C0743
Ang Claim
“Sabay na tinaasan ang halaga ng petrolyo at pinutol ang pondo para sa pampublikong transportasyon. Sinabi ng gobyerno na ang mga disadvantaged na tao ay hindi naman makakabili ng kotse kaya hindi sila masasaktan ng mga pagbabago.”
Orihinal na Pinagmulan: Matthew Davis
Sinuri: 31 Jan 2026
Orihinal na Pinagmulan
✅ FACTUAL NA BERIPIKASYON
### Fuel Excise Indexation
### Fuel Excise Indexation
Ang 2014 federal budget ng Abbott government ay muling ipinatupad ang dalawang beses sa isang taong indexation ng fuel excise sa CPI, mula Agosto 1, 2014 (na-adjust mamaya sa Nobyembre 10, 2014) [1]. The Abbott government's 2014 federal budget did reintroduce twice-yearly indexation of the fuel excise to CPI, effective from 1 August 2014 (later adjusted to 10 November 2014) [1].
Ito ay nagtaas ng base rate mula 38.14¢ hanggang 38.6¢ bawat litro. This increased the base rate from 38.14¢ to 38.6¢ per litre.
Ang indexation ay na-freeze noong 2001 ng Howard government [1]. Indexation had been frozen in 2001 by the Howard government [1].
Ang hakbang ay inaasahang makakalikom ng $3.7 billion sa unang apat na taon [1]. The measure was expected to raise $3.7 billion over its first four years [1].
Ang kita ay partikular na itinalaga para sa mga proyekto ng imprastraktura ng kalsada kabilang ang WestConnex sa Sydney, East West Link sa Melbourne, Ipswich Motorway upgrade, at Toowoomba Second Range Crossing [1]. The revenue was specifically earmarked for road infrastructure projects including WestConnex in Sydney, Melbourne's East West Link, the Ipswich Motorway upgrade, and the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing [1].
Ang budget ay nagtatag ng "Fuel Indexation (Road Funding) Special Account" para idirekta ang kita sa mga proyekto ng kalsada [2]. The budget established a "Fuel Indexation (Road Funding) Special Account" to direct revenue to road projects [2].
### Mga Kontrobersyal na Pahayag ni Joe Hockey ### Joe Hockey's Controversial Comments
Noong Agosto 13, 2014, si Treasurer Joe Hockey ay gumawa ng mga kontrobersyal na pahayag na ipinagtatanggol ang pagtaas ng fuel excise sa isang ABC Radio interview: > "Ang mga taong talagang nagbabayad ng pinakamarami ay ang mga taong may mataas na kita, sa pagtaas ng fuel excise… Ang pinakamahihirap na tao ay alinman sa walang kotse o hindi talaga nagmamaneho ng malayo sa maraming kaso" [3]. On August 13, 2014, Treasurer Joe Hockey made controversial comments defending the fuel excise increase during an ABC Radio interview:
> "The people that actually pay the most are higher income people, with an increase in fuel excise… The poorest people either don't have cars or actually don't drive very far in many cases" [3].
Naglabas si Hockey ng media release sa sumunod na araw na nagtuturo sa Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data na nagpapakita na ang pinakamataas na 20% ng mga sambahayan ayon sa kita ay nagbabayad ng mahigit tatlong beses na mas marami sa fuel tax kaysa sa pinakamababang 20% [3]. Hockey issued a media release the following day citing Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data showing that the highest 20% of households by income pay over three times more in fuel tax than the lowest 20% [3].
Pagkatapos ay humingi siya ng paumanhin para sa mga pahayag noong Agosto 15, 2014, matapos na tanggihan ni Prime Minister Tony Abbott na suportahan sila [3]. He subsequently apologized for the comments on August 15, 2014, after Prime Minister Tony Abbott refused to back them [3].
### Pagsusuri ng Pondo para sa Pampublikong Transportasyon ### Public Transport Funding Assessment
Ang pag-aangkin na "pinutol ng gobyerno ang pondo para sa pampublikong transportasyon" ay nangangailangan ng nuance. The claim that the government "cut funding for public transport" requires nuance.
Ang 2014 budget ay malubhang pinrioridad ang imprastraktura ng kalsada kaysa sa pampublikong transportasyon, ngunit ito ay kumakatawan sa pagpapatuloy ng umiiral na mga pattern ng pondo ng pederal kaysa sa mga eksplisitong pagputol sa mga itinatag na programang pampubliko transportasyon [1]. The 2014 budget heavily prioritized road infrastructure over public transport, but this represented a continuation of existing federal funding patterns rather than explicit cuts to established public transport programs [1].
