Yes23 Campaign Told to Move Potentially ‘Misleading’ Signage Away

Independent Member for Kooyong Monique Ryan (right) hands out hot toot cards outside an early voting centre for the Indigenous voice to parliament referendum in Melbourne, Australia, on Oct. 2, 2023. AAP Image/Joel Carrett

The “Yes” campaign has been asked to move its signage away from Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) signage over concerns the similar designs could “mislead voters.”

The AEC was aware that outside of one early voting centre for the upcoming Oct. 14 referendum, a Yes campaign sign shared a similar colour and layout scheme to the AEC’s longstanding branding.

“This combination of using purple and white colours in proximity to AEC signage could mislead a voter about the source of the signage, and by extension, the source of the message on the signage,” the AEC said.

AEC and Vote Yes signage at an early voting centre for the Indigenous voice to parliament referendum in Melbourne, Australia, on Oct. 2, 2023. AAP Image/Joel Carrett

The Commission requested that Yes campaigners ensure those signs were placed away from the AEC voting centre signs, which the Yes23 campaign agreed to comply with.

“While the AEC has been clear over a number of years in communicating our preference that campaigners do not use the combination of colours purple and white in such a way that could be misleading, the AEC does not have any legal authority to prevent people from using particular colours,” the Commission said.

“The AEC also does not have the legal authority—except in very limited circumstances—to prevent people from campaigning outside six metres from the entrance to a polling place.

“While AEC officers cannot remove signage that could be misleading regarding the source of the message, we expect our request to the authoriser of the signage to be complied with.”

Along with a purple background, the Yes campaign also has the same designs with other background colours, including coral and cyan.

Changing the Constitution

Early voting has begun for The Voice referendum, where Australians will have their say on an amendment to the Constitution to change the preamble to recognise Indigenous people and to set up an advisory body to Parliament to make “representations” on issues deemed relevant to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

Yes proponents argue that The Voice will empower Indigenous Australians to have a say in policies that affect their communities. They also say this would be a chance to unify Australia.

“Why would you want to do that? Because you get better results when you consult people about matters that affect them,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told ABC radio on Sept. 29.

Leading Yes Campaigner Noel Pearson said Indigenous victimhood “ends with our own power.”

“We can close the gap when we are empowered to take responsibility for our destiny. Blame us when you give us a voice. Hold us accountable too when we do this,” he told the National Press Club on Sept. 27.

However, No proponents argue it would be another layer of bureaucracy that would make little difference to struggling Indigenous communities in need of assistance.

They add that it would also place racial division back into the Constitution, which Australians voted overwhelmingly in favour of removing in the 1967 referendum.

Leading No campaigner Senator Jacinta Price said her previous role as councillor for Alice Springs and her becoming the shadow Indigenous affairs minister did not require a Voice mechanism.

“[I definitely] didn’t need a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament to achieve those things,” she told a No campaign event in Perth on Oct. 2.

“We’ve got to fix the structures that already exist instead of muddying the waters and adding more bureaucracy and shoving it into our Constitution.”