Myth number three about the Voice

in Warren Mundine's article was "other countries have indigenous constitutional recognition and it's fine".

Actually no. He points out that the US Constitution gives Congress the right to "regulate commerce with the Indian tribes". This is a very different thing from consulting them about every aspect that might affect them.  

In Canada they simply recognise already existing aboriginal and treaty rights. Again this is a very different thing from the form of consultation proposed in the Voice.

In New Zealand however there are a number of precedents and principles which allow Maoris to have a say in all manner of things. The chief among these is the Treaty of Waitangi. There are three principles in the treaty, "partnership", "protection" and "participation".  In 1975 there was an act passed by the New Zealand parliament which brought in the Waitangi Tribunal. It is a permanent commission of inquiry that makes recommendations on issues brought up by Maoris. Over time what has happened is that the courts have ruled that the government must address any grievances the Maori have brought through the Tribunal. By the mid 1980's this included grievances going back to white settlement in New Zealand. The Tribunal has ended up being a very powerful body, far more powerful than was intended.  You can't put that genie back in the bottle. 

Could that happen with the Voice? The government is saying "no" of course. The Solicitor-General's advice would seem to suggest it could not happen but that is current advice. There has been previous advice which would seem to contradict the current advice.

The reality is that nobody knows what could happen. It would depend on any number of things. The present Prime Minister has already said it would be a brave government which went against advice given by the Voice. We are told the Voice could not delay legislation but that is clearly nonsensical. Of course it could. All it would take would be an appeal to the High Court and the Governor-General would not sign any legislation into law until a decision was brought down.

The idea that we can add something, anything to the Constitution and know exactly how it will work is foolish. We don't. The use of the External Affairs power to prevent the building of a dam showed that.