For what it's worth, I thought there was substance to her piece, more than I had - frankly - expected. I think there's a good deal of substance there that you, for example, could utilise for positive outcomes for Indigenous Australians. It's unlikely, given your published position on things, but it's there to be used and woven into your own message if you cared to. Shape your own message, Scott, rather than just always defending the 'team message'. Deviations from the team aren't akin to treachery.
Also, the purpose of a lobby group is to progress the interests of their clients to the exclusion of non-clients. This is their primary purpose. It's a bit surprising that you would compare the voice to an entity that by design doesn't give consideration to the broader consequences of their own success.
