High school essays require a higher referencing standard than this.
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?
Why is the AEC so fucking spineless against right wing lies?
Every time they pull some dodgy voting shit, they get away scotfree.
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.
So they've just turned the AEC I to a misinformation peddler, excellent.
Why do you think labor were involved in deciding no fact checking? Has there been fact checking before?
I thought the convention was the politicians that vote on having a referendum decide the language. The No voters decide on no. The yes voters decide on yes.
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.
It is abundantly clear that the alleged 'journalist' responsible for fact-checking this had an ulterior motive.
...
I stopped wasting my time here. It is clear that whomever did this assessment was being disingenuous. Won't waste my time reading further.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Guardian never claimed otherwise.
They had sources, how do we know that you aren't being disingenuous by not providing sources?
This alleged 'fact-checking' is an opinion piece. The 'sources' in the article are also opinion pieces—half of them from themselves.
Fact checking 101. You need to provide counter evidence and cross examination to deduce that a claim is invalid, unreliable or a misrepresentation.
So is the pamphlet they were reviewing, so was your previous comment. What's your point?
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.
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.
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
If you're posting anything related to:
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
https://aussie.zone/communities
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]