I'm wondering if the High Court would always agree with your argument that "matters relating to ATSI peoples" requires ATSI peoples to be the subject in a substantial way (i.e. ATSIs are substantially the subject matter).
Because where would the Court draw the line? There was a recent example of the ADF wanting to set up a naval base in the NT, which would have had at least some effect on the locals. Is this a general Australian issue, or an Aboriginal issue?
Also, given the low socio-economic status of Aboriginals in general, wouldn't any intended law having an economic impact on the citizenry impact Aboriginals proportionately more than others? Everything is fair game IMO under clause (ii) regarding the scope of matters. ATSIs won't necessarily have to be the subject of those matters.
