Learning to listen helps build a strong, united voice

What a convincing and powerful commentary piece from Ian Trust (“Listen to our voice, stop going behind our backs”, 5/12). Perhaps he should be the voice.

Trust raises a few curly issues. What will happen when the policies of the government of the day conflict with those of the voice – I refer to alcohol bans and the welfare card? Will the voice have any say about the policies of state or territory governments? Will the voice agitate for changes to any law or policy – will it or they be funded to undertake political campaigns?

Gordon Pelletier, Duncans Creek, NSW

In connection with the voice debate, Chris Kenny says “we should not fear because parliament has the authority to see that outcomes are practical and responsible” (3-4/12). I have some difficulty in processing that, knowing governments have made many blunders with often the best of intentions.

Ian Trust’s article is a clear indication that the voice must come from Indigenous communities and not be like other measures made before and currently from a distant parliament, often with well-intentioned but unfortunate consequences. The problem is there is a large disparity of needs and wishes from one community to another, as in all the communities in our multicultural country.

Listening to the interview on ABC’s Insiders with Linda Burney and being told that the process of creating the voice was in “very good hands” did nothing to reassure me, and when would we be told what the voice hoped to achieve at a government level?

Like most Australians, I want to see better outcomes and far more enriched, healthy and happier outcomes for Aboriginal people, and most importantly acknowledgment of their rightful place in the history of this country.

There is nothing to be gained in victimhood status and everything to be gained in achieving desired goals for lives that have been impoverished through generations of disadvantage. Will the proposed voice, when it is fully explained, achieve such goals?

Stephanie Summers, Nth Turramurra, NSW

I have every sympathy with Ian Trust’s view on implementing a voice for Indigenous Australians. I, like him, support the view that a voice may help. I do not support the view that the Constitution should be changed to make that happen but it should be legislated by parliament. Early in the debate the then opposition leader Anthony Albanese said the reason for placing the voice in the Constitution was to ensure subsequent governments could not close it down. Surely there must be a way that the voice can be legislated by the government and cannot be undone without support of, say, two-thirds of a joint sitting?

Ray Whitfield, Mudgee, NSW

Ian Trust argues passionately for a constitutionally enshrined voice. In support, he cites the recent abolition of cashless welfare cards and alcohol bans that had previously protected his people in remote communities – apparently not realising that the Coalition instituted and wanted to retain these protections. It was the Albanese government that did not listen to the voice of Trust and many others in the affected communities. If Albanese failed to heed these voices now, there is little hope that his ideologically inspired voice referendum will achieve any real improvement in their appalling living conditions.

Roslyn Phillips, Tea Tree Gully, SA

I heartily agree with George Wil­liams that jettisoning the publicly funded Yes/No pamphlet for the forthcoming referendum (“Referendum rules benefit education and transparency”, 5/12) is a good idea as history shows that this pamphlet has been an instrument for stopping constitutional reform in the past.

Fear is an effective weapon against constitutional change. There has been no constitutional change since 1977. We must do better as a nation. Any reduction of hyperbole and misinformation is a good place to start.

David Muir, Indooroopilly, Qld

The criticism of the federal government for spending millions on the Indigenous voice because the money will be spent on providing information on the referendum is rather odd. I mean, do the Nationals, and other anti-cancel culture proponents, want to cancel historic and current realities with misinformation because they can’t handle the truth?

Henry Herzog, St Kilda East, Vic