Ang budget ay naglaan ng malaking bagong pondo sa mga proyekto ng kalsada habang ang pampublikong transportasyon ay nakakatanggap ng mas kaunting pansin sa infrastructure package [1]. The budget allocated significant new funding to road projects while public transport received comparatively less attention in the infrastructure package [1].
Nawawalang Konteksto
### Flawed Data Analysis ng Treasury
### Treasury's Flawed Data Analysis
Ang ABC Fact Check investigation ay nagpakita na ang analysis ni Hockey ay umaasa sa flawed methodology [3]. The ABC Fact Check investigation revealed that Hockey's analysis relied on flawed methodology [3].
Isinama ng Treasury ang "hindi naisalaysay" at "hindi naaangkop" na mga tugon sa Census (mga 1.5 milyong sambahayan) sa kategoryang "walang kotse", artipisyal na pinapasikip ang porsyento ng low-income na mga sambahayan na walang sasakyan [3]. Treasury included "not stated" and "not applicable" Census responses (approximately 1.5 million households) in the "no car" category, artificially inflating the percentage of low-income households without vehicles [3].
Kapag gumamit ng mas angkop na ABS data, tanging mga 15% lamang ng mga sambahayan sa pinakamababang socioeconomic band ang walang kotse, kumpara sa sinasabi ng Treasury na mahigit 30% [3]. When using more appropriate ABS data, only about 15% of households in the lowest socioeconomic band had no car, compared to Treasury's claim of over 30% [3].
Natagpuan ng pananaliksik ng Monash University na 78% ng low-income na mga sambahayan sa Melbourne ay may kahit isang kotse, na may 22% na may dalawa o higit pang sasakyan [3]. Monash University research found that 78% of low-income households in Melbourne had at least one car, with 22% having two or more vehicles [3].
### Geographical Disadvantage ### Geographical Disadvantage
Ang pag-aangkin ay hindi kasama ang kritikal na pananaliksik na nagpapakita na ang low-income na mga sambahayan sa outer suburban na mga lugar ay madalas na nahaharap sa "forced car ownership" dahil sa mahinang access sa pampublikong transportasyon [4]. The claim omits critical research showing that low-income households in outer suburban areas often face "forced car ownership" due to poor public transport access [4].
Natagpuan ng pananaliksik ni Professor Graham Currie na ang low-income na mga sambahayan sa urban fringe ng Melbourne ay gumagawa ng mas mahahabang biyahe (16.4km average) kaysa sa mga residente ng inner-area (6.4km), dahil sa limitadong mga pagpipilian sa pampublikong transportasyon [3]. Professor Graham Currie's research found that low-income households on Melbourne's urban fringe make longer trips (16.4km average) than inner-area residents (6.4km), due to limited public transport options [3].
Halos 90% ng mga residente ng growth area ay gumagamit ng kotse para magbiyahe papuntang trabaho [3]. Nearly 90% of growth area residents used cars to travel to work [3].
### Regressive Impact ng Fuel Tax ### Regressive Impact of Fuel Tax
Habang sinabi ni Hockey na ang fuel tax ay "progressive," natagpuan ng independent analysis na ito ay talagang regressive [3]. While Hockey claimed the fuel tax was "progressive," independent analysis found it was actually regressive [3].
Ang 2009-10 ABS Household Expenditure Survey ay nagpakita na ang petrolyo ay tumanggap ng 4.5% ng kita para sa low-income na mga sambahayan kumpara sa tanging 1.4% para sa high-income na mga sambahayan - ginagawang tatlong beses na mas mabigat ang tax burden proportionally sa mahihirap [3]. The 2009-10 ABS Household Expenditure Survey showed that petrol consumed 4.5% of income for low-income households versus only 1.4% for high-income households - making the tax burden three times heavier proportionally on the poor [3].
Kahit na sukatin laban sa kabuuang gastos sa halip na kita, ang tax ay at best proportional, hindi progressive [3]. Even when measured against total spending rather than income, the tax was at best proportional, not progressive [3].
