Bipartisanship, not division, is what the Indigenous voice to parliament needs

Chris Kenny’s article in The Weekend Australian (“Compromise on words and save the voice”, 20-21/5) makes many good points. First, the triumphalism of the announcement on election night of the proposed referendum is regrettable.

Surely if you wanted to get the referendum to pass you would have attempted to negotiate a bipartisan position, which would guarantee its success. But his criticism of those opposing the voice as hysterical I think is unfair.

People such as Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine have genuine concerns and should be listened to in order to get practical advancement on this subject. Surely, as Kenny writes, this campaign has caused enough division already and the sensible action would be to pause and have a constitutional convention to come up with a proposal that could enjoy bipartisan support.

John Hull, Ashgrove, Qld

Noel Pearson’s claim that dropping the words “executive government” from the proposed wording of the voice constitutional amendment would not change the hearts and minds of the new Liberals, is misguided (“The people will show the leadership our ‘leaders’ lack”, 20-21/5). Who cares about a few Liberal MPs? But what I do sincerely care for is the overall success of the voice referendum across the broad spectrum of average Australian voters. Like many others, I would definitely vote yes if the words “executive government” were removed from the proposed amendment.

After my extensive discussions on this subject, with a wide range of friends, it seems the sad reality is that without that change the majority will be doing likewise and voting no. I fear that under the present proposed wording the referendum will fail. Why take the chance of the referendum failing because the words “executive government” may cause untold uncertainty for the voters regarding the future governance of our nation? Can all parliamentarians please consider removing the words “executive government” from the proposed constitutional amendment and ensure likely success for the future of all Australians.

John Davies, Yeppoon, Qld

For many years I have held great respect for Noel Pearson’s great achievements, particularly in relation to the provision of educational opportunities for Indigenous kids, but sadly his recent character jibes at any opponent (especially Indigenous) to his view of the voice suggests to many that his former objectivity has been eroded.

Michael Saul, Scarborough, Qld

Noel Pearson mentions two prayers. His first relates to Rugby Australia and coach Eddie Jones. His second is for a referendum to amend the Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the First Peoples of Australia.

The second prayer would almost certainly be achieved with national goodwill if it was put to the people as a separate question to the voice component.

It has been a failure of the government not to provide voters the opportunity to vote on these two clearly separate issues for inclusion in our founding document.

There is still time for parliament to act and avoid the most divisive internal conflict for generations.

David Burt, Quindalup, WA