mhaze,

As some say, the Australian Constitution is our birth certificate, yet Aboriginal people are not recognised on that birth certificate. Legislative authority only so some Jack Boot Johnny like the racists Dutton can come along and dissolve it at his desecration. The Voice is not ATSIC, and by the will of the people through the Constitution, never will be. Aboriginal people don't want racists intervention laws without consultation, like Howard gave them.

The trouble with aboriginal welfare, & a lot of other problems such as drugs, follows the old saying, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink".

If what you lead them to is not what they want, you are wasting your time, no matter how much you spend. When that involves them getting off their backsides & doing what you think is good for them, perhaps you should leave them alone.

Now of course we have Gillard's revenge, the NDIS giving people a new way to bludge, once they find a compliant doctor.

" yet Aboriginal people are not recognised on that birth certificate."

So make that the referendum ie a clause added to the preamble saying that some folk have been here for a long time. Hurrah, recognition solved. Next problem please.

ATSIC was dissolved because it was hopelessly corrupt and inefficient. It's interesting that the yeah-sayers want to ensure even a corrupt Voice would survive. But you are wrong to say that a constitutional voice would be immune to legislative attack. It remains conceivable that a future government could change the legislation to neuter the Voice if that was their want. Of course, that would require both houses to agree which in turn would suggest general popular agreement.

" yet Aboriginal people are not recognised on that birth certificate."
Unfortunately, that took too long but they're recognised ! There are many non-indigenous who shouldn't be recognised !
Why is no-one saying what needs to be said, it's all about effort & responsibility & the recognition will automatically come, not the other way round !
Australians started in 1901, there were no Australians before that date !

Why the objections to the Voice being constitutionally
enshrined?

It makes sense so that successive governments cannot
overturn it. It will be established as a new
constitutional body. A new chapter (chapter 9) at the
end of the constitution. It will be protected - however
neither the government and parliament can't be compelled
(for example through litigation) to follow these representations.

As such this body will not have "veto" power and is not a
"third chamber."

So why the objections?

"Why the objections to the Voice being constitutionally enshrined?"

Asked and answered....see above.

"however neither the government and parliament can't be compelled (for example through litigation) to follow these representations.

As such this body will not have "veto" power and is not a "third chamber.""

Well that's not made explicit in the proposed changes. Its just something that the yeah-sayers assert without evidence.

Here is my grandson in 2050 arguing before the High Court....

"your honours, although the government argues that the Voice is a mere advisory body based upon a misreading of what a few people said in 2023, the fact is that the people then and the constitution now thought of it as much more than just another group that gave the government advise. The very fact that they put it in its own chapter in the constitution means that they then, and we now, thought of it as a special advisory body with powers beyond those of a mere chat room. Even in 2023 the PM of the day, speaking on behalf of the majority who voted yes, said that no government would or should ignore the advise from the Voice. As such, it is clear that the government's decision to act in any way contrary to the advise it receives from this august body is acting unconstitutionally."

Nowhere does the proposed amendment make it clear that this is just advise. There's a reason for that.