### Ang Precedent ng Howard Government ### The Howard Government Precedent
Ang pag-aangkin ay hindi kasama na ang fuel excise indexation ay na-freeze mula pa noong 2001 sa ilalim ng Howard government (Coalition), ibig sabihin ang 2014 measure ay simpleng ibinalik ang isang kasanayan na umiiral noon [1]. The claim omits that fuel excise indexation had been frozen since 2001 under the Howard government (Coalition), meaning the 2014 measure simply restored a practice that had existed before [1].
Ito ay hindi isang bagong tax kundi pagpapanumbalik ng adjustment mechanism na na-suspend sa loob ng 13 taon. This was not a new tax but reinstating an adjustment mechanism that had been suspended for 13 years.
Pagsusuri ng Kredibilidad ng Pinagmulan
Ang mga orihinal na pinagmulan ay lahat mula sa Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), isang mainstream Fairfax na pahayagan na may center-left na editorial leanings [5]. - **SMH articles (2014):** Ito ay mga ulat ng balita at opinion pieces mula sa isang maaasahang mainstream outlet.
The original sources are all from the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), a mainstream Fairfax newspaper with center-left editorial leanings [5].
- **SMH articles (2014):** These are news reports and opinion pieces from a reputable mainstream outlet.
Bagama't ang SMH ay editorially kritikal sa mga Coalition government, ang factual reporting sa mga budget measures at mga pahayag ni Hockey ay pare-pareho sa maraming independent na pinagkunan kabilang ang ABC News at SBS [3][6]. - **Walang partisan advocacy sources:** Hindi tulad ng ilang mga pag-aangkin sa dataset na ito na nagtuturo sa eksplisitong partisan websites, ang mga pinagkunan na ito ay mula sa itinatag na Australian media na may propesyonal na pamantayan sa pamamahayag. While SMH has been editorially critical of Coalition governments, the factual reporting on the budget measures and Hockey's comments is consistent across multiple independent sources including ABC News and SBS [3][6].
- **No partisan advocacy sources:** Unlike some claims in this dataset that cite explicitly partisan websites, these sources are from established Australian media with professional journalism standards.
⚖️
Paghahambing sa Labor
### Gumawa ba ng katulad na bagay ang Labor?
### Did Labor do something similar?
**Kasaysayan ng fuel excise:** Ang pag-freeze ng fuel excise indexation ay nagsimula sa ilalim ng Howard Coalition government noong 2001, hindi Labor [1]. **Fuel excise history:** The freezing of fuel excise indexation began under the Howard Coalition government in 2001, not Labor [1].
Ang Rudd at Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013) ay nag-maintain ng freeze na ito sa panahon ng kanilang mga termino - ibig sabihin hindi rin nila itinaas ang fuel excise sa pamamagitan ng indexation. The Rudd and Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013) maintained this freeze during their terms - meaning they did not increase fuel excise through indexation either.
Sa ganitong paraan, ang paraan ng Labor ay katulad sa posisyon ng Coalition bago 2014. **Prioridad sa pampublikong transportasyon vs kalsada:** Ang parehong pangunahing Australian parties ay historikal na pinrioridad ang pondo sa kalsada kaysa sa pampublikong transportasyon sa antas na pederal. In this sense, Labor's approach was similar to the Coalition's pre-2014 position.
**Public transport vs roads priority:** Both major Australian parties have historically prioritized roads funding over public transport at the federal level.
Ang pederal na gastos sa imprastraktura sa ilalim ng mga Labor government ay malubhang pabor din sa mga proyekto ng kalsada, bagama't ang eksplisitong pagtali ng kita ng fuel excise eksklusibo sa mga kalsada sa 2014 budget ay isang natatanging katangian. **Kontrobersyal na mga pahayag ng mga Labor figures:** Bagama't walang direktang katumbas sa mga tiyak na pahayag ni Hockey, ang mga Labor politicians ay gumawa ng iba pang kontrobersyal na pahayag tungkol sa cost-of-living pressures na kritikado bilang out-of-touch. Federal infrastructure spending under Labor governments also heavily favored road projects, though the 2014 budget's explicit tying of fuel excise revenue exclusively to roads was a distinctive feature.
**Controversial comments by Labor figures:** While no direct equivalent to Hockey's specific comments exists, Labor politicians have made other controversial statements about cost-of-living pressures that were criticized as out-of-touch.
Gayunpaman, walang senior Labor minister na gumawa ng mga pag-aangkin na tiyak na nagsasabing ang mahihirap na tao ay walang kotse. However, no senior Labor minister made claims specifically asserting that poor people don't own cars.
