Bipartisanship on voice would win national support

The Leader of the Opposition has promised to support Indigenous recognition in the Constitution and will legislate for local and regional voices. He is wary of providing a voice to parliament in the Constitution because once there it cannot be removed. Anthony Albanese wants both recognition and the voice in the Constitution, with legislation to determine the working details of the voice. The differences are not great. If the two were to shake hands and agree on their common goal, I think most Australians would follow them.

Andrew Black, Malvern, SA

The petty comments by the leader of the WA Liberal Party, Libby Mettam, highlight the politicisation of the voice referendum by that party. The referendum is based on a vote of conscience, not politics. It is an attempt to right the great wrong enacted by our predecessors. To tie heritage matters to this vote really illustrates how much the Liberal Party does not want to do what the referendum is intended to do, namely, to do the right thing by our First Australians. Once recognition of the original inhabitants of this continent is established in the Constitution, we shall be able to get on with the intended consultations with a direct voice to parliament. Let’s not add a committee to filter what the voice says, which could lead to misinterpretations and misunderstandings, resulting in what happens all too often with the real needs of our Indigenous communities being ignored by non-Indigenous people who think they “know better”. So please, when voting day arrives, put politics aside and give our First Australians a fair go.

Jan de Groote, Hamilton Hill, WA

After reading all 112 pages of the minutes of the preliminary meetings, the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the Reform Priorities, it is clear the Indigenous people will never speak with one voice – and why should they? They are spread across a huge continent, living in vastly different geographical and financial circumstances, and communicate in their many different languages – just like the rest of us. The dialogue has produced a wishlist of utopian dreams that most humans would aspire to, but know are beyond the rest of us to provide without destroying what has already been achieved. Worse, the bitterness expressed in the demands completely negates the progress, goodwill and generosity of most Australian people over the last 200 years or so.

Jennifer Mullins, Mollymook, NSW

The referendum proposal for an Indigenous voice to the parliament is beginning to resemble a looming disaster; not least for our Indigenous Australians.

The proposition being put is so lacking in detail and pregnant with uncertainty that it is highly unlikely that a majority of Australians will support it. One has to wonder why a supposedly astute politician such as Anthony Albanese would stake his political credibility on such a vulnerable cause; considering politics is, as Otto von Bismark astutely observed, “the art of the possible”.

On the other hand, Peter Dutton’s alternative proposal (of constitutionally enshrined Indigenous recognition and legislated regionals voices) would, on the face it, seem more reasonable, would enjoy support from both sides of politics and would probably be acceptable to a majority of the electorate; a line of reasoning suggested by an insightful editorial in The Weekend Australian (“Dutton’s position on voice poses a difficult challenge”, 12-13/8). Is it a vain hope that the PM, recognising the hopeless nature of his aspirations, could “rescue success from the jaws of disaster” by subtly modifying the referendum question to accommodate the Opposition Leader’s proposal?

Bill Pannell, Dalkeith, WA

Comparing the voice referendum to the 1999 republic referendum is not comparing apples with apples. Becoming a republic would require a change to our system of governance. A voice to parliament, in contrast, merely recognises the rights of Indigenous Australians and enables the establishment of a group of nominated people from First Nations communities (the voice) to express concerns and ideas to the government. There is nothing for us to lose and so much for First Nations Australians to gain from this proposal. Indigenous Australians have requested this; who are we, their fellow citizens, to deny them this right?

Amy Hiller, Kew, Vic