Nothing modest about voice change to Constitution

Troy Bramston, like so many other supporters of the voice, says those who oppose the proposal are promulgating a “thicket of deliberate misinformation and outright falsehoods” (“No camp all about politics, not better Indigenous lives”, 5/8).

But what about the Prime Minister? In repeatedly denying that leading voice proponents have many times stated the voice is about truth, treaty, reparations and sovereignty, and they “won’t take no for an answer”, he is propagating information in the interests of a transparently political outcome. Does Bramston really see the most fundamental change to the Constitution ever proposed as a “modest proposal”?

K. MacDermott, Binalong, NSW

Is Troy Bramston saying Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Warren Mundine do not have the welfare of Indigenous people living in remote and regional communities as their No.1 priority? I believe Price and Mundine are just as committed to closing the gap as Yes advocates such as Noel Pearson. The only difference is Price and Mundine do not believe the voice is the best way to achieve better outcomes for First Nations peoples.

Riley Brown, Bondi Beach, NSW

Troy Bramston’s premise that “the voice is an advisory body with zero power” has been openly questioned by respected judges. And yet you say that the voice will unite us all? Let’s just imagine if large companies had diverted the large amounts of money they have put towards the voice for volunteers or training doctors, nurses, teachers, caregivers, police cadets, cultural advisers to all outlying Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, we might just have seen some grassroots improvements. We also might be able to see a clear path forward using local lived experiences to guide infinitely better use of the billions of dollars already being squandered by bureaucracies. We need to go straight to the problems and cut out the middlemen. Let’s try something unique, innovative and real to fix a real problem today.

Maggie Morrison, Mordialloc, Vic

Tuesday’s article by Troy Bramston seems to say that in the debate of the voice, Yes is good and No is bad. This is a rather facile approach to such a multi-layered challenge confronting the citizenry. Indeed, activists on both sides of the debate tend to focus on the low-hanging fruit that abounds in both orchards, rather than humbly acknowledging that the other side also may be grappling in good faith, and also may have compelling reasons to vote differently.

Further, I’m not sure if you realise the irony of saying the “No camp is all about politics” while the Prime Minister traverses the nation with a Yes shirt?

As a wise man once said: “A ‘no’ said with deep conviction is more powerful than a ‘yes’ said to please, or worse still, to avoid trouble.”

Peter Day, Queanbeyan, NSW

Troy Bramston speaks of the No camp being riddled with incoherence and inconsistency, when in fact that is precisely the argument levelled by the No camp at Anthony Albanese and his contradictory claims since he first announced the voice referendum a year ago. Opinion polls are reflecting Albanese’s muddled, rapidly failing pitch to the Australian people. In laying criticism of the No campaign at the feet of businessman Warren Mundine and opposition politicians Peter Dutton and David Littleproud, Bramston omits to mention senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. To the average punter, just as Albanese is the voice of the Yes campaign, Price stands head and shoulders above the rest as the real public face of the No campaign in the parliament. There is nothing false or incoherent in Price’s powerful arguments against the voice, based on her experience in the Aboriginal remote community, fighting for justice against male domestic violence.

John Bell, Heidelberg Heights, Vic

Troy Bramston states “the No camp is all about politics, not better Indigenous lives”, but what about Jacinta Price, her background and her aims? The No supporters I know are all inspired by Jacinta’s life and her resolve, along with others like Warren Mundine, to improve Indigenous lives. This omission is sad “evidence” that the voice has already divided the nation and its supporters have a tiger by the tail.

Doug Hurst, Chapman, ACT