AEC hits back after Peter Dutton suggests voice referendum rules are ‘rigged’

Australia’s electoral body has come out swinging against critics who say counting ticks as a yes response in the upcoming referendum on the voice will undermine its fairness and impartiality.

The Australian Electoral Commission issued a statement on Friday “completely and utterly” rejecting the assertion it was acting unfairly, suggesting claims were “based on emotion rather than the reality of the law”.

It comes as no campaigners, including the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, have questioned the rule to allow some ticks in addition to a “yes” or “no” on referendum ballot papers and suggesting – without evidence – that the process is “rigged”.

The ballot paper for the Indigenous voice to parliament will contain one square with voters clearly instructed to write either Yes or No in English.

Fewer than 1% of votes recorded in the 1999 republic referendum were informal votes, with ballot papers including crosses and ticks forming a small portion of them.

The AEC said much of the “intense commentary online and in mainstream media” had been factually incorrect and ignored the decades-long and multi-referendum history of regarding ticks and crosses.

• Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup

“The AEC completely and utterly rejects the suggestions by some that by transparently following the established, public and known legislative requirements, we are undermining the impartiality and fairness of the referendum,” the statement said.

“As has been the case at every electoral event. The AEC remains totally focused on electoral integrity.

“Indeed, electoral integrity is a central part of the AEC’s published values; underpinned by, and supported through, complete adherence to all relevant laws and regulations.”

On Wednesday, the electoral commissioner, Tom Rogers, said voters should write “yes” or “no” on the ballot in an interview with Sky News, adding that well-established rules, called “savings provisions”, allowed AEC staff to count votes that don’t strictly adhere to the instructions.

“It is likely that a ‘Y’ or an ‘N’ would be counted under the savings provisions. But I get nervous even talking about that because then people hear mixed messages. It’s just important to write either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on that ballot paper,” Rogers said.

Coalition figures on Friday raised concerns about the issue of ticks and crosses, saying it would favour the yes campaign.

The opposition Senate leader, Simon Birmingham, on Friday said allowing ticks but not crosses undermined the integrity of the process and urged the government to review the rule to ensure votes are “counted fairly and counted in a way that accurately reflects the will of the nation”.

Dutton on Thursday went as far as suggesting the rule showed the process was “rigged” and called on the commissioner to “step up and exert his independence and give a sensible interpretation”.

“I respect that people will vote yes or no in this and that’s their entitlement. But I don’t think we should have a process that’s rigged and that’s what the prime minister’s tried to orchestrate from day one,” he told 2GB radio.

The former treasurer and current Labor party president, Wayne Swan, called the opposition’s claims “complete rubbish”.

“This is just the no case out there using the electoral system to try to discredit the voice. And in doing so, doing what many other rightwing parties around the world are doing, discrediting basic electoral arrangements,” Swan said on Nine’s Today show.

“It is appalling. I’m disgusted by their behaviour.”

The Coalition opposition did not propose amendments to the rule during debate on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act earlier this year.

When the deputy opposition leader, Sussan Ley, was asked on Seven’s Sunrise why the Coalition hadn’t raised it earlier, she responded: “Well, we’re raising it now.

“Well, it’s actually an issue for the AEC, which is why I think [senior minister] Jason [Clare] should be talking to them and be absolutely firm about having a fair referendum – that’s what we want … the rules have to be fair.”