An Indigenous voice to parliament win will not end misery in remote communities

Simon Benson reports that the past week of parliamentary sittings has left fundamental and legitimate questions over the voice’s function and structure unanswered (“Confusion, evasion, lack of detail stifling voice”, 22/6).

This is due to the Albanese government’s continued explicit obfuscation strategy, limiting detail and appealing to emotion. If that continues it is likely, as Benson comments, that voters will question whether there is something they are not being told. That will be fatal to voice approval.

On the other hand, the real issue in the voice proposal is apparent, having been identified by Paul Kelly, who explained there can be no disguising the purpose – it’s about creating a new institution in the operation of our governance, enshrined in its own chapter just as the Constitution has its separate chapters for parliament, executive government and the judiciary. That is what each Australian must consider and bear in mind when casting a vote in the referendum.

All other issues, however related to the voice proposal, are simply white noise compared with this central issue, for an affirmative vote will change forever the allocation of power under the Constitution and the way in which we are governed.

As Kelly observed, it is extraordinary that Labor is proposing a referendum and wants to conceal, disguise or play down the power it seeks to put into the Constitution. However, that is not the end of the matter, for there remains the reality of the long-term disadvantage suffered by Indigenous Australians, especially those in remote communities. Efforts to eliminate that disadvantage must be redoubled and to that end a new approach is needed. That need, however, does not justify the voice for it is unlikely to alleviate that continuing misery.

Ian Dunlop, Hawks Nest, NSW

Simon Benson contends the No vote has taken on a life of its own, “spreading organically through the community”. If so, it’s an organic life, fertilised and nurtured by the dynamic-lifter effect of the Yes camp’s determined inability or recalcitrant refusal to clarify what a voice to parliament will or will not do, combined with its contradictory assurances and own-goal counterclaims.

However, regarding any “risk that voters may start to question whether there is something they are not being told” – thinking and aware Australians are already asking such questions.

Deborah Morrison, Malvern, Vic

Earlier, Yes campaigners assured us there would be next to no legal challenges emanating from the voice as enshrined in the Constitution. Now Anthony Albanese is telling us the High Court will interpret the powers of the voice as being restricted to what is compatible with the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (“Albanese eyes legal limits on the voice”, 22/6). The court will refer to that speech, but only as one of a number of things beyond the constitutional wording of the new section 129 if, because of lack of clarity of the words, it has to find their meaning.

It is a matter of great unease that our government has either not been smart enough or not been sufficiently invested in democracy to propose a set of words that are clear to all.

Ross Drynan, Lindfield, NSW

Attempts by the Prime Minister and Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney to sanitise the powers of the voice directly contradict the advice of the nation’s most senior constitutional lawyers that the inclusion of “executive government” in its reach takes its powers “beyond the parliament” (“PM’s task is balancing expectations”, 22/6). In other words, should parliament ignore or reject its advice, the issue could be resolved only by the courts. Whether the explanatory note to the act changes that advice would need to be explored.

Kevin Begaud, Dee Why, NSW

For many people the problem with a Yes vote for the voice is the amendment to the Constitution. A lawyer would not advise a client to sign a contract without a complete understanding of its implications and ramifications. Voting on constitutional change without knowing the exact wording would be like signing a blank contract and trusting the other party to fill in the detail.

Bruce Collison, Banks, ACT

There was a suggestion that the voice may be morphing into Pandora’s box. I would go further by suggesting more like a pine box with the nail in the coffin for democracy.

Susan McLochlan, Caboolture, Qld