What a weird country, on the one hand they want to save environment from plastic pollution.
On the other one tho.. invest in coal power plants, which will only make drought issues bigger.
On the other one tho.. invest in coal power plants, which will only make drought issues bigger.
But the conservative side of politics managed to make it all about jobs, even though the mine, being highly automated, will deliver very little. I believe the most the company expects is about 1600 (even though for years they were claiming 10,000 which still isn't that many). I believe more people have already been employed installing and maintaining renewable energy this year than will ever be employed by this mine, if it ever gets funded (a lot of banks have said they wouldn't fund it because of the environmental problems, as well as the fact that it doesn't seem like it will stack up economically, because the extra supply will likely push down prices making it, as well as other mines in the state less profitable - possibly to the point of unviability).
So it turned into this culture war over coal based on a mine that probably won't go ahead and even if it does won't actually give the community the jobs it needs...
> So what if people were lied to?
This is fairly serious when you consider that this is the entity which takes a portion of your working income as tax to provide services based on the needs of the community. If the policies which are decided on are based on a misinformed public opinion, then the services which are actually required (as opposed to being perceived as being required) are not delivered.
> Is the government the citizenry's only source of information?
Obviously not, but to claim that there is not a significant perception of truth in a lot of people's eyes when it comes to what a sitting government says is naive.
> Do they even trust the government?
See above, many do.
> Are there not competing sources of information?
This is a discussion in itself. The Murdoch groups own over two-thirds of the media outlets in this country (something like 64% according to a quick glance at wikipedia [1]). It is no small secret that this organisation has a lot of influence in Australia and has swayed public opinions previously on various topics, and there's a plethora of articles discussing this [2].
> What basis do you have for concluding that the Australian government has any significant ability to sway the opinion of its citizens?
I'd put the onus of proof on you for this one, what makes you think that they do not? Governments spend tens of millions of dollars in prime-time advertising with the sole intention of sway opinions of citizens. This seems beyond ridiculous to me that you would want to make that point.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Australia
2. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/20/very-australia...
Look, your point is that the government lies to people and that this influences they way they vote. I’m sure that has some marginal effect. But here you are completely unaffected by these lies. So what’s the difference between you and somebody who votes differently? Is it that they are a hopeless rube who has been taken in? You seem to think so. But you have not demonstrated at all that it isn’t an alternative hypothesis which explains their different voting record. And the alternative hypothesis that I would put forward is that their different political leanings account for most of their different voting record. And that their lack of concern about the veracity of the information put out by the government is a result of these different political leanings, not its cause.
I could be an expat from another country for all you know.
(Note: This isn't the case, but it well could be. Don't make assumptions. That's why a higher level discussion is better than getting pissy at each other and trying to level attacks - which is what you're doing.)