We gave the Voice to Parliament pamphlets to fact checkers. Here's what they said - SBS News

Key Points

• The Yes and No pamphlets have been released ahead of the Voice referendum.
• The documents are not fact-checked, and are published exactly as they were submitted to the AEC.
• RMIT FactCheck has pored over the pamphlets.

The official Yes and No pamphlets in the Voice to Parliament race are now available online, and will soon be landing in Australian mailboxes.

But the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) is only able to publish the pamphlets as they were submitted, crucially without fact-checking their claims.

The problem with assessing many claims on the Voice is that parliament will work out most details after a successful referendum.

That means some claims might seem alarmist or obviously exaggerated, but we can't rule them out for certain.

So we worked with RMIT's FactLab CrossCheck, which monitors online misinformation, to add context. Here's what it said.

The Yes pamphlet

Claim: "Vote Yes to an idea that comes directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people themselves: Constitutional Recognition through a Voice."

RMIT FactLab: The Voice was proposed in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, endorsed by the majority of more than 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates at Uluru. Between 2016 and 2017, more than 1200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives, taking part in 13 First Nation Regional Dialogues across the country, rejected a simple acknowledgement in the Constitution ... Instead, they proposed three key elements for structural reform: Voice, Treaty, Truth.

Claim: "The Voice will give advice on key issues facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, from better infant health to improving services in remote areas."

RMIT FactLab: According to the Voice's Design Principles, "The Voice would make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples."

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese speaks to the media after the passing of the Voice to Parliament bill. Source: AAP / Lukas Coch

Claim: "For a long time, governments with good intentions have spent billions trying to deal with these issues. But they haven’t achieved lasting improvement because they haven’t listened to people on the ground."

RMIT FactLab: Specific initiatives and projects need to be named for assessments to be made on why they "haven't achieved lasting improvement", if that was indeed the case.

Claim: "Putting the Voice in the Constitution gives it stability and independence, now and into the future. This means the Voice can give frank advice, without getting caught up in short-term politics."

RMIT FactLab: UNSW Constitutional law expert Justice Associate Professor Paul Kildea explained: "Constitutional change gives the Voice security and certainty. Once established, the Voice could only be abolished if Australians agreed to that at another referendum. By contrast, a legislative Voice would be far more vulnerable. A future government could get rid of it by passing an ordinary law. To do that, it would only need to win the support of a majority of members in the House of Representatives and the Senate."

Claim: "Legal experts say the Voice: is constitutionally and legally sound, will enhance our system of government, has no veto power – parliament and government have final sign-off."

RMIT FactLab: Analysis on the Voice and the Executive by Elisa Arcioni and Andrew Edgar from the University of Sydney Law School explains how the consultation provisions are designed to avoid litigation and instead encourage parliamentary accountability. The design principles, known as Voice Principles of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, agreed by the First Nations Referendum Working group clearly state: "The Voice will not have a veto power".

The No pamphlet

Claim: "This Voice specifically covers all areas of 'executive government'. This means no issue is beyond its reach ... The High Court would ultimately determine its powers, not the parliament. It risks legal challenges, delays and dysfunctional government."

RMIT FactLab: Members of the Constitutional Expert Group, as well as the Australian Law Council and other constitutional law academics, all reached the same conclusion: "The Voice, as it is currently proposed, could not make binding demands of the government, nor would it have the power to veto legislation". Claims on social media that the Voice could use the High Court to force policy outcomes, alter the content of laws or change a government decision – such as land grabs or forced reparations payments – have no legal basis.

Opposition spokesperson for Indigenous Australians Jacinta Nampijinpa Price insists the Voice would divide Australia by race. Source: AAP / Michael Errey

Claim: "It is a leap into the unknown. This Voice has not been road tested. There is no comparable constitutional body like this anywhere in the world."

RMIT FactLab: Other countries do have various First Nations approaches when it comes to consulting Parliament. There are differences for each, but they follow international standards of Article 18 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Endorsed by Australia in 2009, the declaration includes four key principles that relate to the Voice: self-determination, participation in decision-making, respect for and protection of culture, and equality and non-discrimination.

Claim: "There are currently hundreds of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representative bodies at all levels of government. This year, the government has allocated $4.3 billion for the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA), which has 1,400 staff."

RMIT FactLab: The NIAA plays a different role to the Voice and there are major differences between the two. Unlike the Voice, the NIAA is not independent of government and can only advise the executive. Unlike the NIAA, the Voice would be entirely made up of Indigenous people. Unlike the NIAA, the Voice's existence would be "guaranteed" because it would be enshrined in the constitution.

Claim: "A centralised Voice risks overlooking the needs of regional and remote communities. 'A national voice cannot speak for country'."

RMIT FactLab: The First Nations Referendum Working Group made clear in the Voice Principles its focus on communities and the expectation that members of the Voice will connect with them. The design principles note that the Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, based on the wishes of local communities, and would have specific remote representatives. Members of the Voice would be expected to connect with, and reflect the wishes of, their communities.

SBS is partnering with  team of online verification experts to check claims related to the Voice to Parliament referendum.

Adblock test (Why?)

https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMifWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnNicy5jb20uYXUvbmV3cy9hcnRpY2xlL3dlLWdhdmUtdGhlLXZvaWNlLXRvLXBhcmxpYW1lbnQtcGFtcGhsZXRzLXRvLWZhY3QtY2hlY2tlcnMtaGVyZXMtd2hhdC10aGV5LXNhaWQvYXZnbTEwY3Vv0gEA?oc=5

2023-07-21 20:45:11Z
2235743491

Bagikan Berita Ini