Why is it legal to tell lies during the Voice referendum campaign?
It’s illegal for companies to make false or misleading claims, so why is it OK for ‘no’ supporters to lie during the Voice referendum? Monash University constitutional law professor Luke Beck asks.
A referendum to recognise First Nations Australians in Australia’s Constitution by establishing a Voice to Parliament will be held later this year. The Voice would be an advisory body allowing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to make representations to parliament and government on matters that affect them.
Campaigning for the “yes” and “no” sides is well under way. However, misinformation and disinformation are a feature of some of the public discussion. Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney this week even accused the “no” campaign of engaging in “post-truth politics”.
What lies and misinformation are you referring to in this case?
Also, as a professor, you should know that there are no truth or lies in the law, just interpretations, regardless of intent, that are endlessly debated over time.
This is nothing more than pure flag raising for a political cause you’re passionate about.
You mention lying and specifically only mention the No campaign supporters… Is this not an example of being misleading?
Unless of course the No campaign are actively lying… Do you have some examples? Is the Yes campaign not lying or being misleading at all?
This is the strangest article. Also highly hypocritical, you claim the ‘No’ side is lying, but provide neither any examples nor evidence of a claim. One could say you are making false or misleading statements.
“The Voice would be an advisory body allowing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to make representations to parliament and government on matters that affect them” – this issue here is what does .”….on matters that affect them” ACTUALLY MEAN? It could be argued that everthing affects them – including the right to the land your house or farm is on and if there should be some form of compensation or tax applied to it? This is why No can be the only vote as we don’t actually KNOW what we are voting for? Better Health, Better education etc – YES, YES.
It’s an advisory body, not a third chamber of parliament. Your house/farm is safe.
“Your house/farm is safe.”
They said that about Mabo, now in Western Australia farms and any homes over 1100square meters must seek aboriginal permission even for small developments due to the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act.
This is a direct end result of Mabo and wokeism
The Voice will go much further quicker.
Non-Aboriginal people being worried that Aboriginal people are going to take their land is surely peak irony.
More scare mongering by the no campaign.you ARE ALL RUNNING SCARED. HOWARD THE COWARD TRIED THE SAME TACTIC and Look where that got him, voted out in disgrace. it’s about time you lot had a good look at yourselves in the mirror because the good people of Australia are not going to take your extreme negativity any more.
This article is from the Conversation who won’t allow comments on it. This have shut down almost all conversations on The Conversation while having article after article pushing the Yes vote.
As far as misinformation, the vast majority is coming from the Yes camp. There are many very qualified constitutional experts who say the Voice power will be taken to the High Court to challenge all sorts of laws and possibly win. Almost any legislation can be linked to aboriginals in one way or another.
Yet the Yes camp are absolutely sticking to the line this won’t happen. A completely ridiculous position. The wording of the referendum seems DESIGNED to make challenges at the High Court succeed.
Blind Freddy can see it but not the mainstream media, academics, the law profession and progressives. The Law profession are hopelessly compromised here, challenges to the High Court due to the referendum would be extremely lucrative, they should excuse themselves from the debate because of a conflict of interest.
THIS is the misinformation in the referendum, not anything from the right,
The Conversation has never had commenting functionality?
– Shannon Molloy, editor
Dear Mumbrella. Can you have a look at your comments section and find a way to link responses to comments. Every other site manages it. Thanks.
A lie a day keeps the referendum away
Article 26 of UNDRIP and the Law Council of Australia demanding “WE MUST PASS THE VOICE” is all you need to know about this boondoggle. Easy to find online, read article 26 and imagine what a lawyer could do with that wording. The law council of Australia represents 90,000 aussie lawyers. Australians need to take 4 minutes of your day to look this up before you vote.