If the Voice is no more than an advisory body that does not affect anyone else, it does not need to be in the Constitution as there are over three hundred aboriginal bodies already advising the Government.

The Voice is the initial program put into the Constitution by the Federal Albanese Labor Government, then it is up to the Labor States to introduce the laws that put in place treaty [as each State was established separately on local aboriginal tribal lands], and repatriations [pay the rent], as Australia is a federation of States.
South Australia, Western Australia have tried to introduce laws that will be at the advice of local aboriginal elders. The WA government had to postpone their heritage laws because it was affecting their Yes case.

Here's the link again which explains why the Voice should be
in the Constitution:

http://theconversation.com/why-cant-we-just-establish-the-voice-to-parliament-through-legislation-a-constitutional-law-expert-explains-203652#

The Prime Minister stated that the voice must be protected in the
constitution because of the request from Indigenous Australians
through the Uluru Statement From the Heart.

"You can't say you want to listen to Indigenous Australians and
then not listen to the very first point in the form of
recognition they want."

Read WHY having the voice in the constitution is important
as explained by a constitutional law expert in the link I gave.

The PM stressed that the voice would be governed by legislation.

Dear mhaze,

You are just being disingenuous now.

We have been through why it is appropriate that the Voice be included in the Constitution.

The extraordinary race powers in the Constitution have only and will likely only ever be directed at Indigenous Australians. Sometimes arguably for their benefit but also punitively and for political gain as with Howard's Intervention.

They have been used to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act and the Native Title Act. They have put troops into the streets of over 70 indigenous communities and mandates repeated health checks of only one race.

It is only right that such extraordinary powers be informed by an appropriate body. This is what the Voice delivers.

Voting against that at the very least smacks of churlishness and mean-spiritedness.

SR,

Even if what you say is true, (and its rubbish), the PM isn't using that argument as to why HE wants the Voice in the constitution. As Foxy has correctly discerned....

"The Prime Minister stated that the voice must be protected in the
constitution because of the request from Indigenous Australians
through the Uluru Statement From the Heart."

That is, according to the PM, we should put the Voice in the constitution because the aboriginal elite want it in the constitution. No other reason was offered.

Making constitutional change just because a small group want it, isn't really the way to run a country. (Although I'm looking forward to the time when they get around to asking other groups what they want - I'm offering my services to sit on the Voice representing left-handed, bearded 60 yr olds!).

This is, of course, one of the reasons the Voice shouldn't be in the Constitution. If we have to do things just because the aboriginal elite want it, then the Voice won't be, contra the fevered claims of its proponents, a mere advisory body. We'll go rapidly from the Voice merely advising to it telling us what it wants and being told we have to give 'em what they want because they want it.

So apparently there will be 24 people appointed to be 'the voice'.
- But there's 250 indigenous tribal groups in Australia, as well as many land councils

How will these 'voices' be selected?
- And what happens if the 'voice' gives a recommendation to Parliament that is denied?
- Will there be challenges in the High Cort that overturn to governments decisions?

Then there is the fact that even the plan itself is not bi-partisan, that is even before we start the 2 political parties don't even agree to begin with.

SR and Foxy,

The putative reasons for the voice being permanently inserted into the Constitution are at best puerile and unconvincing and at worst simply a springboard for a treaty, reparations etc.