Indigenous voice to parliament: Constitution remains a sacred text for our nation

The confusion surrounding the voice arises because people are applying the same test to changing the Constitution as amending a simple act of parliament. The Constitution is a sacred text that expresses who we are as a nation, whereas an amending act in the usual course of parliamentary sittings expresses how we wish to be who we are.

The referendum is about the Constitution, hence the need for such a high threshold for a Yes vote to measure the will of the nation. Paul Kelly’s article (“Yes campaign can’t distract from real issue of voice’s power”, 4/10) highlights this. The history of failed referendums is not a negative position but reflects the proper role of constitutional law. Until changed, the Constitution represents an infallible statement of our self-understanding.

Changing it to place a simple clause of recognition in the Constitution is supported, but the question arises of whether adding the provision to create a constitutional voice takes away that significance. It might be this second proposal should be for the floor of the parliamentary chambers.

Vincent Hodge, Paddington, Qld

The large number of undecided voters in the voice referendum undoubtedly will play a big role in deciding whether the referendum is successful. In recent polls it has been shown that many voters are undecided because they feel the government has not provided sufficient detail about the voice. I think the government should have taken into account everyday Australians by providing a greater amount of detail on the voice. This may tip many undecided voters one way over the other. Even in the last days of the campaign, I hope the Prime Minister and the Indigenous Australians Minister can explain how the voice will operate and how it will assist the most disadvantaged Indigenous people in remote communities. This is an appeal that it is still not too late to have a very frank and open discussion with Labor’s traditional supporters on these crucial matters.

Adrian Hassett, Vermont, Vic

Paul Kelly’s illuminating and compelling article in the Australian on Wednesday should be mandatory reading for everyone before casting their vote for the referendum. I am dismayed by those who have displayed little diligence in researching the referendum, and are instead following a mere vibe.

Mary-Anne Higgins, Rose Park, SA

Australia is now a country divided, but the referendum isn’t the cause. I would suggest the referendum has been exploited by the incorrect and misleading information employed. Australians have enthusiastically embraced so much of Indigenous culture. We are moved by art, films and writing; we’re enthralled by music and dance; we champion their sportsmen and women. Yet we overlook recognition that far too many Indigenous people have seriously been affected by disadvantage when it comes to outcomes in education, health, life expectancy, suicide rates and deaths in custody. Is it any wonder our First Nations people are asking us to listen to them?

We could learn a lot from them about managing this land better, for a start, if we might only listen to their advice about how to go about it. A body to provide advice about all those issues that directly concern First Nations people – what is so threatening about that? It sounds sensible and practical to me. Let’s face it, the status quo hasn’t worked too well. Yet the No campaign is offering no alterna­tive.

Anne Layton-Bennett, Swan Bay, Tas

Janet Albrechtsen (“Jacinta Price offers a powerful message to supporters of the Indigenous voice to parliament”, 4/10) hails the emergence of Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who shows great promise to be a future leader of this nation offering “a new and radical way” that departs from the orthodoxy of failed Indigenous policies, including separatism, victimhood and welfare dependency.

In rejecting these past policies, however, it is important to understand that Price introduces her own agenda of political empowerment. Whatever may be Price’s political future, the suspicion and scepticism brought upon the efforts to bring healing and reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians is an issue we cannot overlook. These notions of recognition, reconciliation, sorry and truth-telling should not be tools to manipulate voter support.

Vincent Zankin, Rivett, ACT