• sycamore
    link
    31 year ago

    We can still have both. This isn’t a valid argument against the voice.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      I don’t follow. I’m not saying its either/or, I’m saying the voice looks like it will achieve nothing if it has no powers or additional rights. If it has the same access to parliament as existing lobbying bodies, why is it needed?

      I understand the need for reconciliation and to improve outcomes for indigenous people, I just don’t see how a body with no power can achieve it.

      It seems like the yes camp are trying to have it both ways. To those leaning towards yes: “Yay its going to make a difference!” While at the same time those wary and leaning to no: “It won’t change anything or have any real power”. Which is it? I’m confused.