'Cooked,' official 'no' Voice case ripped for out of context Greg Craven, Thomas Mayo quotes

Prominent constitutional law expert Greg Craven is "absolutely furious" his words have been included in the official "no" essays, while Thomas Mayo from the referendum working group, who has been subjected to personal attacks, insists his words from years ago have been misused.

Two senate crossbenchers who also did not make it onto the authorised "no" case, Pauline Hanson and Lidia Thorpe have also struck out on their own, launching broadsides at the much larger "yes" and "no" political committees.

The essays, which both near 2000 words and include listed reasons for and against the proposal, have not been fact-checked, nor is the Australian Electoral Commission able to amend, edit or be anything but be a "post box" for the information.

"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 said he complained to the Opposition Leader's office about the pamphlet in the "world's longest text message" but heard nothing back.

The Canberra Times has sought comment from Peter Dutton's office.

READ MORE

Acting Opposition Leader Sussan Ley was asked about Professor Craven, but answered in a general way.

"Lots of different experts have made lots of different remarks about the Voice over periods of time, and rather than going into the detail of just one person and what they may or may not have said, I want Australians to consider our argument that the Voice is risky, uncertain, divisive, and most importantly, permanent," she told reporters.

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."

Mr Mayo, a former union representative, is cited twice in the "no" case as an example of activists seeking to use the Voice for radical changes.

His inclusion includes this, "This is the first step, it's a vital step and it puts all the explanation behind it. 'Pay the Rent' for example, how do we do that in a way that is transparent and that actually sees reparations and compensation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people...?"

Asked on the ABC if he stood by the comments, Mr Mayo said he did not.

"That was years ago, that the 'no' campaign have used discussions in, you know, that were about ideas," he said.

"That is not what the Voice is going to be. It's an advisory body. Ultimately, the Parliament will decide what advice they will take from the Voice."

Uluru Dialogue co-chairs Megan Davis and Pat Anderson, have also criticised the "no" campaign, stating their case was "cooked" and featured "misleading information".

Senator Thorpe, who does not support the Voice without action on truth-telling and treaty, took aim at both "yes" and "no" camps, and said she was excluded from the official "no" case.

She accused the "yes" campaign of using "emotive language" and the "no" campaign of "fear mongering".

"I didn't think I could read something on the AEC website with even less substance than the "yes" case, but then I read the "no" case," the independent Senator said.

"The "no" campaign have clearly taken advantage of the pamphlet not being fact-checked and done more to embolden racists than they have to argue against the Voice."

Senator Hanson submitted her essay to the "no" committee, but it is understood that no part of the essay was directly used in the pamphlet.

The One Nation leader did not comment on the "no" case or her ability to contribute to the pamphlet in the statement released on Tuesday.

Instead, Senator Hanson, in her statement, claimed the "yes" campaign was promoting the "myth" that the Voice would improve life outcomes for Indigenous Australians.

"The Indigenous leaders promoting the Voice are the same ones who have been advising Australian governments on Indigenous issues for decades," Senator Hanson said.

"Indigenous disadvantage remains firmly entrenched in remote communities, and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted."

The Australian Electoral Commission is unable to amend or edit the authorised cases.

"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."

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

He 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.