Anyone who thinks Australia is ready for a referendum on the voice is dreaming

The juxtaposition in The Weekend Australian (16-17/7) of three stories all related to Indigenous issues and indirectly to the proposed voice to parliament was amazing. First, the shame of the Wadeye township and the story of the circle of violence and despair (“The bush town at war with itself”). Then “A voice for recognition”, by Megan Davis, basically saying if we just vote yes for the voice to parliament then everything will be all right. Please tell me how the voice will help Wadeye? The third was about “racial shifters” and detailed the rise of 92,300 in people in the last census declaring for the first time they are of First Nations heritage (“Counting the real cost of census box-tickers”). This raises the question of who of the First Nations people will get to vote for the Indigenous representation to the voice. Will the recent “self-indigenisation” set get a vote? There are a lot of questions to be answered about how the voice will work.

Allan Van, Toowong, Qld

Anyone who says, as Megan Davis does in Saturday’s paper, that the “nation is ready for voice vote” is dreaming. I follow current affairs as much as any Australian. I have no clear idea about what “the voice” means. Taken literally, two different national streams seems not unlike a form of apartheid to me. I need to hear a clear definition of the voice and its consequential effects, otherwise I will vote against it.

Paul Everingham, Hamilton, Qld

Megan Davis concludes her article with the comment: “The request is modest for the transformation this referendum will bring to the nation and all Australians.”

You are wrong – this is not a modest proposal. Your article outlines the consultative process that is behind the move to a referendum. But it does not answer important questions such as: What is the definition of a First Nations person? How will they be identified? Will they have remit to comment on all legislation, because all of life is integrally linked to each clan’s Dreaming story? If not, what does “a duty to consult” actually mean? You note different models have been developed, and then say that can be worked out later.

Rather than proposing a modest feat, you admit what you are asking for: to “change the structures of power to give us a voice and to try something that empowers our people, not control and dominate”. So, a request for a change of power structure is supposedly modest? Your request is also explicitly divisive – “our people” means you want to divide Australia, which is now a collection of peoples. Every first nations group on the planet has had something good to offer our world. But only certain nations on our planet have achieved what Australia has achieved as a multi-faith and multicultural country – that is, the principles of universal respect for all, the rule of law applied to all, and one person, one vote in determining how this collective of individuals and groups move forward together.

What, Dr Davis, will be the lens through which this voice makes its recommendations, with reference to our imperfect, still developing, but relatively civil society?

Stephen J. Fyson, Belmont, NSW

The Syria question

It’s all very well to advocate for the return to Australia of the children of Islamic State parents in Syria but I have to ask, who will take responsibility should these youngsters grow up into anti-Australian radical extremists (“Islamic fate: the lost heirs of Aussie terror”, 16-17/7)? The government won’t, human rights activists won’t and the Islamic community won’t. I wish them well but I fear the worst.

Russ Fathers, Tweed Heads, NSW

If a picture is better than a thousand words, then your article on children in Syrian camps is negated by your pictures. The four children in the photo on page five (“Childhood lost: ‘sometimes I feel like time has stopped’ ”, 16-17/7) are wearing designer clothes, healthy complexions and have excellent physiques. They have classy haircuts and smiles like those I see on children in Sydney’s wealthiest suburbs – far better than the children’s visages I see in Sydney’s western suburbs. Let’s alleviate social and Indigenous poverty in Australia and leave terrorists to care for their own.

Daniel Hales, Epping, NSW

The double-page special, The Syria Question and the Timeline of Terror, are stark reminders, if we needed them, of those who in the recent past would do us harm. The headline, “No exit, no hope from this living hell”, seems at odds with the photos of what looks like an orderly camp and a group of healthy, well-dressed children, and raises the question of where Australia should place its priorities. Perhaps a double-page spread of some of our own camps would highlight the need to focus on problems closer to home before we rush off to deal with the plight of people who have shown themselves to be no friend of this country.

John Lake, Mosman Park, WA