Binary approach makes debate over the voice difficult

I’ve appreciated The Australian’s approach to the upcoming referendum on the voice to parliament: that is, giving freedom of expression to opposing points of view – and all have merit.

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block for non-Indigenous Australians is that the vast bulk of us don’t have Indigenous friends. That’s an observation, not a criticism.

Among other things, the low population count of our Indigenous peoples ensures we don’t get to enjoy those everyday, incidental interactions that naturally, and gently, break down fear and ignorance. Most of us have what you might call “low resolution” contact with our First Nations peoples. We have a relationship with them vicariously through the media which, on the whole, tends to focus on grievance and dysfunction.

Exacerbating matters are the two partisan binaries, both devoid of nuance and humility. So, what does friendship between two estranged peoples look like? Not sure, but someone’s got to make the first move; someone’s got to leave their ego at the door and take a risk, for goodness sake. It might be time for the dominant and visiting culture to assume a position of humility and risk rejection, even heartache for the sake of other – for friendship’s sake.

Peter Day, Queanbeyan, NSW

The Nationals are right to oppose the voice. But simply opposing it is not enough. An alternative needs to be offered, one designed to achieve the same objectives but without entrenching racial division in the Constitution and possibly opening the way for legal challenges to parliamentary processes.

The alternative to a constitutionally enshrined voice would be one established under legislation. Unwelcome though it may be to some, consideration should be given to a structure not unlike the former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. It had advisory, funding and project management functions. It was dismantled in 2005 after corruption allegations, management problems and other issues, some specific to the behaviour of some of its members. However, many Indigenous people supported it because it was seen to represent them and give them a voice. An elected body with advisory functions only, established under legislation, could advise parliament and the executive, performing the same functions as those presumably proposed for the voice.

Proceeding in this way on the advisory issue would not mean abandoning the widely supported constitutional recognition of First Nations people.

Philip Temple, Larrakeyah, NT

Fine words and fine sentiments, Danny Gilbert (“Voice does not belong on cultural battlefield”, 1/12), and unquestionably sincere, but persuasive they are not. The bald assertion, without detail, that concerns about justiciability are unfounded skips a critical issue. We cannot rely on your supposition as to what the courts will do. Worse, if you are mistaken, it will be too late. All legal practitioners know that attention to detail is everything in the law: optimism is not sufficient. The concerns raised by Janet Albrechtsen and others matter, and failure to address them leaves us with just fine words and sentiments. They are not sufficient either.

Leni Palk, Unley, SA

Janet Albrechtsen (“Ex-judge’s take on voice only confirms litigation fears”, 30/11) misses the point in Ken Hayne’s argument about the potential for litigation on the voice.

His argument is that, in our free country, anyone can start litigation but, in the case of any litigation concerning the voice, there are such fundamental hurdles about standing and about the extent to which any court would interfere in a process of parliamentary decision-making as to make the prospect of interference remote. The voice’s only power will be to make representations. It will be for the parliament and the executive alone to decide what to do in response.

Denis O’Brien, Farrer, ACT

The formidable task of implementing the voice has resulted in the recent overt diametrically opposed opinions from Jacinta Price and Noel Pearson. Their responses and that of the current government for pursuing this agenda are far from achieving the intended aim of closing the gap but instead are and will continue to cultivate a chasm for all Australians.

Anne Lindsay, Stanthorpe, Qld