Public must be given detail before it can vote on voice

I write in response to the article by Anthony Morris, “Beware of entering a binding agreement without specifics” (21-22/1). The debate about amending Australia’s Constitution to make provision for an Indigenous voice to parliament is being increasingly politicised to our national detriment.

Changes to the Constitution ought not be directed by grudges, guilt, politics or emotion. The transcripts of the original Australasian Federal Conventions of 1891 and 1897-98 demonstrate both an awareness of international best practice and a concern to be strategic, dispassionate and to ensure relevance of its principles well into the future. Decisions were debated with analysis of how each component integrated within the overall framework.

Sir Edmund Barton stated on March 17, 1898 that there was a need “to insure that the provisions of the bill are understood by the electors, who will have to deal with the question of its adoption”.

Today, the principle that the electors must understand the implications of a key amendment to the Constitution such as a voice to parliament by Indigenous people is as relevant as in 1898 but it doesn’t stop there. It is essential that all MPs can demonstrate to the public that they understand its strategic long-term implications and have evaluated its effects with the dispassionate critical analysis applied by those who framed the original document.

Liz Burton, Camberwell, Vic

Attempting to educate myself on all sides of the debate over the proposed voice to parliament and constitutional amendments, the determined lack of detail is disappointing. I see parallels to a patient being told they need a new operation, but the doctor then refuses to explain the method, side-effects or any short- or long-term complications, or indeed the likelihood of further surgery.

If the medical profession approached consent in this manner it would be deemed grossly negligent. Full discussion prior to surgery is called informed consent, and I am not sure why the PM doesn’t think something as important as changing the Constitution doesn’t deserve the same treatment.

Caroline Thomson, Kew, Vic

Chris Kenny is spot-on when he writes that Anthony Albanese and Linda Burney have deliberately sought to keep the referendum discussion vague, and they want “the vibe of the thing” to overwhelm the questions of detail (“Devil in the lack of detail for Albanese and the referendum”, 21-22/1). However, I disagree with his view that the failure of a referendum would rule out a legislated voice “for some time to come”.

There are many, like myself, who have no problem with a legislated voice being passed by a majority of our elected representatives in the usual way following detailed consideration of, and debate on, its terms. In other words, it cannot be assumed that a no vote in the referendum is tantamount to rejection of a legislated voice.

Clearly the government has a mandate to pass such legislation and it should move promptly to do so should the outcome of the referendum be a no vote (which seems likely given the way Albanese and Burley are presently handling the issue).

Jim Ritchie, Ascot, Qld

There’s plenty of discussion about the voice to parliament, in The Weekend Australian, for instance. I recommend separating the principle (do we want an Indigenous voice to parliament?) and the implementation (how would it work?). Address this latter question after a decision in principle; it’s a matter for the parliament, not for pre-emptive announcement by the PM or, for that matter, by the Leader of the Opposition.

The representatives of a great number of Indigenous people have put forward their recommendations. It would seem proper for those to be taken into account if and when the parliament is considering the matter.

Ian Mathieson, Rocklea, Qld

I spoke to a man in his early 40s the other day to ask his opinion about the “voice”. His answer was “what voice?”. He hasn’t read anything about it because he’s too busy working, looking after children and worrying about the cost of living to have any opinion about the voice. I imagine many of his generation who are leaning slightly to the left will vote yes because it sounds like the right thing to do.

Paul Murray, Mollymook Beach, NSW