Mundine's myth number 4 - the Voice will only be advisory,

 courts won't give it power. 

It was the present Prime Minister himself who has said, "It will be a brave government that goes against the advice of the Voice". 

As Mundine points out the idea the Voice will only be "advisory" is nonsense. There is no point in having a voice inside the Constitution if it really is only going to be "advisory". There are a multitude of voices advising the government already. There are hundreds of organisations advising the government on aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs already.  There have been others in the past.

There have been some serious problems with all these and the Voice won't change that. It may even make matters worse.

First, more than one organisation has failed because of corruption and capacity failures within the organisations themselves. ATSIC - the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission is the most widely known example perhaps. It had a budget of millions of dollars but it was a financial and policy failure. Those at the top have still not faced all the charges against them.  One of the problems was that the organisation was too big, attempted to be all encompassing.

Second, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture is extraordinarily diverse. There is no single culture or language or way of thinking. It is as diverse as Iceland is from Egypt or Greece is from China. One Voice cannot speak for all aboriginal people...and yet this is what is essentially being proposed. For all the claims about the size of the Voice and the way it will work it simply will not allow many indigenous people to be heard at all. There won't be the same capacity for much smaller groups of local people to say, "This is what we need" or "We have talked together and this is what we have to tell you."

Third, those in charge at the top are not listening now. Remember those "cashless debit cards"? Many aboriginal people, particularly the women, wanted to retain them. It was not at their request the program was disbanded. It was because others saw it as "demeaning" and "paternalistic" and demanded it be disbanded. The problem is that many of those claiming it was demeaning and paternalistic are the very people the government suggests would be likely to be part of the Voice. 

The government did not listen. It was only media coverage that caused the liquor laws in one state to be changed. It was what those who should have been listened to had demanded in the first place - not what those advising the government were saying should happen. 

The idea that putting a Voice into the Constitution will actually provide the best advice and that it will be just advice and nothing more is a fantasy. It may actually leave many more without an effective means of being heard at all.