Two questions about the Voice's wording

Originally posted by stephec1: ↑

I think almost everyone, including no voters, would agree that the Voice could potentially be effective in closing the gap in an financially diligent manner. This will require many things to align that just aren't practical though.

There are plenty of communities that would see improvement from local input into decision making and continuity of funding - examples of youth programs for aboriginal children and even simple things like building facilities to prevent kids for running a muck due to there being not better to do etc. In theory these things are no brainers that yes voters will point to and I wholeheartedly agree with such things. It's naive to think these of the postives in isolation though.

Will the Voice and Aboriginal Industry even agree and align on decision making? Unlikely from past history.

Will the Voice and Aboriginal Industry only make representations in the best interests of themselves? or in the best interests of the community and the rest of the country? IMO mostly the former. Reparations for the past, funding requests without due purpose (GDP %), treaty etc. They will ask for whatever they think they can get. To be honest I can't blame them, most would do the same. I take whatever I can get from the government as well. I work in government utilities and the local Aboriginal Corporation has asked for royalty payment for the end product and money from the government contracts to flow through to Native Title. They won't get it but they know rejection of these items put thems in a stronger position to get comprimise on their other requests. Why will the Voice and Government negotiations be any different.

Will the Government have enough backbone to stand against representations from the Voice that aren't in the interests of the entire country? I don't think so however others may have different opinions.

If the Voice is enshrined into the constitution there will never be another referendum to have it removed. It could be an abject disaster and it still won't go back for a vote. Same reason as to why all 'in favour' companies and in power goverment share their viewpoints publicly however all no voting entities and people stay silent.

Expand

you make some interesting points stephec .... you own experience though is not necessarily a good guide to the Voice or how it might work.

your Aboriginal Corp has its own structure, scope and function. a result of previous rules and legislation governing its creation. the voice will have a different legislation created by a bipartisan committee with the aim of focusing on disadvantage primarily. it will gather the opinions from local and regional voices to formulate advice on programs and laws rather then merely attempt to channel cash for use by the corporation.

of course the voice will be able to be removed if necessary by referendum. Dutton has promised a referendum on recognition if this one fails. If Dutton wins an election it's likely his Gov will legislate a Voice to parliament if not already done, or modify an existing Voice legislated by the Lab Gov.

the referendum is about the continuity of the Voice only. they don't want to be silenced again without asking permission of the voters. thats all it is. nothing more.