Anthony Albanese’s ‘contempt for voters’ in the debate on the Indigenous voice to parliament has been exposed by the Yes poll slump

Dennis Shanahan’s analysis of the softening Yes vote for the referendum (“Shock of recognition as Yes vote softens”, 6/17-18) exposes the folly of Anthony Albanese treating voters with contempt by not running a fair and open referendum.

To think the ebbing support for the Yes vote can be arrested by avoiding talk about the voice and focusing on recognition only emphasises that contempt. The PM must be a slow learner if he persists in regarding some Australians as stupid and calling them “Chicken Littles”.

Paul Clancy, Tanunda SA

John Anderson defines the “real problem” (“Voice will be a distraction from the real problems”, 6/17-18). He does so in consultation with only his own choice of sources: A non-Indigenous opinion of Indigenous problems, and what needs to be done about them. We are even offered a non-Indigenous opinion of the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

I think this is in blithe disregard of the due process involved in the creation of the statement: a process involving an extensive series of regional dialogues and unprecedented decision-making endeavours, culminating in a considered document of consensus by more than 200 Indigenous Australians.

All Australians now have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to let our Constitution not only recognise the First Peoples of our land, but also to establish a framework for meaningful consultation.

John Gare, Kew East, Vic

John Anderson’s cautionary comments regarding the impending referendum were both pertinent and persuasive.

They brought to my mind some sentiments expressed by travel author Bill Bryson in his book, Down Under, published in 2000 after his visit to Australia: “What is perhaps oddest to the outsider is that Aborigines aren’t there. You don’t see them assisting in shops, working in a bank, delivering mail, writing parking tickets, fixing a telephone line, participating in some productive capacity in the normal workday world. Clearly some connection is not being made.”

For what it’s worth, I don’t believe it is a coincidence that the most clamorous demands for an entrenched voice are predominantly situated on the east coast of the nation, where the perpetual problems of troubled regional towns, such as Wadeye, Yuendumu and Alice Springs, can be suppressed.

The question always at hand is what precisely is required in order to rectify the stark levels of Indigenous inequality? Australia has 30 land councils, more than 2700 Aboriginal corporations, and the Council of Peaks, which represents 70 top Indigenous organisations.

We also now have 11 MPs within our federal parliament who identify as Aboriginal. Representation therefore cannot be an issue, so is it more than that?

Real change is like a dripping tap and is measured over lifetimes, not government terms. It’s hard, long-term and takes a truckload of perseverance and patience. Thus what will ultimately close the gap will primarily be the next generation of Indigenous citizens who refuse to be bound by the bigotry of low expectations foisted on to them by the cultural elite.

Peter Waterhouse, Craigieburn, Vic

I worry about Anthony Albanese’s political judgment. A referendum is completely unlike an election. It requires a binary answer to one question, and there are no preferences to be distributed.

Voters are less likely to vote on party lines. At the last federal election, the ALP gained 32.58 per cent of the national primary vote in the lower house, growing to 52.13 per cent with preferences, thus allowing a government to be formed.

A referendum achieving 52 per cent (and four states) would be passed. But, on any practical measure, it would be considered a dismal failure. Every second Australian passed in the street would have been against it.

The PM would have failed in his role of inspiring all Australians and gathering the support of most of the nation, and in the process potentially creating long-term division on racial grounds. An acceptable result would have to be 90 per cent or more and six states. Even 75 per cent and five states may not cut the mustard. We are being led over a very big cliff, by one who has no special experience in a referendum.

Stephen Maitland, Red Hill, Qld