this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
40 points (97.6% liked)

Australia

3587 readers
145 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

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]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
lodion
Fluid
bestusername
eatham
40
Fact-checking for the "No" referendum pamphlet was not compulsory (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/australia
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Affidavit 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Ilandar 10 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 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 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 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 2 points 1 year ago

The Guardian never claimed otherwise.