### Comparative Verdict ### Comparative Verdict
Ang fuel excise indexation ay isang Coalition-specific budget measure na tinutulan ng Labor. The fuel excise indexation was a Coalition-specific budget measure that Labor opposed.
Gayunpaman, ang Labor ay nag-maintain ng freeze sa loob ng anim na taon nang hindi ipinapanumbalik ang indexation. However, Labor had maintained the freeze for six years without restoring indexation.
Parehong pinrioridad ng mga partido ang mga kalsada kaysa sa pampublikong transportasyon sa pederal na gastos sa imprastraktura. Both parties have prioritized roads over public transport in federal infrastructure spending.
Ang framing ng pag-aangkin ay nagmumungkahi ng natatanging kapabayaan ng Coalition, ngunit ang pattern ng pagpuprioridad sa imprastraktura ng kotse ay bipartisan sa antas na pederal. The claim's framing suggests unique Coalition negligence, but the pattern of prioritizing car infrastructure is bipartisan at the federal level.
🌐
Balanseng Pananaw
### Sinabi ng Gobyerno na Rason
### Government's Stated Rationale
Ang Abbott government ay nagtanggol na: 1. The Abbott government argued that:
1.
Ang kita ng fuel excise ay kinakailangan para pondohan ang "productivity-boosting roads na kailangan ng Australia" [2] 2. The fuel excise revenue was necessary to fund "productivity-boosting roads Australia needs" [2]
2.
Ang budget ay nahaharap sa "mahirap" na sitwasyong piskal na nangangailangan ng mga hakbang sa kita [2] 3. The budget faced a "difficult" fiscal situation requiring revenue measures [2]
3.
Ang imprastraktura ng mga kalsada ay makikinabang sa lahat ng mga Australiano, lalo na sa mga growth areas Ang 2014 budget ay eksplisitong naka-frame bilang isang "budget repair" exercise na tumutugon sa perceived deficit crisis, na may Joe Hockey na nagdedeklarang "tapos na ang edad ng entitlement" [1]. The roads infrastructure would benefit all Australians, particularly in growth areas
The 2014 budget was explicitly framed as a "budget repair" exercise responding to perceived deficit crisis, with Joe Hockey declaring "the age of entitlement is over" [1].
### Mga Lehitimong Kritiko ### Legitimate Criticisms
Ang mga kritiko ay lehitimong nagsabi na: 1. Critics validly pointed out that:
1.
Ang mga pahayag ni Hockey ay factually misleading ayon sa ABC Fact Check [3] 2. Hockey's comments were factually misleading according to ABC Fact Check [3]
2.
Ang fuel tax ay hindi proporsyonadong nakakaapekto sa low-income na mga sambahayan bilang porsyento ng kita [3] 3. The fuel tax disproportionately impacts low-income households as a percentage of income [3]
3.
Ang mga residente sa outer suburban - madalas na lower-income - ay "pilit" na pumasok sa car ownership dahil sa mahinang pampublikong transportasyon, ginagawa silang partikular na vulnerable sa pagtaas ng presyo ng fuel [4] 4. Outer suburban residents - often lower-income - are "forced" into car ownership due to poor public transport, making them particularly vulnerable to fuel price increases [4]
4.
Ang budget ay lumabag sa mga pre-election promises kabilang ang "walang pagputol sa kalusugan, walang pagputol sa edukasyon" [1] The budget broke pre-election promises including "no cuts to health, no cuts to education" [1]
### Ang Buong Konteksto ### The Full Context
Ang pag-aangkin ay nakakakuha ng tunay na kontrobersya ngunit hindi kasama ang mahalagang konteksto. The claim captures genuine controversy but omits important context.
Ang mga pahayag ni Hockey ay malawakang kritikado bilang insensitive at factually questionable - natagpuan ng ABC Fact Check na ito ay "misleading" [3]. Hockey's comments were widely criticized as insensitive and factually questionable - the ABC Fact Check found them "misleading" [3].
Gayunpaman, ang budget measure mismo (fuel excise indexation) ay pagpapanumbalik ng isang dating kasanayan sa halip na isang bagong tax. However, the budget measure itself (fuel excise indexation) was a restoration of a previous practice rather than a new tax.
