Indigenous voice to parliament will show the nation is serious about inclusion

Those who think in terms of the proposed voice to parliament giving Indigenous Australians some kind of edge over others haven’t properly faced the situation that exists in our nation, with Indigenous communities being profoundly disadvantaged and disenfranchised.

Our Constitution is part of the problem. Of course there’s far more to it than that, but it is also potentially, if we want it to be, a not insignificant part of the solution.

Those who imply things are equal and fair in Australia base their No case on a proposition that is absurd. The ranks of those heeded in the corridors of power are dominated by a few exclusive non-Indigenous interest groups. Our politicians too often behave as party loyalists who are far less able to act as community representatives if this conflicts with interests within their party and a small circle of influential backers.

That’s why after so many years of acute failure by governments to listen or address Indigenous disadvantage we must try for change.

The voice is not perfect. But it is unlikely to simply allow things to worsen as per the status quo. It establishes a better process of consultation – not to bind parliament to the will of a few but as a measure we adopt as a nation that chooses to get serious about recognition and inclusion.

Jim Allen, Panorama, SA

For years we were told the voice would be simply a voice to parliament. Relatively recently the executive side of government was added and many of us felt we had been misled (“No campaign starts to spook Labor MPs”, 27/6).

One thing motivating those who wanted to add the executive into the mixture was probably the fact our state and federal parliaments long ago became largely rubber stamps for cabinet and the parties in power.

At one time I probably would have voted Yes for a carefully defined voice to parliament, so long as it was democratically elected people.

All in all, I am now convinced that the idea of putting anything of the kind in the Constitution is a thoroughly bad one.

David Morrison, Springwood, NSW

The Kirribilli Statement of 2015 could not be clearer: Indigenous leaders will not support a referendum that does not propose substantive change.

The Referendum Council oversaw the 13 regional dialogues and the First Nations National Constitutional Convention at Uluru. How could another convention, even a broad one, progress things?

Indigenous Australians will not retreat from their position, nor should they. A federal treaty of substance is the alternative, and that will need years to negotiate; the voice will assist.

Jill Pierce, Eaglehawk Neck, Tas

As the weeks go by and the date for the proposed referendum gets closer, it would seem that the government continues to live in hope that general ignorance from a lack of information about the voice will get the Yes vote over the line.

This will be further supported by high-profile sporting clubs and our public broadcaster, even though that hope is now running contrary to the latest polls (“Unions mobilise behind voice as support tumbles”, 28/6).

Like most Australians, I would want to see written into law the rightful place of the original inhabitants of Australia who should be acknowledged as being here before white settlement. However, that should be a separate issue to the one being proposed in the voice referendum.

The voice, as proposed, needs to be fully analysed, understood and fairly communicated to all Australians who will have to vote before being put to the people.

Stephanie Summers, North Turramurra, NSW

Anthony Albanese and the leaders of the Yes campaign are asking the Australian voters to vote Yes at the upcoming referendum for the voice, based on an “in principle design” of the proposed new body.

This seems akin to a car salesman asking prospective buyers to purchase a car that is at the prototype stage. I don’t think many buyers would hand over their hard-earned cash on the basis that the engine is under development and the performance details will be provided when the designing engin­eers have completed their testing.

Maybe voters should give consideration to this analogy before casting their votes.

Adrian Hassett, Vermont, Vic