this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
38 points (97.5% liked)

Australia

3620 readers
119 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
Fluid@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
38
The Indigenous Voice to Parliament – separating fact from fiction | 7.30 (youtu.be)
submitted 1 year ago by Ilandar@aussie.zone to c/australia@aussie.zone
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] IncongruousMonkey@aussie.zone 2 points 1 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.