The no pamphlet: campaign’s voice to parliament referendum essay – annotated and factchecked
www.theguardian.com
Pamphlets written by politicians and published by the AEC have put the official case for a yes and no vote. They were not independently factchecked before publication, so Guardian Australia has added notes to the full essays to help you make better sense of them

Includes some useful answers to concerns people may have about voting yes.

  • @[email protected]
    1•1 year ago

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

    1. The High Court does interpret constitutional legislation
    2. The ambiguity does include a risk of delays and dysfunction due to poor wording in the proposed legislation
    3. 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.

      • @[email protected]
        0•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.

          • @[email protected]
            1•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.

      • @[email protected]
        -3•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.