet
    • Resources and Opinions on No >
      • The 'Progressive No' Case
  • Resources
    • Video Resources
    • Audio Resources
    • Expert Explainers >
      • EE1: Twomey - The Yes/No Pamphlet
      • EE2: Perche - How a Referendum Works
      • EE3: Brennan & Appleby - The Uluru Statement History
      • EE4: Holland- Representative bodies in historical context
      • EE5: McDonald- Federalism and a First Nations Voice
      • EE6: Koch & Olijynk - The SA Voice
      • EE7: Jones - Lessons from Past Referendum
      • EE8 - Walker - The Impact of Foreign Money on the Referendum
    • Recommended Links
    • Digital Record
  • About
    • About the Project
    • Legal Literacy
    • About the Project Team
    • Supported by UniSA
    • Contact

Expert Explainer 1: THE  YES/NO PAMPHLETS

Picture

EE1: The  Yes/No Pamphlets

Professor Anne Twomey (University of Sydney)

At most referendums since 1912, Australian voters have been sent a pamphlet that sets out the arguments for voting Yes or No in the referendum. The requirements are set out in section 11 of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 (Cth).
​

It provides that after the referendum bill has passed Parliament, a majority of the MPs who voted for the referendum bill may prepare the Yes case, by way of a statement of up to 2000 words. If any MPs have voted against the referendum bill, a majority of them may prepare the official No case, with the same word limit. These cases are then placed in a pamphlet, along with a copy of the actual proposed amendment, and the Australian Electoral Commission then sends it to each voter at least 14 days before the referendum.

As the Yes/No pamphlet is written by politicians who are seeking to persuade voters, it is not necessarily factually correct or informative. It is often directed to emotions, fears and prejudices and may contain misleading statements. For this reason, there has been much criticism of the pamphlet, including by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in its report, A Time for Change: Yes/No?, from 2009.
​
That Committee was chaired by Mark Dreyfus, who is now the Attorney-General. It was therefore unsurprising that he proposed to amend the legislation to abolish the Yes/No case. However, in a political deal to get other changes to that legislation passed, the Government later agreed to the retention of the Yes/No case.

Acknowledgment
  • This contribution has been drawn from Jason O’Neil, Diana Perche, James Murphy, & Peter John Chen (eds) The First Nations Voice Referendum: A Teaching Resource for Politics, International Relations and Public Policy (2023)

Further Resources​

Anne Twomey, ‘The government will not send out Yes and No case pamphlets ahead of the Voice to Parliament referendum. Does this matter?’ (2022) The Conversation 2 December 2022 - This was written before the government decided the Yes/No pamphlets would be sent out.
Picture

The Voice Legal Literacy Project

Supported by 
Picture
View the UniSA Privacy Statement
Authorised by Joe McIntyre, Voice Legal Literacy Project, UniSA: Justice & Society, University of South Australia, 224 Hindley Street, Adelaide, SA
  • Home
  • Legal Context
    • Understanding the Australian Constitution >
      • What is a Constitution?
      • The Australian Constitution
      • Changing the Constitution
      • History of Referendums
    • Courts and the Constitution
    • Legal Language
  • The Voice
    • Overview of the Voice >
      • The Referendum Question & Proposed Constitutional Amendment
      • Design Principles
      • Law Council of Australia - FAQs
    • Legal Impact of the Voice >
      • Legal Analysis by the Experts
      • Solicitor-General's Opinion
    • History of the Voice >
      • The Dialogues
      • The Uluru Statement
  • Case for Yes
    • Understanding the Yes Case
    • The Yes Pamphlet
    • Resources and Opinions on Yes >
      • Anderson - Addressing some Concerns about the Voice
      • Collins - Why the Voice Deserves Our Support
      • McIntyre - Be the Voice
  • Case for No
    • Understanding the No Case
    • The No Pamphlet
    • Resources and Opinions on No >
      • The 'Progressive No' Case
  • Resources
    • Video Resources
    • Audio Resources
    • Expert Explainers >
      • EE1: Twomey - The Yes/No Pamphlet
      • EE2: Perche - How a Referendum Works
      • EE3: Brennan & Appleby - The Uluru Statement History
      • EE4: Holland- Representative bodies in historical context
      • EE5: McDonald- Federalism and a First Nations Voice
      • EE6: Koch & Olijynk - The SA Voice
      • EE7: Jones - Lessons from Past Referendum
      • EE8 - Walker - The Impact of Foreign Money on the Referendum
    • Recommended Links
    • Digital Record
  • About
    • About the Project
    • Legal Literacy
    • About the Project Team
    • Supported by UniSA
    • Contact