‘Feel-good vibes’ not enough to change Constitution to establish an Indigenous voice to parliament

Shireen Morris makes some good and rational points about the power of voice representatives to hold up, or even veto, government decision-making (“Don’t let No scare tactics get in the way of voice truth,” 30/5). But not a single voice proponent can answer why it’s necessary to vest additional power – probably forever – of a small minority into our Constitution. This is where voice proponents fail, as they no longer use rational debate, falling back on emotional arguments.

For many, like me, amending our Constitution, which has the sacred foundation of uniting us and treating all as equal, will require more than a blind Yes vote based on feel-good vibes.

Ian Morison, Forrest, ACT

With respect to the distinguished Shireen Morris there are many esteemed legal and constitutional experts who believe that the scope of the voice, following a successful referendum, would be far wider than she would have us believe.

Among these are former justice of the High Court the Honourable Ian Callinan KC, constitutional lawyer Father Frank Brennan and Professor Greg Craven, a member of the government’s Constitutional Expert Group. Furthermore, distinguished professors of constitutional law, including Nicholas Aroney and Peter Gerangelos, have provided the most scholarly, serious-minded and substantive contribution to the legal debate so far.

This has undermined key claims of the Constitutional Expert Group and the advice of the Solicitor-General, and observes that there will be a new institution of state in the Constitution. Specifically, the professors say the new body to be enshrined as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice will have similar constitutional status to the parliament, the executive and the High Court. This supports the characterisation of the voice as a new Indigenous advisory arm of government, contrary to Morris’s assertions.

As so eloquently depicted by Paul Kelly (“Deception is no path to reconciliation”, 27-28/5), in his excellent article in Inquirer at the weekend, the voice as currently formulated would have an enormous remit limited only by subsequent decisions of the High Court. It is about power, not symbolism.

Alan Franklin, St Ives, NSW

Shireen Morris makes a very good case for the voice to be legislated rather than in the Constitution. If it is legislated then it is clearly subservient to parliament – if it is in the Constitution, who knows?

The prominent advocates for the voice are saying they will not be restricted to “conventional” Indigenous issues on the simple basis that a wide range of issues affect Aboriginal people as much as the rest of us.

Brian Povey, Churchlands, WA

Throughout his piece in The Weekend Australian Paul Kelly forensically shredded the Yes campaign, and I doubt that reconciliation will occur as long as the present activists remain.

This essay should be circulated widely, to inform those who are still uncertain in their voting intentions, how dangerous the voice will be to the democratic processes we now have in this country.

Kelly writes: “The issue – and it needs to be repeated – is the power being created and how that power changes our system of government.” There is nothing wrong in voting no to this unnecessary, expensive referendum.

Lesley Beckhouse, Queanbeyan, ACT

Why is it that the “progressives” in our community want to turn the clock back to some particular time in history when, according to the modern ethic, serious “sins” were committed?

Whatever crimes were committed, and at whatever time, the current population of Earth apparently needs to feel guilty and apologise.

Many governments want world maps to be redrawn to where they were at a particular time in the past. The problem is that very many borders have been redrawn at different times and it is not difficult to find some period at which borders were drawn along lines that suit the whims of certain populations, governments, leaders in our current era.

Why can’t we all just put the past behind us and get on with building a better society and a better world for everyone, accepting that many mistakes were made in the past that should not be repeated.

Nick Smit, Spring Hill, Qld