Australia’s best children’s picture book poll - vote now The Guardian Australia Part Three

Read about this here The Guardian Australia

This is my THIRD post about this, in my view, crazy project by The Guardian Australia. I talked about this on 28th November 2025 (some won't like my suggestions, but I didn't submit any as I totally forgot to do this) and I talked about it all again on 16th December 2025.

Yesterday I watched a video by one commentator filled with passion about the short comings of the book choices and this poll BUT once again I think everyone is missing a couple of crucial details. The post on Instagram has had 77 comments - this is a drop in the ocean of course in terms of people who might be interested enough to vote in this poll but many of the comments either amazed or enraged me. Who is this Instagrammer - her name is Shannon Wong-Nizic and she has 41.2K followers! 

Firstly, please go back and read the CRITERIA - again this is just my view - but the criteria are crazy and so many of the books suggested by readers of The Guardian Australia do not meet these stated 'rules'. One of the eliminated titles (as of today) has a famous UK illustrator - Helen Oxenbury.

To be eligible a book must be -

• Primarily intended to be read aloud to children who don’t yet read independently;
• Able to be read in a few minutes – we’re looking for a child’s picture book, rather than a graphic novel or illustrated chapter book;
• Written by an Australian (or someone we’ve claimed);
• Published in Australia.

Secondly - YES I am very happy to so any discussion about children's books and especially picture books but the notion of a winner fills me with despair and dread - in fact I think I am fairly sure I can predict the 'winner' quite easily.

Thirdly - barracking from the side lines. I guess this is okay - authors and illustrators begging people who follow them to vote for their book but again sorry Kate and Jol Temple your book is important I agree but I would argue it does not meet the criteria. I will be featuring your important book in a video very soon for IBBY Australia on the topic 'The Refugee Experience Through Picture Books. Others will disagree but is their book really for very young children under 6 years of age - maybe yes maybe no.

Fourthly - there were rules that should have been added but were left out - Should the book be in print? Should there be a date range so that older 'classics' that others are claiming are already famous (meaning those creators do not need book sales) might be eliminated or ineligible.

Fifth - should we talk about the sponsor of this 'competition'?  It is a bookshop and it is a bookshop I really like but is this okay? Also, I think it is possible to vote more than once each day - the ethics of this worry me too. 

My sixth point is WHY is this online newspaper doing this? I might be wrong but I am guessing this same poll idea was probably run in the UK and perhaps USA. I need a lot more transparency - who suggested the original books on the list? Did this 'paper' approach anyone with any level of authority about this important topic? Why haven't they reiterated their criteria? - Yes I am back on that hobby horse again.

Finally what will happen with this is over? I surmise nothing will happen. In a week or two it will all be forgotten or maybe an opportunistic publisher will make a bright book sticker that declares their book was the lucky winner. Will they ever run this again? Probably not because why bother? The book list of titles to vote for probably won't change very much and it will not surprise me if the same book wins again.

Here are some points made by Shannon on her Instagram video and my comments - under headings of positive and negative - but I still think she has missed a key issue - yes I am going to say it for the third time in this post - go back to the criteria.

GOOD

• The BEST thing about a poll like this, is that it gets us talking about books and reading.

BAD

• An inherent flaw in a list like this, is that obviously most of us haven’t read every book on the list.

(There were only two I hadn't read of the fifty)

• It’s absolutely fine to vote for a book published in 1983. But in my heart of hearts, I hope that you’ve also read a whole heap of new children’s releases and been regularly visiting bookshops and libraries and reading a diverse range of picture books to young readers since then.

(I agree but this is a fault of the silly way this has been set up not a fault of the audience)

• Also, I LOVE Pamela Allen books as much as the next Kindy teacher, but 3 books on the list feels like overkill. Also, isn’t she technically a Kiwi? Are we just claiming her as our own now? How very Australian of us.

(I agree about this point and I raised the issue of multiple titles by one author in my first blog post - also yes Pamela Allen in my view is from New Zealand)

• Feel the nostalgia but think about the modern Aussie kid.

(The nostalgia has arisen because there were no rules about this and also who suggested these titles - parents, grandparents etc).

Here are a few of the comments made to Shannon that resonated with me:

• I'm not sure the selection process for the starting list but I wish the list was not so narrow to begin with.
• Great to be talking books, but there are so many brilliant books and creators not getting the fanfare they deserve.
• Wow just checked out the list and there are far too many classics. I think we know the demographic of The Guardian's readers.

Here are the first twenty books that have been eliminated - each day five books with the lowest votes is removed from the voting list.

Am I upset about any of these? 

No - The Rabbits by John Marsden and Fox by Margaret Wild are both books for readers aged 10+ 

I love Whistle up the Chimney but it is way too old and of little appeal to modern children.

Tomorrow I expect John Brown, Rose and the Midnight cat will be cut - and that is okay with me - I adore this book but it is not designed for very young readers.

Many, though not all, of the eliminated books you can see in the image above were never intended for  very young children.