As the voice speaks up, we hear a lot that’s worrying

Paul Kelly (“Albanese’s haste threatens voice”, 29/6) has astutely summarised the headwinds Labor faces in its rush for a referendum on the Indigenous voice to parliament. Albanese is a fool if he assumes Australians will support a gesture without detail. This is a referendum of significant consequence and the nation will reject it if Albanese continues to act as if it is only a virtuous grand gesture that has a foregone conclusion.

Australians tolerate gesture politics to a point but this is not just a gesture but a question about Australians conceding that we are prepared to divide ourselves by race in the Constitution.

Paul Clancy, Tanunda, SA

A couple of weeks ago it was Greg Sheridan and now it is Paul Kelly throwing up roadblocks to con­stitutional recognition and a voice to parliament. The nation was founded in 1901 and in 2022 we are only now getting on with the job. Australia has changed around Kelly and I would suggest he needs to get out of the way.

Alan Muller, Heathridge, WA

“Third wave” citizens also deserve a voice in parliament. Indigenous Australians and colonial Australians make up less than 50 per cent of the population yet they hold 90 per cent of seats in the federal parliament.

Who is representing the majority born overseas with unique challenges not able to be understood by Australian-born politicians?

Marc Hendrickx, Berowra Heights, NSW

Paul Kelly rightly points out the pitfalls of a referendum before the nation is ready.

Many people will be tempted to vote “no” automatically if the proposal is not very clearly enunciated, is not supported by all the main political parties, does not have a comprehensive “no” case sent to all voters along with the “yes” case, or is seen to be brought on with undue haste.

There are also problems with a precise definition of “Indigenous” and there will be the fear that only “loud” Indigenous people will actually be heard. Added to the matters needing to be hammered out is the proposal to require the government, not just the parliament, to heed advice from the voice.

When governments have to make urgent or even secret decisions, they won’t want other bodies slowing or frustrating their actions. If I’m still around when the referendum occurs, there is a good chance that I will vote “yes”, but I don’t intend to be railroaded into compliance.

David Morrison, Springwood, NSW

Until I read Paul Kelly’s article I had not heard about the Calma-Langton report, which answers many questions about likely details of the voice proposal. Those details are disturbing. There would be no election of voice members because of “problems confirming indigeneity and the risk of low voter turnout”. If so, who will do the appointing?

The voice would advise, not only on matters which primarily affect Indigenous Australians, but also general laws and policies that affect the wider public. That advice “would be tabled in parliament and, on a major issue, would obviously bring intense pressure on any government”.

Roslyn Phillips, Tea Tree Gully, SA

The more I read about the proposed Aboriginal voice, the more misgivings I have. The Calma-Langton model with 24 individual voices advising both parliament and the government would be clumsy and divisive. We already have too many restrictions on government and the bureaucracy in getting things done.

The voice would definitely become a third chamber of review in our already over-regulated and over-governed society. Three per cent of the population would have inordinate control over the remaining 97 per cent. That is not democracy.

Alexander Haege, Tamarama, NSW

For those opposing the enshrining of an Indigenous voice in our constitution, an early referendum on this issue would be a welcome move as right now it is likely to fail.

So far, little has been done to persuade people that more than an acknowledgment of our First Nations people, as originally suggested by John Howard, is warranted.

The case for what is intended with a voice to parliament has yet to be made, spelling out both the proposed detailed wording and how it would operate.

Michael Schilling, Millswood, SA