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

Australia

3605 readers
63 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 @Tau@aussie.zone 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: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
Fluid@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
40
Fact-checking for the "No" referendum pamphlet was not compulsory (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Undefined@lemm.ee to c/australia@aussie.zone
21 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
[โ€“] Affidavit@aussie.zone -2 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.

[โ€“] Usualdeskfire@aussie.zone 5 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.