Even the Yes volunteers obfuscate on facts of how voice will work

Thousands of Yes volunteers on the streets, yet not one of them could tell me how the voice will be structured or operate. Not one could tell me how the voice would make a difference to the lives of Aboriginal Australians in need. Not one could tell me why the voice would provide better advice on Aboriginal issues than the 11 Aboriginals in federal parliament or any of the many Aboriginal advisory bodies. And not one could tell me why the voice needs to be in the Constitution. But then, why should we be surprised? Both Anthony Albanese and Linda Burney have been incapable of doing these things. So it makes sense that rather than be given facts, these volunteers are being sent out into suburbs armed only with feel-good platitudes and instructions on how to ignore and deflect difficult questions – exactly what we’ve been getting for months from Albanese and Burney.

Burt Bosma, Surrey Hills, Vic

Will someone please, please enlighten me as to why I should be compelled to cast my vote in a deeply controversial referendum when many public concerns are not to be openly addressed until after voting has taken place? A public debate requested by leading No advocate Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, with Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney, has been declined when there is no better way to dispel misunderstandings.

I am equally bemused to read that Anthony Albanese, as the leading Yes protagonist, admits to only reading the summary of the Uluru Statement but not the detail, yet expects Australians to accept his hubristic response of “why should I?”. This may well lead to votes against the voice from those who are uncommitted but feel uneasy from such obfuscation. It is said that openness may not disarm prejudice completely but it is a good start.

Patrick Hobbs, Rose Bay, NSW

I agree with the truth of Nick Cater’s conclusions in “First Nations ambassador a voice from elite’s utopian vision” (28/8).

In recent times, activists and politicians of the left, both in the US and Australia, have used the expression “If not now, When?” as a clarion call to action for implementing their own groupthink.

The slogan is much older than the Primo Levi book Cater cites. It originates from the pre-Talmudic sage Hillel the Elder 2000 ago in “Ethics of the Fathers” (Mishna Pirkei Avot 1:15): “If I am not for myself, who is for me? But if I am for my own self (only), what am I? And if not now, when?”

However, what the activists omit is the most relevant qualifier of Hillel’s quote, which is his admonition for the imperative of time to require that one engage in more thorough study: “Say not, ‘When I have free time I shall study’; for you may perhaps never have any free time.” Clearly, the activist left should first dedicate more study to actual facts.

Joe Lederman, Frankston, Vic

Voice architect Noel Pearson has stated that the Yes camp is steering clear of celebrities in a bid to target “ordinary Australians”. This is welcome because many everyday Australians have not had the chance to visit Indigenous remote communities. No doubt Linda Burney and her Coalition counterpart, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, have been to remote areas and are familiar with the solutions ordinary Indigenous people are crying out for. Several respectful debates between these two highly regarded Indigenous leaders would help ordinary Australians living in our cities understand what Indigenous people are asking for to help close the gap. It’s time for the ordinary people to be heard, as Pearson has wisely said.

Adrian Hassett, Vermont, Vic

Like the great majority of Australians, I strongly favour the recognition of our First Peoples in the Constitution. And as someone who visits every week a number of families and individuals, many or most Aboriginal, living in poor circumstances, some in squalor, I care deeply about doing everything necessary to improve their lives. Like many Aboriginal leaders, however, I am opposed to the voice, not only because we are opposed to dividing Australians along racial lines.

The declared aim of the voice, which we all support, is to eradicate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disadvantage. But to entrench the voice in the Constitution is, in effect, to declare that disadvantage will be there forever. It is not a noble proposition but a defeatist one.

Ken Adam, North Fremantle, WA