Indigenous voice to parliament: Craven’s Yes plea a counter to misrepresentation

It was heartening to read Greg Craven’s compelling plea for Australians to vote with their intelligence and compassion at the upcoming referendum (“Open letter to Undecided of Good Heart and Head”, 23-24/9). It was especially relevant given the outrageous misrepresentation of his views by the No campaign earlier this year, and even more so given his expertise in constitutional law. The constant cry for “more details”, when this is not a contract but a constitutional change, is both misleading and incessant. We should trust the experts – Megan Davis among them. As Mark Motlop said to The Weekend Australian (“Nation’s forgotten schoolkids scandal”, 23-24/9), we’ve got to fix it. Voting yes is our best chance to do just that.

Sophie Delaney, Brunswick West, Vic

Greg Craven has a good heart and head, but so does Jacinta Price. On this issue, I think Price is correct and he is wrong. I have been dismayed that Anthony Albanese has put this Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice referendum to the Australian people. Much has been discussed over the lack of detail. Before looking at any detail, the first question should be is it right in principle. The answer to me is an emphatic no. No particular section of our society should be granted additional rights or privileges in the Constitution. Professor Craven has also himself criticised the referendum wording, stating that it was taken over by Indigenous activists. The detail that is available and great lack of detail simply adds further reasons to vote no.

Bill Ivinson, Beaumaris, Vic

This constitutional amendment won’t be “strangely rejected”, as Chris Kenny wrote in The Weekend Australian (“A triumph of beads and trinkets over substance”, 23-24/9). This rejection has been coming down the barrel for at least five years. It was rejected by Amanda Vanstone in Appendix E of the 2017 Final Report of the Referendum Council and by then PM Malcolm Turnbull. It was rejected over the last year and a half in the various published opinions in The Australian and the submissions to the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum, by barristers and silks Louise Clegg, David McClure, (the late) David Jackson; former judges Ian Callinan, Terence Cole, Rodger Gyles, Nicholas Hasluck, and; Nicholas Aroney and Peter Gerangelos. It is a rejection of the hubris of Anthony Albanese, who forgot he was the leader for all Australians.

Joanne Foreman, Mansfield, Qld

The Australian has provided a broad range of views about the referendum, and most Australians would be understandably horrified by the appalling conditions under which some people in remote settlements are living. Recognition of Indigenous Australians would be supported by most Australians. The inclusion of the voice in our Constitution has, however, caused great division throughout the country. A voice is seen by many as the permanent race-based separation of our country. A voice structure with around 30 members, as has been suggested, would require a democratic election. Based on that data, this would result in one representative from Tasmania, two from South Australia and two, maybe three from the Northern Territory. The bulk would come from NSW and Queensland. This voice organisation would, in my view, entrench Indigenous politics in Sydney and Brisbane, and not address the issues confronting remote communities in Arnhem Land, Alice Springs, Ceduna or the APY lands in remote South Australia.

Russell Reid, Newstead, Tas

A number of polls have asked voters why they are intending to vote yes or no in the voice referendum. It is interesting these polls show that a considerable number of Yes voters have made their choice on the basis of “let’s give the voice a try”. I can understand people wanting to give it a go on the basis that it might deliver benefits for very disadvantaged remote Indigenous communities. But to make the voice a permanent feature in the hope that it might achieve good results may be seen by some voters as a step to far. I think the question of permanence is exercising the minds of many undecided voters and it is therefore crucial that the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, debates this issue with her counterpart, Jacinta Price.

Adrian Hassett, Vermont, Vic