Comment

Comment on Fact-checking for the "No" referendum pamphlet was not compulsory

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Ilandar@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
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 cannot interpret constitutional legislation. That’s a complete strawman invented by you.
source
- w2qw@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  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.
  
  source
  - Ilandar@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    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.
    
    source
    w2qw@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    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.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
They had sources, how do we know that you aren’t being disingenuous by not providing sources?

source
- Affidavit@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  This alleged ‘fact-checking’ is an opinion piece. The ‘sources’ in the article are also opinion pieces—half of them from themselves.
  
  source
  - UnfortunateDoorHinge@aussie.zone ⁨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.
    
    source
  - unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    So is the pamphlet they were reviewing, so was your previous comment. What’s your point?
    
    source