Corporate brass has no business spruiking Indigenous voice to parliament

Once again readers of The Australian are the beneficiaries of the wisdom, research and analytical lawyer’s views of Janet Albrechtsen (“Speaking out for voice backfires in the boardroom”, 12/7). It is ironic that corporate and sporting success is based on strong business acumen, paramount to their performance for their investors, shareholders and supporters. In this competitive climate where business is viewed by outcomes, why would anyone support the voice? We do not know who will make up the administration of the voice, how they will qualify or the extent of their powers.

Mary-Anne Higgins, Rose Park, SA

Janet Albrechtsen provides evidence that chief executives of several big businesses are afraid to go on the record about their views on the voice for fear of a public backlash by No activists. I think you will find a similar fear among ordinary Australians, particularly young people who do not want to be branded as racist by their peers.

Riley Brown, Bondi Beach, NSW

Former chief justice Robert French offers sound advice to the Yes campaign when he says it “should avoid sledging opponents and instead focus on how the advisory body will work” (“Forget sledging, ex-chief judge tells Yes backers”, 12/7). This is the issue many Australians have been concerned about since the first draft of the constitutional amendment was aired at the Garma Festival last year. Instead of providing answers, the government and Yes campaigners have refused to answer, given conflicting or ambiguous answers, or ridiculed the questioner. Providing reasonable clarity apparently is not in the DNA of the proponents. More important, Mr French (from the perspective of an eminent jurist) might have explained why it is necessary to change the Constitution when parliament already has the power to enact the voice and give effect to recognition.

T. Trotter, Brisbane

The voice will give a voice to the most voiceless, disadvantaged people in our community. With the best goodwill in the world, neither major party has succeeded in utilising the piecemeal processes to close the glaring gaps of disadvantage. The voice will empower our Indigenous sisters and brothers with a formal input into significant issues that affect them on an ongoing basis. Anthony Albanese and Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney haven’t been able to counteract the negativity and alarmist scare campaigns, let alone convince open-minded people to vote Yes. History shows that referendums fail without a reasonable degree of bipartisanship. I hoped Peter Dutton might have taken a more measured approach, including allowing shadow ministers a conscience vote.

Kevin Burke, Sandringham, Vic

Thank you, Graham Bradley, for so clearly articulating that corporations should comment only on matters that pertain to their purpose. It is concerning that many organisations, including the Australian Institute of Company Directors, seem to be ignoring that principle of good governance.

Graeme Suthers, Woodforde, SA

Professor Fiona Stanley has documented clear evidence that health results improve when government engages with Aboriginal Australians and listens to what they know about their communities. This evidence not only applies to the pandemic but also to Indigenous-led health services and support for remote com­munities. David Scrimgeour, a medical doctor who has worked in the Western Desert for more than 40 years, documents this in his book Remote as Ever. We need to put into place a structure that supports this evidence. The voice is one strategy that can assist.

Craig Brown, Eaglehawk Neck, Tas

As a shareholder in many companies pushing a Yes vote I can only assume these directors believe kudos will follow their stance. They haven’t asked me or any other shareholder I know, and I’m unaware of any extensive staff polling. And I’d be surprised if the directors were united in their beliefs. I think most Australians are capable of coming to their own conclusions and there is no necessity for the corporate world to be involved; their focus should be on the business, employees, customers and shareholders. Albrechtsen’s fine article asks if directors will be accountable if the referendum fails. Don’t hold your breath, Janet!

Richard Burridge, Sandringham, Vic