As world watches on, voice questions, doubts remain

Troy Bramston (“Now it’s up to the people to decide this referendum”, 20/6) makes several valid counter arguments to those trying to sow fear about the voice.

With the Australian people about to decide at the referendum, we have reached a seminal point in our history. We have had a decade during which Tony Abbott reversed progressive climate change initiatives and did all he could to forestall same-sex marriage. We had Malcolm Turnbull, who argued that the voice was a third parliamentary chamber, which it clearly is not. He also declined to go ahead with Josh Frydenberg’s energy policies because he was afraid of the likes of Barnaby Joyce.

We had Scott Morrison, who, along with his party, voted against an anti-corruption commission proposed by crossbencher Helen Haines. As Bramston concludes, “the eyes of the world are upon us”. We have a real chance to show the world that Australia is not just a beautiful country in which to live but a country whose peoples are emerging to say no more to those who would cling to the shibboleths of the past.

Frank Carroll, Moorooka, Qld

Legislation for the referendum on the voice has now been passed by parliament and will be conducted later in the year. Anthony Albanese claims the voice will be a purely advisory body concerned only with Indigenous matters. But Indigenous activists envisage a far wider scope, such as a consultative role with the executive and the parliament in shaping public policy on any matter, including agriculture and mining. Such a wider, activist role is more likely to impact on rural communities.

Claims for things like rent appropriations will have greater economic impacts on agricultural and mining activities. Farmers could be subject to arrangements such that are now law in Western Australia, where landowners must submit to a committee any changes to land utilisation practices. And it is hoped that voice will not promote race policies which are now operative in New Zealand, which seem to prioritise ethnicity. Rural Australia has much to reflect upon before casting their vote on the voice.

Martin Newington, Aspendale, Vic

With the passing of the voice referendum in the Senate and the date for the ballot getting closer, there is evidence that support for the Yes vote is wavering for the very good reason that enshrining a race clause in our Constitution is both divisive and permanent.

If the referendum fails, the Albanese government should immediately announce that a legislated voice will be introduced to parliament. Not to do so would be a slap in the face for all of those who supported the voice referendum and an abrogation of the government’s responsibility to keep faith with Indigenous people. Critics have claimed that a future government could repeal the bill, which is true, but this would only occur if the system was ineffectual and failed to achieve any positive benefits for Aboriginal people.

This would also act as an incentive to achieve real and permanent progress, which is so desperately needed. In regard to constitutional recognition, which many people have indicated they support, a referendum could be held in conjunction with a federal election. This would separate the voice issue from recognition, making both issues more acceptable to the general public.

The fault of the voice referendum wording is that it combines two very different proposals into one option, which many see as cynical opportunism.

Hugh Morison, Osborne Park, WA

Dennis Shanahan is spot-on to call out the Prime Minister and the Indigenous Affairs Minister, Linda Burney, for their inability – or their unwillingness – to address two key questions (“Voice legislation passes but still no answers on specifics”, 6/20). What is the scope of the voice’s power and influence? And what areas are deemed not “to directly affect Indigenous Australians”? That neither Anthony Albanese nor Linda Burney can or will credibly address these critical voice questions shows a disregard, unintended or deliberate, for the magnitude of what’s at stake.

Mandy Macmillan, Singleton, NSW

Now I am very suspicious. The PM won’t tell us what the voice will do, but Linda Burney can tell us already it won’t advise changing the date of Australia Day. What else will it and won’t it do?

Kingsley Sullivan, Mt Hawthorn, WA