Let’s get some real clarity on the power of the voice

Mark Leibler needs to clear up the disinformation coming out of the Yes case (“Ignore lies, distractions, stay positive”, 13/6). He says Indigenous people asked for a voice but the final report of the Referendum Council in 2017 shows only 14 per cent of submissions were from Aborig­inal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The substantive constitutional change for a voice is standing on the shoulders of 82 per cent non-Indigenous submissions – 40 per cent of submissions were from NSW and only 2 per cent from the Northern Territory. Even more alarming are the predictions by Amanda Vanstone in Appendix E where she wrote that the proposal would not be acceptable to the Australian people if it was “an in-built dissonance within our system” and “be perilously close to a veto”. Peter Dutton is right, it is a Canberra voice.

Joanne Foreman, Mansfield, Qld

Albanese and co keep us in the dark as to the detail of the voice, and then we are accused of lying and disinformation when we speculate on what the voice may possibly be in reality. Voice protagonists can’t have it both ways. They can’t keep us in the dark as to what their real game is while accusing us of lying when we presume its possible impacts.

To make matters worse, voice advocates keep shifting their ground, the latest being to tell us the voice is really all about recognition and not about power in government.

Well, if that’s the case, let’s dust off Tony Abbott’s original proposal for a recognition term to go into the preamble to the Constitution. Let the myriad Indigenous councils, committees, forums, etc, that have sprung up around this voice issue all agree to that, and I’m sure you’ll instantly see an evaporation of discomfort from those of us who are reluctant.

Tony Mussert, Somerville, Vic

Mark Leibler and Noel Pearson have their views on the voice and soon they will have their one vote on it. They believe large numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders will join them to embed the voice in the Constitution. They accuse No campaigners of peddling misinformation, something they would never contemplate. The problem is bringing the Constitution into it. The drafters set out and succeeded in making constitutional change difficult. It will require millions more Australians than those who claim indigeneity to succeed in the referendum. That flaw in the Uluru logic is becoming increasingly obvious the closer we get to polling day.

Linda Nolan, Lota, Qld

I hope Mark Leibler can explain why the referendum question cannot or should not be split into two questions, namely one relating to Indigenous recognition and one to the voice. I would like to know whether the two-question approach was considered by the Referendum Council and, if so, why the approach was rejected. A referendum containing two questions would certainly provide clarity to the Australian voter, an outcome I assume Mr Leibler and Noel Pearson would agree would improve clarity.

Adrian Hassett, Vermont, Vic

The referendum that was originally intended for a voice to be enshrined in the Constitution has subtly altered. Advocates now asks Australians to vote Yes to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This is now the emphasis but the voice inclusion is still required. The former request can easily be legislated by parliament. Numerous comments have been published in this newspaper that warn of the legal issues that can arise.

We are not convinced that a selected group of mostly urban intellectuals who form the voice can address remote Aboriginal issues any better than the existing government initiatives. Admittedly accountability is necessary and this can be managed by Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney and her MPs.

The voice group, if it is voted in, hopes to act as mini parliamentarians. That would be a tax burden to us all. The government should give us the detailed costing.

Joseph Buttery, Tennyson, SA

A $1m video campaign for the voice referendum using an animated kangaroo and emu is a gamble (“Emu, roo to educate referendum”, 13/6). Don’t you think it is time to update and use a more popular character – Bluey and his friendly family – which would resonate with more people?

Susan McLochlan, Caboolture South, Qld