Indigenous voice to parliament opponents must look at historical realities

Voice opponents such as ScoMo must look at historical realities

Scott Morrison, in his recent speech to the parliament on the proposed Voice Referendum Bill (“Morrison weighs in with scathing voice rejection”, 25/5), among many exaggerations and factual errors insisted the voice was “fundamentally different” to many past “remedial activities” such as, among others, the Mabo decision of 1992.

This is wrong on at least two counts. First, as junior counsel for the plaintiffs in Mabo, I well recall the same exaggerated and ill-founded claims concerning the decision’s alleged disastrous future impact on both the Australian economy – particularly the mining and pastoral industries – and our social cohesion. “Your backyards are at risk,” according to Jeff Kennett. Since 1992, the reverse has occurred: traditional owner groups, and others, have benefited from recognition of their native title, as have mining, pastoral and other commercial interests working with this new legal regime. Second, such unfounded attacks on the voice – another significant national legal reform intended to recognise and support our First Nations – emanate, by and large, from the same conservative forces that, like Morrison and his Coalition party, cannot see into the future past their own short-term vested interests.

Hopefully, Australians will ignore such outbursts, look to historical facts regarding our many failed attempts to assist Indigenous communities, and vote yes. There is nothing to lose, and much to gain.

B. Keon-Cohen, Malvern, Vic

Agreed, Peta Credlin, the parliamentary speech Peter Dutton gave earlier in the week was indeed his best thus far as Opposition Leader (“Dutton takes up banner for our shared history”, 25/5). Dutton nailed it when he said that Anthony Albanese is conflating two separate issues.

He can be quoted as saying, “One, constitutional recognition, and two, enshrining the voice in the Constitution. He wants to leverage the overwhelming public support for constitutional recognition to piggyback his poorly defined, untested and risk-ridden Canberra voice model”.

Well said. The Opposition Leader has given the Prime Minister a lesson in one, cut-through, and two, telling it like it is.

Mandy Macmillan, Singleton, NSW

Peta Credlin says that her instinct is that more quiet Australians could be getting ready to vote no. I share her instinct, but I also have the feeling that a majority of Australians who will vote no do so not out of any feeling of ill-will towards Indigenous people, but because they judge the proposed referendum to be a dead-end that can only divide us.

Terry Jessop, Killcare Heights, NSW

The extraordinary intervention by NSW Supreme Court judge Ian Harrison in chastising elected MP Pat Conaghan for his considered opinion on the voice illustrates the divisive nature of this proposed change to our Constitution (“Judge’s MP email: you were racist”, 25/5). Despite the assurances of the Yes constituency that the proposal is innocuous and devoid of serious implications, this episode suggests otherwise.

Constitutional change strikes deep into the structure of the body politic. It is not a mere rearrangement of abstract ideas. Australians are being asked to consider these issues carefully. And they should. This latest confrontation reaffirms the obvious.

Vicki Sanderson, Cremorne, NSW

The extraordinary personal attack on a member of parliament by NSW Supreme Court judge Ian Harrison surely is a watershed moment for the separation of powers in Australia.

I have long been thankful that our Aussie judges have not been politicised like they are in the US. Harrison’s email sadly suggests that our judges, as in the US, are now starting to flex their opinionated muscles by expressing their personal views in the public arena against those who may come before them in the courts one day. It shakes our faith in our judges.

This is not a good omen for future objective judgments on issues of constitutional appeal that will come before the courts should the voice get up in November. The separation of powers is getting shakier by the day in Australia.

John Bell, Heidelberg Heights, Vic

Fluid thinking

While it is prudent to aim for $100bn in Australian food exports and increase our food-growing technologies (“CSIRO develops game plan to future-proof food security”, 25/5), this will only be achieved if we continue to maximise our use of water. Farmers cannot grow food without water. Current record volumes of food exports have been achieved thanks to a La Nina-induced water abundance, that will change as El Nino steps in. As such, we must store water and use it in a balanced and effective way. If the Albanese government continues with its agenda to buy water from farmers, instead of the more sensible option of developing water-saving projects, the $100bn export goal will forever be a dream.

Shelley Scoullar, Albury, NSW