Questions on the voice to parliament that just won’t go away

Troy Bramston wants us to sign a blank cheque for the voice – and the amount (the cost to Australian democracy) will be filled in only once we’ve signed off on the (unexplained) plan at a referendum (“Establish a voice and let parliament sort out the details”, 19/7). But Bramston and other supporters of the voice have to stop ignoring the nagging questions that just won’t go away.

First, isn’t the voice plainly racist since it divides Australians on the basis of race? Some Australians will get a vote and a voice denied to other Australians simply on the basis of their racial identity – how can that be seen as anything other than institutionalised racism?

Second, who gets to vote for the membership of the voice? How will the voice electoral roll be drawn up? This is a pressing issue because of “racial shifting” (also known as “box ticking”). There were 92,300 more individuals who identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander in the 2021 census than in 2016. And all you need do to be identified as Indigenous is (literally) tick a box. Once you’ve done that no one dares question you for fear of appearing racist. So, how will the electoral roll be drawn up?

Third, this voice will advise the parliament, not the government. Every other advisory body reports to the government, this one (and this one alone) will report to the parliament. Given that the Senate is usually controlled by the crossbench, if the voice recommends voting down a piece of government legislation will the crossbench ever dare to disagree? Won’t that make the so-called advice of the voice compelling? Does that mean that a government elected by all Australians could be prevented from legislating the will of the people expressed at the ballot box?

Kel Richards, Lindfield, NSW

No, Troy Bramston, my apprehension towards the voice is not for any of the reasons you mention. Quite simply, after more than five years of active discussion, I would like to be presented with at least some examples of the actions that would have arisen from such a voice, had it been in existence, and why those actions are not possible under the current legislative framework. Surely, if the proponents of the voice are so certain that there is a benefit to their proposal, they must be able to articulate something tangible, even if the design may be subject to change.

Wadeye’s Thamarrurr Development Corporation, established by the 20 clans of the region, is, according to its website, “the representative entity for people of the region, as they strive for economic independence and freedom from reliance on welfare and government subsidies”. In the absence of any other information, should Australians look to this body as a microcosm for what an Indigenous representative body may look like?

Jacqueline Poetzscher, Brookfield, Qld

Mothering

I just wanted to say how much I appreciated Virginia Tapscott’s point of view (“The untold value of care”, 16-17/7). I have been a registered nurse for more than 30 years, on and off, in the acute public health system. Tapscott has validated my choice to be the primary carer for my children, at the expense of career opportun­ities and at significant financial disadvantage. I similarly feel the pressure to conform to the sisterhood of feminism that implies (unrealistically) we can have it all. Shiftwork, the mentally, physically and emotionally draining aspect of the job and the lack of support and remuneration for a predominantly female workforce made it a no-brainer at the time.

Will I regret having less super in my retirement? Probably. However, nursing has become increasingly more untenable for any type of family-work-life balance. Perhaps I will go turn traffic signs for road works – it’s better paid, school hours and outdoors. I might even get a tea break.

Everyone has their own circumstance and I am not meaning to judge; people need to do what they need to do, but thanks for bringing this point of view into the mainstream media.

L.Castle, Perth

Mask wars

It is sad, frustrating and above all counter-productive to see the great divide between the maskers and the unmasked being played out in the old and new media platforms and in our lives.

Irrespective of where you might stand on this and related issues, I reckon our public health officials and governments have stuffed up the current reduction of safeguards phase of dealing with Covid. Division has been created, trust has been lost and the positivity associated with the idea that we are all in this together is no more.

Further, in the future if an even more transmittable and deadly Covid emerges it will be so much more difficult to establish even the minimum social and political licence to effectively deal with it. Three years in and public policy on Covid has become a salutary lesson in how not to deal with the inevitable rise and fall and rise again of a pandemic.

Stewart Sweeney, Adelaide