Give us more detail, please, before talking up the voice

Mark Leibler is the latest commentator talking up the prospects of the proposal for an Indigenous voice in the Constitution through a referendum (“Support for Indigenous voice grows stronger”, 14/6). But like the republican referendum it will be decided by examining the specifics of the form the voice is proposed to take. Only when the specifics are presented will the bookies have a clearer idea of the odds of a win.

Barry Lamb, Heidelberg West, Vic

Mark Leibler says there is broad community support for a voice to parliament and asks: “How often does a nation get the opportunity to embrace something so reasonable, so non-threatening … ?”

I am sure most Australians would support the underlying sentiment that Indigenous people should be recognised in the Constitution as the first people living here and that they should have a voice to parliament, where their views about and suggestions for legislation that affects can be heard. However, nowhere does Mr Leibler address, as is the case of most other advocates for such a voice, what advantage there is in having such a voice enshrined in the Constitution, why a legislated voice cannot give all the same advantages to Indigenous people.

And yet I think this is something that needs to be discussed at great length, as a constitutionally recognised voice would not neces­sarily be “reasonable and non-threatening”. Mr Leibler and his fellow advocates seem to forget what kind of world we live in, where people are encouraged to take offence and claim victimhood and obstruct constructive proposals for nebulous reasons, and where courts seem willing to sometimes interpret the law in a way that seems more in keeping with social values than legislation.

Once such a voice was written into the Constitution, it would be extremely difficult for it to be removed, even if it became dysfunctional or taken over by activists, who may not have the best interests of other Aborigines, or indeed of other Australians, at heart. One only has to remember the corruption at the heart of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission to recognise that an elected indigenous body is not necessarily going to act in the interests of all of its constituents.

To enshrine the voice in the Constitution means there will be no parliamentary oversight, which seems to be giving too much power to a body that would not only represent only a small percentage of our population but also not necessarily be a body that is a fair representation of all of the Indigenous people.

Nick Ingram, Melbourne

Rosalind Dixon firmly states “you cannot be self-governing unless you get a say in shaping the laws that affect you” (“Berejiklian finds her voice and we should find ours”, 12-13/6).

But surely the first sticky question should be whether a certain group, because of its longevity over the land and consisting as it does of thousands of different groups, should peel off and establish what must entail, no matter how it’s dressed up, different laws from those applying to the 24 million other Australians. If this were not the goal, there’d be no debate, and if mandating difference foresees a closer overall affiliation, some will remain blind to it.

Rosemary O’Brien, Ashfield, NSW

As a matter of historical record, recognition in the body of the Constitution or as a preamble is one thing that I think many, if not most people would be comfortable with, but the Indigenous voice to parliament on “matters that affect them” is rather more vague and opaque.

First of all, the use of the term “them” sets up and embeds an idea of “us and them”. Which “them” are we talking about specifically? Is it the educated, suburban Aborigines; is it those living in regional and remote areas? Perhaps those promulgating the concept see themselves as the “them” making decisions for everyone else?

Who makes up the voice to parliament? How are they selected or elected? Theoretically, all Indigenous people would have a say and a vote, but many I suspect won’t be bothered, which will leave the elites.

Until we get greater clarity many people are going to feel somewhat dragooned, pressured and press-ganged by the usual coterie and combination of academic, political, corporate and media elites, talking among themselves, on what’s best for everyone else.

Jim Ball, Narrabeen, NSW