Election commission

• Law 406, recently enacted by the National Assembly of Panama, approved the Company’s Panamanian subsidiary’s, Minera Panama S.A (“MPSA”), revised contract for the Cobre Panama mine.
• First Quantum has contacted the government in order to understand the details in respect of the popular consultation.
• The Company also notes the comments by the Electoral Commission of Panama in respect of the legal and logistical considerations in respect of the popular consultation.
• First Quantum has always been an advocate of Panama and its people and is committed to the rule of law with the objective to achieve benefits the country, its citizens, the Company and its stakeholders.

• Anticipating the referendum, the Australian Electoral Commission has started to post to every voter the official “yes” and “no” cases.
• These cases were approved by the politicians who voted in favour of, or against, the amendment in parliament.
• They have not been subject to an independent fact check or analysis before publication.
• As members of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law and the Indigenous Law Centre, we have spent the past few weeks carefully reviewing the substantive claims made in the official “yes” and “no” cases.

• A spokesperson for the Information Commissioner’s Office said:
  “The Electoral Commission has contacted us regarding this incident and we are currently making enquiries.
• We recognise this news may cause alarm to those who are worried they may be affected and we want to reassure the public that we are investigating as a matter of urgency.
• “In the meantime, if anyone is concerned about how their data has been handled, they should get in touch with the ICO or check our website for advice and support.”

• The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has published the “yes” and “no” pamphlets for the Voice to Parliament on its website.
• The passage of the Voice to Parliament constitutional amendment bill triggered a 28-day period for written arguments for and against the proposed change to the Constitution.
• Australian parliamentarians have provided their “yes” and “no” arguments for the Voice, which have been published online with no fact-checking by the AEC.

History of the “yes” and “no” pamphlets

• In 1911, two questions were posed to the Australian public at a referendum separate to a general election.
• The questions were whether to extend the Commonwealth’s powers over trade and commerce and give the Commonwealth the ability to make laws in respect to powerful corporations.
• So, the following year, the government sought to send every elector a document that explained proposed constitutional changes from the “yes” and “no” sides.

The Voice to Parliament pamphlet – what is in it?

• “No” Pamphlet: “if you don’t know, vote no” The “no” pamphlet for the Voice to Parliament uses a lot of strong, emotion-invoking language and contains potential misinformation.
• For instance, the pamphlet includes the recurring claim the Voice is “legally risky”, despite legal experts disproving this.
• “Yes” Pamphlet: “voting no means nothing will change” The “yes” pamphlet has reiterated a lot of key points already made by the campaign.
• Read more:
  10 questions about the Voice to Parliament - answered by the experts

Is it time to move away from “yes/no” pamphlets?

• In the past, concerns have been raised about the referendum pamphlet as a way of communicating with voters because it is not examined for accuracy.
• As UNSW constitutional law expert George Williams warns,
  Australians must be cautious when reading these pamphlets.
• Instead, they reiterate arguments for the “yes” and “no” sides by repeating what Australians have heard for the past 12 months.