So you don't have a voice?

 Myth number 5 on Mundine's list is the one which says, "Aboriginals don't have a voice" and he debunks that one very quickly. 

This will be the fifth attempt at a voice at a national level. The others have all failed.  Governments of all persuasions have dismantled them because they did not work.

"If we put it into the Constitution it is there forever," the Prime Minister is telling us. He is telling us that this is a good thing. Why? Does simply putting something into the Constitution mean it will succeed? Does it mean that it will always work the way it is intended for the intended purpose?

This proposal is not like anything else currently in the Constitution. It is completely different.

There are already many, many forms of negotiation and consultation with aboriginal people through hundreds of local, state, national and even international bodies. They already have, through elected representatives who identify as aboriginal, more parliamentary representation than everyone else. 

Is more needed? Do we need something very special that the rest of the population does not have? Are aboriginal people always going to be at such a perceived disadvantage they are going to need additional rights and consideration?

Mundine is arguing that the Voice is already there, that there is plenty of consultation and negotiation. It seems likely he is right, that aboriginal people in fact already have greater rights to be heard because there are so many voices already out there.  Do they need more and will a formal Voice actually give them that? I will deal with Mundine's myth number six next time.