Jade Gailberger: The significance of the pamphlet cannot be understated

Pamphlets outlining which way we should vote on the Voice are set to play a crucial role in determining if the referendum is won or lost.

Keep it simple, stupid.

The design principle used for much of the last century maintains that less is more when it comes to keeping people on side – something the Yes case for the Voice to Parliament should keep in mind.

And with a trip to the letterbox spelling mostly bad news for households – as rates, soaring utility bills and mortgage increase notices pile in – the pamphlet making the case for which way we should vote in the coming referendum will have to do just that.

As more polling is expected to show another drop in support for the Voice, the significance of the pamphlet that will be delivered a fortnight before the vote cannot be understated.

The Yes case for the Voice to Parliament should keep it simple, stupid. Picture: Tertius Pickard

It is an opportunity, outside of all the noise, for both sides to capture the attention of busy families and make their case.

Word out of the Yes camp is that the pamphlet provides factual and “consistent messaging” on constitutional recognition and the disadvantage experienced by First Nations people, as shown in the shameful progress of the Closing the Gap targets.

More of the same. Have they learnt anything from the polls showing a drop in support?

The language, arguments and the way they are structured are a test of what politicians in favour of the Voice have, or have not learnt about what will resonate with voters since draft wording of the referendum question was announced a year ago.

People don’t have time to read hundreds of pages of reports on the details. They are working and trying to make ends meet.

Opponents of the Voice are hoping the Yes case will use some of their 2000 words to hit back at some of the No camp’s claims, making their arguments for them.

After all, they have shown time and again that they are unable to refrain from taking the bait.

This month, Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney gave her strongest speech yet on the Voice, outlining four priorities and saying it will focus on making a practical difference.

But this was overshadowed by her off-script swipe at Peter Dutton, who she called a “bully boy”.

Linda Burney called Peter Dutton a ‘bully boy’. Picture: Richard Walker

One Coalition MP said the Yes camp has “to produce the greatest pamphlet of all time because they have to convince people to make the biggest change to Australia’s Constitution”.

After weeks of finessing their arguments, politicians tasked with writing the 2000-word pitch for and against a Voice to Parliament will on Monday night submit their essays to the Australian Electoral Commission.

The pamphlet will contain three parts: a statement containing the proposed change to the Constitution, the case in favour of the proposed alteration, and the case against.

One word over and the submission is scrapped. And that’s asking a lot from people who are skilled in the art of verbosity.

But it’s not all sunshine and rainbows in the No camp, where some say it is a miracle that the Liberals and Nationals managed to agree on 2000 words.

This is because some are opposed on principle, while others are arguing over the details.

One member of the committee said the pamphlet was a “polite but firm No”.

It is believed to highlight concerns over the scope of the Voice being undefined, the permanency of the decision, and risks such as a High Court intervention.

It also wants to make it clear to people that it is OK to vote No if you don’t understand or don’t feel like you have enough details – a veiled swipe at comments that people who do not support the Voice are racist.

A select group of politicians who voted in favour, or against, the Constitution Alteration Bill helped develop each case.

Those in favour have given ringing endorsements of the process, saying a Yes vote will create a “better future”, while deputy Liberal Leader Sussan Ley says the pamphlets will help Australians make up their own minds.

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has not ruled out writing her own essay, amid concerns that her position would not be reflected in the No pamphlet.

Victorian senator Lidia Thorpe, who also voted against the Constitution Alteration Bill, said she had also been excluded.

The Blak Sovereign Movement is planning to publish its own essay.

Lidia Thorpe voted against the Constitution Alteration Bill. Picture: Martin Ollman

A date for the referendum has not yet been set despite the Bills to enable the vote being passed by the parliament in June.

However, there is growing anticipation that Mr Albanese will announce the date, tipped to be in October, at the Garma Festival on the first weekend in August.

The Yes23 campaign is confident that it can win, now that the debate has left parliament, but is not expecting a turnaround in the polls until August.

But unless they get their messaging right as cost-of-living pressures continue to bite, they can kiss a referendum win goodbye.

Jade Gailberger is a Herald Sun federal politics reporter