The ECQ is required to publish statements for and against the question being put to voters. When the statements were printed and published, supporters of the "No" case complained that the pamphlet for the "Yes" case was more "eye-catching", with a larger, bolder typeface giving their opponents more prominence. The ECQ denied it had given one side more prominence, and that the pamphlets had been written and formatted by members of parliament who had voted for or against the bill to hold the referendum. Shadow attorney-general
Ian Walker called the claims of bias a "
storm in a teacup".
"Yes" case The argument for fixed four-year terms was supported in the parliament by the governing
Labor Party, the opposition
Liberal National Party and the three
independent members of the assembly. Proponents of the "Yes" case said that four-year fixed terms would reduce the cost of holding elections; provide certainty to business and electors, as well as allow MPs more time for considered policy development; and would take the politics out of the election date being decided by the Premier of the day to their party's advantage. ==Result==