Voice 'no' case stands by using 'furious' yes supporter Greg Craven in authorised pamphlet

The official Voice pamphlet "yes" and "no" cases have been published on Tuesday "exactly as they have been received" by the Australian Electoral Commission ahead of a massive mail out of 12.5 million copies of the official translated referendum pamphlet.

This means the cases, which both near 2000 words and include listed reasons for and against the proposal, have not been fact-checked.

Professor Craven, a former Australian Catholic University vice chancellor and a member of the government's constitutional expert group, has been included in the "no" section titled, "NO ISSUE IS BEYOND ITS SCOPE" and he is introduced as a "constitutional law professor who supports the Voice."

"I am absolutely furious that the inclusion of my words disputing the drafting of the constitutional amendment are totally out of context," Professor Craven has told The Canberra Times.

Professor Craven has previously blasted the Liberal party for including him in anti-Voice ads.

He has told The Canberra Times he has complained to the Opposition Leader's office six days ago about the pamphlet but heard nothing back.

READ MORE

The constitutional expert's quote is: "I think it's fatally flawed because what it does is retain the full range of review of executive action. This means the Voice can comment on everything from submarines to parking tickets ... We will have regular judicial interventions."

He disowns his inclusion, saying his words have been twisted.

"That was a debate about the best words possible. It wasn't a debate about the prose," Professor Craven said.

"I have made it repeatedly clear, before, during and after the drafting debate, that I was absolutely in favour of the proposal and that I would campaign for it.

"I made that even more clear after the words were formed up, and in fact bored everyone with a 2500 word essay in The Australian explaining exactly that. So it seems to me that to put in words which suggests that in some way I am opposed to the proposal, which these words do, is deeply, deeply misleading."

Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, the Chair of the "no" case, stands by the inclusion of Professor Craven.

"Professor Craven voiced some very pertinent concerns early in the conversation. It's only right that we should be able to promote those concerns that somebody on the Yes side has with this constitutional change," she said in a statement.

"Contrary to claims being made, the No case does make a point of stating that Professor Craven is a supporter of the Voice.

"I don't understand why anybody that has such concerns would want to support the Yes campaign going forward."

The deputy chair of "no" case, LNP senator Paul Scarr also insists there is "full disclosure" on Greg Craven's disputed inclusion

"We make it abundantly clear that Professor Craven actually supports the Voice. So there's full disclosure there," he told Sky News Australia.

"There can be no ambiguity about that. It's there in black and white."

The "no" case also progresses arguments which have been dealt with including the proposition of legal risk, as the government has released supporting advice from the Solicitor-General making it clear the Voice is legally sound.

The "yes" side is pitching to "unite our nation" and "do the right thing" by Indigenous Australians, while adding the endorsement of Indigenous sporting legends Evonne Goolagong Cawley and Johnathan Thurston.

Professor Craven said he supports the Voice as he sees it as the "only rational, appropriately conservative way of doing constitutional justice" to Australia's Indigenous people.

He wants his name and words removed from the "no" case, but "I think I recognise that the bird has flown."

"I certainly will be contacting the Australian Electoral Commission to see if there's any avenue I can pursue there," the constitutional lawyer said. "I may say I have contacted in recent past the office of the Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and made it absolutely clear my position."

The Canberra Times contacted the AEC. The AEC said it cannot amend or edit the documents.

"The AEC's role with the cases is to effectively act as a post box, as required under the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act," an AEC spokesperson said. "The AEC prints and delivers the pamphlet but has no involvement whatsoever with the formation nor fact checking of the yes and no cases."

"The deadline for the cases was 11.59pm last night and once those cases were submitted to the AEC, legislatively we cannot amend or edit the documents."

Professor Craven said the "no" case has given him a "very good motivational tool" to argue all the more strongly in favour of the proposed Indigenous advisory body.

"I would say that the ["no" case's] tactics are reprehensible in the first place," he said. "They are not honest or frank."

"In the second place, it surprises me as a matter of tactics, because they've now got someone in their pamphlet, who whenever they are asked, like now, will be disowning the proposition."

The AEC plans to translate the pamphlet into more than 35 culturally and linguistically diverse languages, plus 20 traditional Indigenous languages. Voters are required to receive the pamphlet two weeks before referendum day, which is widely expected in mid-October.