Indigenous voice is a question in search of answers

Janet Albrechtsen (“Show respect for voters – give us full details of a voice”, 27/7) once again sheds light on the dim opacity of the left. Her arguments against a voice being enshrined into prescriptive constitutional gobbledygook are as sound as they are sane.

As a geologist and former mining company executive I have had the good fortune to work in many Indigenous communities and to have negotiated meaningful and successful land use and mining agreements. I have also seen squalor and dysfunction in remote communities that shocked me, particularly having seen similar levels of poverty in other countries but without the dysfunction and neglect.

Mining is one of the few jobs available at scale in the bush. The transformation that I’ve seen as a result of permanent jobs and small businesses in mining for young Indigenous Australians is remarkable. A job brings pride, confidence and swagger.

How will a voice enshrined in the Constitution, whether prescriptive or merely “enabling”, help Aboriginal people in theses communities? How will it raise health and living standards? How will it keep women and children safe? How will it provide jobs?

Until we know how a voice solves these issues, debates on constitutional niceties deflect from the real issues and are wilfully negligent.

Mike Young, Swanbourne, WA

The Northern Territory Labor government is allowing expiry of the Howard-era grog bans that were put in place to protect women from violence and children from abuse by drunken men (“Territory was warned lifting grog bans would cause grief”, 27/7). At the same time, the federal Labor government will dispense with the cashless debit card, which will allow Aboriginal men to spend welfare on alcohol and drugs. This is a recipe for the annihilation of the Aboriginal race.

Calling someone a racist is just common abuse these days, but finally I see real racists.

Iain Rae, Palmwoods, Qld

Bravo, Janet Albrechtsen, for your lucid and cogent admonition of the voice process promoters. Albrechtsen cautions that a constitutional amendment would entrench what might ultimately become a tyrannical body resisting its own removal.

Behind the voice proposal seems to be a deeply held belief that this legal change will bring the Australian community closer together and begin to unravel the Gordian knot that is Indigenous disadvantage. Albrechtsen calls those optimistic opinions significantly into question.

Why this specific alteration will achieve what Closing the Gap and numerous other programs have failed to manage is by no means obvious to many disinterested observers. Anthony Albanese would be wise to add “legislated voice” as a third choice after Yes and No on the referendum paper.

Craig Mills, Kew, Vic

Janet Albrechtsen puts a persuasive case for the need to see a model for the voice before going to any referendum for constitutional change. She is right to say that voters otherwise would be voting on a “blank slate”.

The solution is to pass a bill in the parliament setting out the details of the voice model, with the proviso that the bill does not become operative until a successful referendum on the question of the model enshrined in the bill.

Australians are entitled to know details of the model before voting.

David Muir, Brisbane

The Australian is doing a superb job in allowing a diversity of voices to debate the pros and cons of an Indigenous voice to parliament. Sadly, I have searched in vain for any mention of its serious flaws in most other mainstream media.

Roslyn Phillips, Tea Tree Gully, SA

There is a question to be asked before an Indigenous voice to parliament is acted on – and that is: who should be acknowledged as an Aboriginal descendant?

My great-grandfather was Irish and married a Scot, therefore my granny was half-Irish and my mother a quarter, leaving me one- eighth, which is interesting but immaterial.

It’s possible that people with very minor Aboriginal ancestry can classify themselves as Aboriginal to access taxpayer handouts. This is something that should have been clarified years ago.

Bill Horn, Blairgowrie, Vic