Indigenous voice to parliament: Ignore fearmongering, voice a win-win for the nation

Troy Bramston provides a voice of reason in his piece (“Close the Gap? No camp’s lack of vision is staggering”, 3/10) offering cogent explanations for voting Yes at the referendum, especially for non-Indigenous Australians. Non-Indigenous Australians will not be worse off in any material way if the referendum question prevails; in fact, they will be better off. Taxpayers’ money will be better focused on government spending with the voice, and there will be more accountability as the advice to parliament will be transparent and open to scrutiny, as Bramston explains. Of course, long overdue constitutional recognition for Indigenous people will also be achieved, which in itself will be a unifying development in Australia for the good of all. Bramston also explains how the No case arguments are needlessly based in fear and misinformation. Whichever way you look at it, the constitutional change will be a win-win for the nation, whether Indigenous or non-Indigenous alike.

David Muir, Indooroopilly, Qld

With respect to Troy Bramston and some of his excellent past articles, his latest opinion piece makes several highly questionable claims about the voice. Given the lack of detail in who will represent the voice and how its representations will be decided, it seems to me a huge leap of faith to judge that it will have any impact towards closing the gap in health, employment, education, housing, justice and safety outcomes. This is important to consider because so many Indigenous bodies established to those ends – and despite the aid of huge government subsidies – have failed. At least a failed body, as in the case of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, can be abolished when not enshrined in the Constitution. Many esteemed constitutional legal practitioners and academics have expressed the opinion that rather than receiving mere advice, which can be ignored at will or whim, there will be a fiduciary duty for government to listen to the voice, and that failure to do so might well lead to the involvement of the High Court.

Alan Franklin, St Ives, NSW

There is no need for more information to be made available on the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the referendum for a voice to parliament. It’s here in spades and readily available. Honesty, imagination, empathy and courage are required. We need to imagine how damaging the negative campaign already is to the First Australians.

For me to wake up to No on October 15 would be unimaginable, a lost opportunity, a national tragedy. Our elected leaders, past and present, who have engaged in the process since the beginning, have a grave responsibility to Indigenous Australians to lead the entire nation to unity through hope and healing.

Maralyn Lawson, Greenwich, NSW

I live in a small town, and have good reason to believe the majority of its residents will vote Yes in the referendum. Unlike the teacher whose name was understandably withheld (Letters, 3/10), I am retired and therefore not in danger of losing my job if I openly explain my reasons for intending to vote No – reasons The Australian has kindly made known by publishing previous letters from me on the subject but unlikely to have been read by many in our community. Nevertheless, I am involved in a number of local community groups, and I am cautious in raising the subject with many local residents for fear of their reaction, if not ostracism. What a sad reflection on the state of our society.

Tony Barnett, Kangaroo Valley, NSW

The risk of division put by Jacinta Price is real. If the voice gets up and its advice is always accepted, this would show that the voice wasn’t just a “modest” proposal. An unelected body defined by race has become the main force behind government policy. This would fuel further unrest.

On the other hand, if advice from the voice is seldom accepted, Aboriginal Australians may well feel they were misled, because they were promised an influential seat at the table.

Either way, there is a real risk that a Yes vote will foster ongoing division. A No vote to scrap the Prime Minister’s so-called modest proposal is a wiser choice.

It will be a positive step to affirm certain basic democratic values, such as equal rights secured by an elected government serving all Australians.

Nicholas Hasluck, Claremont, WA