Enshrining division makes Indigenous voice to parliament too dangerous to risk

In the article by Paige Taylor and Rosie Lewis relating to the voice referendum (“Voice to parliament: Jews ‘recognise Indigenous ties to land’ ”, 22/8) Mark Leibler is quoted as saying the reason he will be voting Yes is because “I know it’s the right thing to do. The moral thing to do.” While he is entitled to make his decision based on this view, I think anyone who votes No should not feel their decision is morally inferior or that they are not doing the right thing. I hope Leibler would agree with me on this point. I think it would be more helpful in persuading undecided voters to his point of view to address all of the arguments contained in the No case pamphlet as many voters do find some or all of those arguments quite persuasive.

I think many religious, corporate and sporting bodies would have been more influential in their support for the Yes vote if they had explained why they rejected the specific arguments contained in the No pamphlet, rather than asserted that to vote Yes was simply the moral thing to do.

Adrian Hassett, Vermont, Vic

It beggars belief that Mark Leibler fails to see the risks of institutionalising the distinction of one ethnic group from the rest of our community, the express purpose of the Indigenous voice to government.

Paul Prociv, Mt Mellum, Qld

The Australian’s Margin Call column described the 70th anniversary event of law firm Arnold Bloch Leibler with the phrase “it was also just an unabashed Labor love-in”. So it was not surprising that the occasion was used to spruik the voice, with partner Mark Leibler saying Jews recognised Indigenous ties to the land.

Fair enough. But what he critically omitted was that Jews through many centuries of bitter experience have lived in societies where political process was divided by race, ethnicity or religion. Such divisions have never been good but always harmful, sometimes disastrously. That is but one of the reasons the Australian Jewish Association is advocating a No vote.

David Adler, Australian Jewish Association president

Liberal senator Michaelia Cash launched the party’s referendum No campaign in Perth on Sunday with the slogan: “If you don’t know, vote No.” Senator Cash must believe Australians are the dimmest people in the world. Of the 44 referendums held in Australia the simplest was in 1967 when 90.77 per cent of Australians voted Yes. The next simplest one is to be held later this year and Senator “No” appears to know nothing about it.

Put simply, the question people will vote on asks only this simple question: “A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?” It does not mention a treaty or Makarrata commission or anything else. These matters will be discussed and debated by the members of our federal parliament. In the past 50 years, successive federal governments have set up Indigenous bodies, making room for them at the table, the goal being to help close the gap by improving the outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s health and wellbeing. But these bodies were abandoned, so it’s no wonder First Nations people want the voice enshrined in the Constitution. They’ve been bitten before. All the First Nations people are seeking is that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who have occupied this land for 60,000 years, be recognised in the Constitution. And that they have a seat at the table in Canberra when the government is discussing matters that affect First Nations people.

Tony Morrissey, Chifley, NSW

While Anthony Albanese has reassured us that parliament will still “be in total control of its destiny” if the voice referendum succeeds, I think there are many who believe otherwise. It’s probably too late now, but I think he could have won this referendum comfortably if the words “there shall be no avenue for appeal to or intervention by any judicial authority resulting from advice from the voice or from the government’s decisions concerning that advice” had been included in the wording of the proposed change.

If the referendum does succeed, the Prime Minister and this government will have to live up to these confident words, which may prove very tricky.

Peter Thornton, Killara, NSW