Government will grind to a halt in its attempts to second-guess the Indigenous voice

Tony Abbott writes so clearly and cogently about the voice (“Vote no to Trojan horse voice that divides us”, 27/3). Of course the voice will divide us on racial grounds and give us an even more powerful activist Aboriginal political class wanting their own sovereignty.

Government, which is never fast at the best of times, will now grind to a halt or move at a snail’s pace, forever looking over its shoulder and trying to second-guess the voice.

It is hard to believe the government would bring such a blighted and ill-thought-out measure to be voted on. Its heart may be in the right place but its head is certainly not.

The only way to save us from these “do-gooders” who would destroy us is to vote No.

Alexander Haege, Tamarama, NSW

Tony Abbott has crystallised the voice debate. He clearly believes that the wellbeing of Indigenous people is subordinate to any significant change to the Constitution. But we must address past wrongs. The only way this can be done is through the Constitution.

Nothing else has worked and evidence shows that outcomes improve when people are given a direct say in how services are delivered.

Craig Brown, Eaglehawk Neck, Tas

Mark Dreyfus tells us that governments don’t release the opinion of the Solicitor-General. However, he was quite happy to confirm the Solicitor-General’s opinion when it favoured his dogma. When asked on ABC TV’s Insiders if the Solicitor-General had reservations about the wording of the voice referendum question, he refused to say. But it was clear to all that the Solicitor-General did have reservations, otherwise Dreyfus would have simply answered “No he doesn’t” to the question rather than stonewalling.

DA Corbett, Albury, NSW

Congratulations to Paul Kelly, Dennis Shanahan and Greg Craven for their detailed articles (Inquirer, 25-26/3) concerning the machinations involved in developing the Indigenous voice to parliament as a referendum question. Although seriously disturbing, the articles did much to allay my queries and suspicions concerning the voice and confirmed my view that, left to a committee, a perfectly good design for a horse could end up a camel.

Jeanette Sims, Pearl Beach, NSW

Professor Megan Davis, professor of law at the University of NSW and a key Indigenous leader in promoting the voice to parliament and executive government, writes, “The way things have been done in the past, the status quo, means that there is no change in our community” (“Together we can change our nation for the better”, 25-26/3).

But Davis is a strikingly successful academic at the pinnacle of our best universities and a leading light of achievement for Indigenous people. Surely the emergence of an educated Indigenous elite is a strong sign that there has been significant change.

Indigenous art and sporting achievements are lauded around the nation. Public acknowledgment of prior Indigenous land occupation is made at public meetings. There is much goodwill towards Indigenous people. More young Indigenous people are going to university. Much more needs to be done to address issues affecting troubled families in remote communities, but is a radical change to our Constitution going to solve these problems?

E. Moore, Stepney, SA

Probing vax injury

My heart goes out to the family of Amy Sedgwick, who died nine months after receiving her Pfizer vaccinations in 2021 (“Amy followed the rules on Covid jabs – was that a fatal mistake?” 25-26/3). The article asks whether answers will be forthcoming from the Therapeutic Goods Administration about whether the vaccine was responsible for her death.

At the time, everyone was telling us to get vaccinated and “the benefits far outweigh the risks”.

The only vaccine that was available to me in April 2021 was AstraZeneca. I received my first dose and three weeks later, in May 2021, I was admitted to hospital with myocarditis and spent 10 days in coronary care.

Fast forward one year and I became aware of the Covid-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme. I sent in my claim, which was strongly supported by medical professionals who indicated that the AstraZeneca vaccine was the likely cause of the myocarditis.

I was informed that “the clinical condition of myocarditis is only claimable under the scheme where it corresponds with the Covid-19 vaccine recipient receiving either Pfizer or Moderna vaccines”. Gotcha.

Because of the myocarditis, I am on heart medication for the long term. The refusal by Services Australia to recognise my claim has left me feeling angry, betrayed and unsupported.

As for the family of Amy, I hope and pray that you get the answers you seek.

Mike Hand, East Brisbane, Qld