Ang "cut to public transport funding" framing ay medyo misleading - malubhang pabor ang budget sa mga kalsada kaysa sa pampublikong transportasyon, ngunit ito ay mas tungkol sa relatibong mga prioridad kaysa sa mga eksplisitong pagputol. The "cut to public transport funding" framing is somewhat misleading - the budget heavily favored roads over public transport, but this was more about relative priorities than explicit cuts.
Ang pederal na gobyerno ay may limitadong direktang responsibilidad para sa pampublikong transportasyon (pangunahing isang responsibilidad ng estado), kaya ito ay mapapabilang na pagpapatuloy ng mga pattern ng pederal na gastos sa imprastraktura sa ilalim ng parehong mga partido. The federal government has limited direct responsibility for public transport (primarily a state responsibility), so this was arguably a continuation of federal infrastructure spending patterns under both parties.
Humingi ng paumanhin si Hockey para sa kanyang mga pahayag, at ang kontrobersya ay nag-ambag sa mahinang pagtanggap ng budget at sa huli ay sa pagpapalit kay Tony Abbott bilang Prime Minister noong Setyembre 2015 [1]. Hockey apologized for his comments, and the controversy contributed to the budget's poor reception and ultimately to Tony Abbott's replacement as Prime Minister in September 2015 [1].
BAHAGYANG TOTOO
6.0
sa 10
Ang mga pangunahing elemento ng factual ay tumpak: ang Coalition ay talagang nagtaas ng mga gastos sa fuel sa pamamagitan ng excise indexation sa 2014 budget, at si Joe Hockey ay talagang gumawa ng mga kontrobersyal at malawakang kritikadong mga komento tungkol sa mahihirap na tao na walang kotse o hindi nagmamaneho ng malayo.
The core factual elements are accurate: the Coalition did increase fuel costs through excise indexation in the 2014 budget, and Joe Hockey did make the controversial and widely-criticized comments about poor people not owning cars or driving far.
Ang mga komentong ito ay natagpuang "misleading" ng ABC Fact Check [3]. These comments were found to be "misleading" by ABC Fact Check [3].
Gayunpaman, ang pag-aangkin ay kulang sa mahalagang konteksto: 1. However, the claim lacks important context:
1.
Ang fuel excise measure ay pagpapanumbalik ng indexation na na-freeze mula pa noong 2001 (ng nakaraang Coalition government), hindi isang bagong tax 2. The fuel excise measure was a restoration of indexation frozen since 2001 (by the previous Coalition government), not a new tax
2.
Ang "public transport funding cuts" framing ay labis na pinalalala ang sitwasyon - pinrioridad ng budget ang mga kalsada kaysa sa pampublikong transportasyon, ngunit ito ay sumasalamin sa bipartisan federal infrastructure patterns sa halip na natatanging Coalition cuts 3. The "public transport funding cuts" framing overstates the situation - the budget prioritized roads over public transport, but this reflects bipartisan federal infrastructure patterns rather than unique Coalition cuts
3.
Nag-maintain din ng fuel excise freeze ang Labor sa panahon ng kanilang 2007-2013 government 4. Labor also maintained the fuel excise freeze during their 2007-2013 government
4.
Hindi kasama ng pag-aangkin na humingi ng paumanhin si Hockey para sa kanyang mga komento Ang pag-aangkin ay tumpak na nakakakita ng tunay na kontrobersya at mga insensitive na pahayag ng Treasurer, ngunit inihahain ang sitwasyon bilang natatanging problemang pag-uugali ng Coalition samantalang ang mga pinagbabatayan na mga prioridad sa gastos sa imprastraktura at fuel excise freeze ay bipartisan na mga pattern. The claim omits that Hockey apologized for his comments
The claim accurately identifies a genuine controversy and insensitive remarks by the Treasurer, but presents the situation as uniquely problematic Coalition behavior when the underlying infrastructure spending priorities and fuel excise freeze were bipartisan patterns.
Huling Iskor
6.0
SA 10
BAHAGYANG TOTOO
Ang mga pangunahing elemento ng factual ay tumpak: ang Coalition ay talagang nagtaas ng mga gastos sa fuel sa pamamagitan ng excise indexation sa 2014 budget, at si Joe Hockey ay talagang gumawa ng mga kontrobersyal at malawakang kritikadong mga komento tungkol sa mahihirap na tao na walang kotse o hindi nagmamaneho ng malayo.
The core factual elements are accurate: the Coalition did increase fuel costs through excise indexation in the 2014 budget, and Joe Hockey did make the controversial and widely-criticized comments about poor people not owning cars or driving far.
