Was there no requirements for the essays to be factual? I honestly can't understand how or why blatenet and provable falsehoods were aloud to be in this important document?

[–] Marsupial@quokk.au 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why is the AEC so fucking spineless against right wing lies?

Every time they pull some dodgy voting shit, they get away scotfree.

[–] c15co@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be fair it’s not the AEC’s fault. In order to get the coalition’s support, Labor decided to not require fact checking. Seems like an own-goal to me.

[–] spiffmeister@aussie.zone 4 points 1 year ago

So they've just turned the AEC I to a misinformation peddler, excellent.

[–] INHALE_VEGETABLES@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago

They might spend 780 million dollars on this whole thing so it's worth having a referendum and all the related conversations. A year ago we spent 780 billion on submarines and not a single person I know said a thing.

[–] Affidavit@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It is abundantly clear that the alleged 'journalist' responsible for fact-checking this had an ulterior motive.

The High Court does interpret constitutional legislation
The ambiguity does include a risk of delays and dysfunction due to poor wording in the proposed legislation
Australians wanting to know what they are actually voting for is not 'misinformation'.

...

I stopped wasting my time here. It is clear that whomever did this assessment was being disingenuous. Won't waste my time reading further.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The High Court does interpret constitutional legislation

That's not whar was argued though. Stop lying. Actual quotes from the article:

The High Court would ultimately determine its powers, not the Parliament.

Incorrect. The referendum amendment clearly says parliament will have the power to make laws with “respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures”. Legal experts – including Australia’s former chief justice – say high court challenges are unlikely and even then, the court cannot change a decision made by parliament. It can only send a matter back for reappraisal.

And later:

Once the High Court makes an interpretation, Parliament can’t overrule it. We will be stuck with the negative consequences forever.

Incorrect. Legal experts – including the former chief justice of Australia – say the high court cannot change a decision made by parliament. It can only send a matter back for reappraisal.

Nowhere did The Guardian claim that the High Court doesn't interpret constitutional legislation. That's a complete strawman invented by you.

[–] w2qw@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is the Voice not (or will be) constitutional legislation? I do agree that it largely hands over the powers to the parliament but there is a caveat that they can rule on what it means for them to be able to make representations to parliament.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Whether the Voice is, or is not, constitutional legislation was never commented on by me or the person I replied to. It wasn't raised in The Guardian article either, so I'm not sure why you're asking me this question.

[–] w2qw@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sorry I was referring to this bit "The referendum amendment clearly says parliament will have the power to make laws with “respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures”". It would be up to the high court to interpret what that means. I think that's what OP was referring to when saying that High Court interprets constitutional legislation.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

The Guardian never claimed otherwise.

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They had sources, how do we know that you aren't being disingenuous by not providing sources?

[–] Affidavit@aussie.zone -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This alleged 'fact-checking' is an opinion piece. The 'sources' in the article are also opinion pieces—half of them from themselves.

[–] UnfortunateDoorHinge@aussie.zone 7 points 1 year ago

Fact checking 101. You need to provide counter evidence and cross examination to deduce that a claim is invalid, unreliable or a misrepresentation.

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

So is the pamphlet they were reviewing, so was your previous comment. What's your point?

[–] Affidavit@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Guardian 'journalist': This is a valid point, but I don't like it, therefore, I dub thee 'misinformation/disputed'.

I'm glad I had these smrat (sic) people here to think for me.

[–] Usualdeskfire@aussie.zone 4 points 1 year ago

I think you are confusing valid concern with valid point. None of the information in the "No" pamphlet is based on fact, only conjecture based on possibilities.

The concerns about the voice to parliament made by the "No" campaign is based on what could happen if we implemented a voice poorly, not what will happen if we added a few lines to the constitution making a voice mandatory.

While it's splitting hairs I believe that the No campaigns arguments don't really amount to much beyond scare mongering. The question asked (as I understand it) is should a voice to parliament be made a mandatory part of our constitution. With the government of the day deciding its scope.

The dreamer in me wants to think we can solve the problems of Australia without making mandatory what should be a given. The realist in me understands that sometimes you have to spell it out to stop those in power forgetting.

load more comments