‘No’ campaigners will warn that an Indigenous Voice to parliament is “risky”, while the ‘yes’ side will say it’s about creating a better future for First Nations children.

The official pitches have been revealed for the first time as the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ sides officially lodged their campaign essays with the Australian Electoral Commission.

The 2000-word pleas will be published on the AEC website on Tuesday. The material will later be mailed to millions of Australian households two weeks before the referendum to be held later this year.

It comes as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he would not make an early announcement about the date for a Voice referendum because voters did not like long campaigns.

Voters won’t know the date until about a month out from the poll, which must be held between October and December.

Mr Albanese brushed off polling showing support for the Voice was plunging, saying he remained confident a majority of Australians would vote in its favour.

Newspoll shows national support for the referendum has dropped to 41 per cent, with 38 per cent of female voters and 45 per cent of men backing the constitutional change.

Support for the ‘no’ vote in the regions has grown to 62 per cent, with only 31 per cent in favour of the Voice.

‘Yes’ camp enlists stars

Indigenous Voice to parliament ‘yes’ campaigners have enlisted the star power of Australia’s sporting legends to make their case to voters.

Asking people to vote for a “better future for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and all Australians”, the ‘yes’ case has the endorsement of Indigenous stars including former tennis world No.1 Evonne Goolagong Cawley, the NRL’s Johnathan Thurston and AFL’s Eddie Betts.

Thurston, a Gunggari man, said Indigenous young people “deserve the chance to be their best”.

“I work closely with school kids in the Yarrabah community in Queensland,” he wrote.

“I’ve seen the obstacles they face.

“Nobody understands that better than their local community. Giving them a say will mean more of our kids reach their potential. That’s what the Voice is about.”

Queensland NRL great Johnathan Thurston will push the ‘yes’ message. Photo: AAP

Goolagong Cawley, a Wiradjuri woman, said voting ‘yes’ was a chance to “help the next generation chase their dreams”.

“Let’s grab this moment with both hands,” she wrote.

The ‘yes’ case emphasises the practical outcomes it claims the Voice will help achieve, in addition to the primacy of parliament.

“The Voice will give advice on key issues facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, from better infant health to improving services in remote areas,” it said.

“Parliament and government will still be responsible for all laws, programs and funding.”

Indigenous Australians Minister and Wiradjuri woman Linda Burney said the idea for the voice came from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

“This is our best opportunity to move the country forward together,” she said.

‘Unknown consequences’

The ‘no’ case claims the Voice proposal goes beyond recognition, and posed the “biggest change to our constitution in our history”.

“It is legally risky, with unknown consequences. It would be divisive and permanent,” it said.

“If you don’t know, vote no.”

Quoting former judges, the main arguments laid out describe the Voice as a risk, lacking detail, divisive, and being impractical for Indigenous Australians.

“This Voice has not been road tested” and there was no comparable constitutional body anywhere in the world, it said.

“A centralised voice risks overlooking the needs of regional and remote communities.”

Voice opponents claim the proposed advisory body presents a “real risk” to Australia’s system of government.

“The High Court would ultimately determine its powers, not the parliament,” it said.

“It risks legal challenges, delays and dysfunctional government.”

‘Yes’ case

• The idea came directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: “Accepting a proposal backed by more than 80 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.”
• Constitutional recognition for concrete results: “Constitutional recognition is a powerful statement that will drive practical change.”
• Ensure people have a better life: “The Voice is a vehicle to deliver real improvements for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.”
• Bring our country together: “Becoming reconciled with our past and moving to a better future.”
• Save money: “When governments listen to people, they get better outcomes and use funding more effectively.”

‘No’ case

• Risky: “We all want to help Indigenous Australians in disadvantaged communities. However, this Voice is not the answer and presents a real risk to our system of government.”
• Unknown: “No details have been provided on how members of the voice would be chosen or how it would operate. Australians are being asked to vote first before these details are worked out.”
• Divisive: “Enshrining a voice in the constitution for only one group of Australians means permanently dividing our country.”
• Permanent: “Putting a voice in the constitution means it’s permanent. We will be stuck with negative consequences.”
• Won’t help Indigenous Australians: “More bureaucracy is not the answer. There are currently hundreds of Indigenous representative bodies at all levels of government, along with the National Indigenous Australians Agency, which has 1400 staff.”