Reply to thread

Implementing an illegal scheme - as evidenced by the removal of certain words on the proposal presented to Cabinet - was a deliberate and calculated abuse of power:

"The second part of the report begins with the design of the Scheme and its adoption by Cabinet as a Budget measure, with a particular exploration of how concerns about its legality were put to one side."

Given the proponents actually recognise this point, why is it a concern?

I made that exact point earlier.  The difference with the Voice is that there will be a process of assessing grass roots ideas, costing them  and prioritising them for consideration.  The idea of silencing the Voice is fraught, especially as it will be accountable for what it presents.

I think this is a misunderstanding of process, as the Voice will operate within a prescribed framework.  Part of that is working with bureaucrats on policy development and implementation.

The bit you skipped was what led to the advice in the first place.  The Voice intends to improve that aspect by recognising that the nature of issues impacting ATSI communities varies considerably and that responses need to be tailored to particular circumstances.