Bias may spring from efforts to appease powerful voice

While it may be true the Indigenous voice to parliament could never be a third chamber in parliament in a legal sense, it will be a brave parliament that ignores or chooses not to follow the voice (“Dangers in High Court’s interpretation of the voice”, 27/9).

The law is one thing, including law set down by the High Court; the exercise of power and influence is another. That’s how the real world works. The pressures that could be exercised via non-legal means, including media campaigns and personal targeting of individual parliamentarians who speak against any recommendations put forward by the voice, appear problematic.

Joanna Wriedt, Eaglemont, Vic

As the case for the Indigenous voice moves up a gear with an advertising campaign, its more staunch and vociferous proponents need to be careful that they do not push too far. Australia is no longer the remnant of a white colony settled more than 200 years ago. We are a diverse nation of many races and cultures. The overwhelming majority of Australians are not racist and they are tolerant. Australians have been happy to accept that some Indigenous people need extra assistance from the taxpayer, over and above what is spent on non-Indigenous people. Australians have accepted the constant acknowledgment of traditional owners and welcome to country ceremonies, and we have accepted the two Indigenous flags. And we accept the numerous special Indigenous events, NAIDOC Week and sporting Indigenous rounds.

But tolerance has a breaking point and I wonder if the voice, which will constitutionally divide Australians by race, stretches that tolerance to its limit. There would be few Australians who would disagree that Indigenous people living in remote communities need a lot of help, but the voice proponents cannot say how the voice will deliver better outcomes for those people.

Australians are generous, tolerant and sympathetic but they are not stupid. Push them too far and treat them with contempt by not being fully transparent and they will reject the proposal.

Paul Clancy, Tanunda, SA

I am most concerned about the welfare, health and social standing of our First Nations peoples. To me, the governance responsibility of our country pivots on local, state and federal governments, which should function by debates and astute listening to others, and be guided by values and principles. These qualities for effective governance have to be the lifeblood of our parliamentary system. Our Indigenous people don’t need extra-legal powers with a voice enshrined in the Constitution. They thirst for solutions to health and social problems, not more laws protecting a voice that will lead to greater division.

Hugh O’Brien, Cairns, Qld

The federal government wants to incorporate a voice into the Constitution for Indigenous people so they can be listened to. The government also wants to abolish the cashless debit card that seemingly a majority of Indigenous people want to keep. It seems the government knows what’s best for Indigenous people, so what’s the point of a voice? Isn’t this something of a paradox and shows the future unnecessary cost of a referendum and the cost of running another bureaucratic department?

John Cook, Mullaloo, WA

If children are to be taught in school about massacres of Aborigines by Europeans it should not be forgotten that there were victims on both sides. For example, in October 1861, 19 European men, women and children were murdered at the Cullin-la-ringo station in central Queensland.

Sally Graham, Malvern, Vic

I don’t know about anyone else but the vague, confused and often utterly contradictory arguments for the voice only reinforces my distrust of politicians and lobby groups. It also makes me wonder whether this confusion right up to the most senior levels of government is not a ploy to nobble the proposal and ensure its failure.

Andrew Lake, Edwardstown, SA

Brian Tiernan points out that the Australian Taxation Office (Last Post, 27/9) isn’t mentioned in the Constitution yet has great power. We could also muse on the fact there is no mention of a prime minister in the Constitution. Why are our politicians implying governments won’t have the will to listen to a voice unless it is in the Constitution?

David Morrison, Springwood, NSW