Fear of speaking out on voice a concern in our democracy

In her most recent epistle Janet Albrechtsen comprehensively bells the constitutional cats who uncritically praise the proposed Indigenous voice to parliament (“Anti-intellectual bullying and coercion do not help reconciliation”, 20-21/8).

Albrechtsen effectively rebuts the “nothing to see here” and “this is the only way” messages of Greg Craven, George Williams, Anthony Albanese and others, styling the contributions of those in support as “confused” and dangerously incomplete. She also highlights the covert Alinskyian call to marginalise any constitutional law expert who dares to publicly question this sacred cow.

The Australian is without peer in its balanced presentation of the many facets of this complex interconnected web of issues, publishing detailed opinion pieces from all sides, and deserves Australia’s hearty thanks as we struggle to understand and then choose a course that is sensible, safe and effective.

Each new article leaves me less certain that a constitutional change is needed and of the view instead that a legislated voice offers an opportunity to see it established soon so we can observe how and if it works.

Craig Mills, Kew, Vic

Like many, I am following the voice debate closely and commend the editorial stance of The Australian. On Saturday, Frank Brennan was thoughtful and conciliatory, Pat Turner was resolute and emotive. But head and shoulders above them all, and the person who is responsible for igniting this level of debate, is Janet Albrechtsen.

Albrechtsen has rightly focused on the legal ramifications, which the proponents other than Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition co-chair Danny Gilbert are either downplaying or ignoring completely.

What concerns me is the fact that Albrechtsen’s senior QCs will not go on the record. These lions of the Bar, defenders of our democracy, will not put their name to a point of view for fear of ostracism and financial suffering.

Last time I looked, people who need top legal advice go and get the best they can afford and care nothing about whether that person has gone against the zeitgeist. In fact, they will probably admire them for it. But the fact remains that this leaves Albrechtsen to take the heat and undermines her stance. After all, there are not so many of them that we can’t take an educated guess as to their identity.

Jim Wheeler, Indooroopilly, Qld

If Janet Albrechtsen is correct and legal counsels will not give an impartial opinion of the voice for fear of the impact on income levels, promotions, appointment to the bench, general abuse and ridicule, then where are we?

If true, we might as well be in North Korea, or China under Xi Jinping, or in Russia under Vladimir Putin. People in such countries know that public expression of different opinions comes at a severe price. Well, we are not there. I expect better.

Anthony Wood, Perth, WA

Listen, hear and understand the voice, especially that of Frank Brennan (“Why their voice must be heard”, 20-21/8). Brennan writes: “There is no point in a referendum unless both major parties agree on the detail.” He quotes former High Court chief justice Murray Gleeson saying: “I think it very likely that Australians, and parliament itself, would want to see what the body looks like, and hear what the voice sounds like, before they vote on it.”

If the referendum question is simply “Yes” or “No” without some detail beforehand it will surely fail. Australians generally want a better deal for First Nations people and the government needs to understand this, but also understand it needs to inform Australians about what they are being asked to vote on. Blank cheques are always troublesome.

Leslie Young, Randwick, NSW

The yawning gap in opinion about the possible legal effect of the proposed voice to parliament could be bridged by the simple device of including a qualifying provision in the proposed constitutional amendment: “Until the parliament otherwise provides, nothing in this section shall be taken to create a right or duty that is enforceable by proceedings in a court.” Failure to include such a provision would only expose the government’s agenda as being far broader than what it has publicly disclosed.

Richard Harrison, Mount Eliza, Vic