Running discussion on SP, page-73332

Fair enough. The possibility that indigenous bodies may be granted a veto over mining activities re a Voice to parliament is not a fanciful notion. Despite Albo emphatically ruling out such vetos he does have form in reneging on his declarative statements. Real politik in action.

Any changes to the Constitution opens up the potential for High Court challenges. To wit, an initiative founded on good intentions and designed to recognize and give voice to indigenous concerns will fall if the government ignores, say, a land council which advises it doesn't want a mining development. This would automatically render the Voice impotent and tokenistic, In short, it's bad faith. Enter the High Court:

University of Queensland law professor James Allan believes the Voice would create “licence for judicial activism” and set up a “defacto veto” power because politicians would be reluctant to ignore its advice.

For Greens MP, Lidia Thorpe it's truth telling first, then a Treaty, then the Voice. For her it's about equal sovereignty. A Treaty confers sovereignty and effective independence of existing Australian law:

The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) is a prime example of how official Australian policy can usurp Indigenous sovereignty. Native title law guarantees limited First Nations sovereignty, but when it conflicts with European rights to land, it’s native title that’s always extinguished.

For years land councils have bitterly complained about such decisions, especially in relation to uranium mining and more recently, sacred sites. Thus it's not beyond the realms of possibility that activists will find a way to outright reject mining developments, despite what Albo says. The Voice is their best chance yet.