Ang mga komentong ito ay natagpuang "misleading" ng ABC Fact Check [3]. These comments were found to be "misleading" by ABC Fact Check [3].
Gayunpaman, ang pag-aangkin ay kulang sa mahalagang konteksto: 1. However, the claim lacks important context:
1.
Ang fuel excise measure ay pagpapanumbalik ng indexation na na-freeze mula pa noong 2001 (ng nakaraang Coalition government), hindi isang bagong tax 2. The fuel excise measure was a restoration of indexation frozen since 2001 (by the previous Coalition government), not a new tax
2.
Ang "public transport funding cuts" framing ay labis na pinalalala ang sitwasyon - pinrioridad ng budget ang mga kalsada kaysa sa pampublikong transportasyon, ngunit ito ay sumasalamin sa bipartisan federal infrastructure patterns sa halip na natatanging Coalition cuts 3. The "public transport funding cuts" framing overstates the situation - the budget prioritized roads over public transport, but this reflects bipartisan federal infrastructure patterns rather than unique Coalition cuts
3.
Nag-maintain din ng fuel excise freeze ang Labor sa panahon ng kanilang 2007-2013 government 4. Labor also maintained the fuel excise freeze during their 2007-2013 government
4.
Hindi kasama ng pag-aangkin na humingi ng paumanhin si Hockey para sa kanyang mga komento Ang pag-aangkin ay tumpak na nakakakita ng tunay na kontrobersya at mga insensitive na pahayag ng Treasurer, ngunit inihahain ang sitwasyon bilang natatanging problemang pag-uugali ng Coalition samantalang ang mga pinagbabatayan na mga prioridad sa gastos sa imprastraktura at fuel excise freeze ay bipartisan na mga pattern. The claim omits that Hockey apologized for his comments
The claim accurately identifies a genuine controversy and insensitive remarks by the Treasurer, but presents the situation as uniquely problematic Coalition behavior when the underlying infrastructure spending priorities and fuel excise freeze were bipartisan patterns.
📚 MGA PINAGMULAN AT SANGGUNIAN (10)
-
1
2014 Australian federal budget - Wikipedia
Wikipedia -
2
Excise Tariff Amendment (Fuel Indexation) Bill 2014 - Parliament of Australia
Aph Gov
Original link no longer available -
3
Fact check: Joe Hockey's 'poor people' don't have cars, don't drive far claim misleading
The Treasurer has come under fire for being out of touch after saying the Government's planned fuel tax increase wouldn't hurt poorer Australians. "They say you've got to have wealthier people or middle-income people pay more. Well, change to the fuel excise does exactly that. The poorest people either don't have cars or actually don't drive very far in many cases," Joe Hockey said. Fact Check investigates.
Abc Net -
4
The relationship between transport and disadvantage in Australia
Aifs Gov
-
5
Critics attack Joe Hockey's claim poorest don't drive cars as completely fallacious
Treasurer Joe Hockey is facing a fresh round of criticism for being out of touch and not understanding the impact of his budget on the less well off after suggesting “poorest people either don't have cars or actually don't drive very far in many cases”.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
6
FactCheck: do poor people drive less?
Treasurer Joe Hockey drew a stream of criticism for his "poor people don't own cars comment", so how accurate is his statement?
SBS News -
7PDF
Alarming Trends in the Growth of Forced Car Ownership in Melbourne
Monash • PDF Document -
8
Joe Hockey media release August 13, 2014
Jbh Ministers Treasury Gov
-
9
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 'Car Nation', Australian Social Trends July 2013
Australian Social Trends, July 2013
-
10
ABS 2009-10 Household Expenditure Survey Australia
Household Expenditure Survey, Australia: Summary of Results, 2009-10
Pamamaraan ng Rating Scale
1-3: MALI
Hindi tama sa katotohanan o malisyosong gawa-gawa.
4-6: BAHAGYA
May katotohanan ngunit kulang o baluktot ang konteksto.
7-9: HALOS TOTOO
Maliit na teknikal na detalye o isyu sa pagkakasulat.
10: TUMPAK
Perpektong na-verify at patas ayon sa konteksto.
Pamamaraan: Ang mga rating ay tinutukoy sa pamamagitan ng cross-referencing ng opisyal na mga rekord ng pamahalaan, independiyenteng mga organisasyong nag-fact-check, at mga primaryang dokumento.