In modern Australia, parliament should reflect us all

It was so refreshing to read the constructive article by former prime minister Tony Abbott regarding the referendum on the voice to parliament (“Pass or fail, this referendum will surely leave us worse off”, 5-6/11).

Highlighting the importance of Indigenous recognition in the Constitution, but concerned about the risk the voice proposal will divide Australia, Abbott proposes inserting into the Constitution: “Whereas the people … have agreed to unite in one indissoluble federal commonwealth, with an Indigenous heritage, a British foundation, and an immigrant character, under the crown.” This recognises all of us who make up this great country, and not just one section of the community.

He goes on to write, “Based on what we currently know, the voice is wrong in principle, almost sure to be bad in practice, and unlikely to succeed in any referendum. If it fails, reconciliation is set back. If it succeeds, our country is permanently divided by race”.

It is so important that this change to the Constitution reflects modern Australia, and does not disadvantage or exclude any section of the community that comprises this great nation. Our parliament is currently representative of us all, let us not change what is not broken.

David Stephen, Mudgeeraba, Qld

Janet Albrechtsen accurately writes that support for the voice is based on rhetoric and emotion rather than detailed, compelling reasoning (“So much emotion evident in every voice raised in support”, 5-6/11). Another major flaw is exaggeration.

Chris Kenny (“With the bounty comes an obligation and opportunity to make things right”, 5-6/11) correctly points out that a legislated voice can be dumped at any time by future governments, as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission was. He is referring to the parliamentary supremacy doctrine where one parliament cannot bind another. But he mistakenly claims that, unlike other constitutionally entrenched bodies that no longer exist, a constitutionally entrenched voice is permanent. He fails to mention section 101 of the Constitution, which states: “There shall be an inter-state commission.” None has existed since 1950. The parliament can, if it chooses, legislate an inter-state commission or a voice, but the words of a constitutional provision do not oblige parliaments to retain such bodies when it chooses not to do so. Just because the Constitution might refer to a voice in the event of a successful referendum there is no guarantee the voice will survive beyond this term of parliament.

Michael Mansell, chairman, Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania

Changing the Constitution to include an Aboriginal voice to parliament is something we should all think about and inform ourselves about. The Yes vote seems to be the “right thing to do” but what will be the repercussions for all Australians? I intend to read about and to listen carefully to both sides of the debate before I cast a vote. At this stage there are many unanswered questions such as those outlined in the opinions of many pundits:

How will membership of the voice be elected or appointed and how will Indigenous people be identified? How many people will serve on a voice and for how long? How much will it cost? Will discussions on issues such as alcohol bans in remote communities be confined to voice members from those areas?

There is disagreement in the Indigenous community about the necessity for the voice. There is a need for real work to be done to provide education, jobs, housing, family and health support in remote areas and not just to talk about it in a committee. We really need grassroots people to get out there and put these things in place rather than sitting around a table in Canberra talking about them.

Pat Cannard, Murrumba Downs, Qld

Janet Albrechtsen and Tony Abbott both deserve strong praise for their essays on the problematic voice to parliament. Surely the problems facing the federal government today, with soaring energy prices, inflation increasing daily and the homeless in desperation living in their cars if they have one, should be the first priority for Anthony Albanese and his government, not an airy-fairy dream that may become an unsolvable nightmare.

Lesley Beckhouse, Queanbeyan, NSW