The voice and Woodside, page-42

hagetakaand mypravda: I suspect what you consider the unintended (or intended)consequences is based on a misunderstanding of the proposed status of theVoice. Also, Zachary1000 please note: The proposal only provided the Voice witha right to make recommendations to the Executive and Parliament on mattersimpacting them. There was no obligation on the Executive and Parliament toconsult with the Voice before making a decision. Furthermore, it would havebeen up to the Executive and Parliament to accept or reject any recommendationmade. While it is impossible to stop litigation being commenced the manner ofdrafting would make it very difficult for any litigant to reach the threshold forthe High Court to do other than dismiss the proceedings at the cost of the litigant.

coalforme:What is high risk and divisive about a simple right to make recommendations? Itwould only be divisive if instead of viewing it as a right of First Nationspeople it was improperly viewed as a black versus white issue which is clearlyracist. Also, Cuppajoe2, how are the non-indigenous people disadvantaged by arecommendation on how to improve the health etc of indigenous people? What “fairand equal protections” are being traded away by non-indigenous people? It wasthe intention that the Voice would be a grass roots approach and Langton etcwould not be the only voice heard.

AlsoRoyboy1955: The proposal was to place some responsibility on first nations people- eg if their recommendation was accepted and there was no improvement they could be asked why there wasn’t. Preserving the status quo increases the probability that more money will be wasted by well-meaning decisions made by Parliament without the input of indigenous people at the grass roots level as has occurred to date.