In Constitution, voice could have too much power

George William states that an Indigenous voice to parliament is at risk unless it is enshrined in the Constitution (“Voice at risk unless enshrined in Constitution”, 1/2) . The main risk he seems to indicate is that if the voice were merely enshrined in legislation, it would confer parliament with flexibility to control and adapt the voice or even to abolish it, whereas if it were in the Constitution it would become more than an advisory body and would give Indigenous peoples a direct say in laws made for them. He does not, however, say why a non-constitutional voice would deny Indigenous peoples such a say.

Given that no detailed proposal has been given for how the voice would be constituted, which may allow it to be open to control by activists who may have an agenda not acceptable to the majority of Australians, it would seem quite rational that parliament should retain the right not to have to accept the recommendations of the voice, which may be difficult if it were entrenched in the Constitution, when non-elected courts would decide how much power the voice was to have.

One only has to remember the corruption at the heart of ATSIC to recognise that a democratically elected Indigenous body is not necessarily going to act in the interests of its constituents.

Certainly Indigenous peoples deserve recognition of their place as the first people living here and they should have a voice to parliament, where they can make their views known and advise on matters affecting them, but to suggest that there should be no parliamentary oversight seems to be giving too much power to a voice that represents only a small percent of our population.

Nicholas Ingram, Richmond, Vic

The article by George Williams supports entrenching the voice in our Constitution as the means for giving it best effect with regard to laws that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. But it overlooks issues I believe concern many.

First, it is contrary to the concept of equality that should be at the heart of our Constitution. From time to time every one of us would probably like to have a larger voice than anyone else in what our governments do and, indeed, the means are there, but not through some specially drafted constitutional privilege. For having such privilege bestowed on one group of people within the Constitution will create a two-tiered society, in this case demeaning the majority and, instead of bringing us together as a cohesive nation, most likely creating some animosity toward the minority.

Second, it is difficult to imagine how “laws that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples” could be defined without resulting in a potential feast for constitutional lawyers. For the fact is almost every law could be deemed in some way to affect every one of us including those given this special voice.

A legislated voice might not have the same warm, fuzzy feel about it, but it will be far easier to adjust if it is found to be failing what we are being encouraged to expect. Even then, if not carefully written, a legislated voice could still become very divisive.

Peter Cockerill, Dee Why, NSW

George Williams argues that an Indigenous voice to parliament is essential and preferable to a voice through legislation. However, it is axiomatic to state that once embedded in the Constitution, the voice cannot, without a further referendum, be removed or changed. Voters have the right to know the intended objective because the Uluru Statement from the Heart proposed constitutional reform on three points: voice, truth and treaty.

Changing the Constitution requires honesty, frankness and clarity and what Australians do not want is to be hoodwinked into consenting to the voice to discover, subsequently, that the voice was only reform part one.

Jerome Paul, Exeter, NSW

The commentary by George Williams indicates quite clearly to me that it is just not Aunty that shuns Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and her research and on-the-ground experience in favour of serving up “warmed-over symbolism” (Chris Kenny, “Worlds apart but Aunty can’t see it”, 30-31/1).

Perhaps Professor Williams could describe in detail how any version of the voice will in any way alleviate the problems outlined by Nampijinpa Price in her latest research, let alone Closing the Gap.

Nigel Guest Snr, Shenton Park, WA