The Indigenous voice to parliament proposal prizes symbolism over substance

Ramesh Thakur (“Reject race-based ‘poison’, privilege voice will deliver”, 29-30/7) brings a fusion of intellect and common sense to the voice debate. It is the incisive logic that others – Henry Ergas and John Howard among them – espouse on the matter. They are united in their view that the proposed change represents symbolism over substance, that it serves as an alibi for the failure of government to move the dial, that it will further entrench the culture of victimhood and dependency, that it plays to Australia's omnipresent guilt complex and that it offends the principle that all citizens in a liberal democracy are recognised equally and are afforded equal opportunity. All the above adds weight to Thakur’s excellent summary that the voice is a hard sell with the community because it is a lousy product.

Kim Keogh, East Fremantle, WA

In his article Ramesh Thakur cogently brings together all the various reasons and arguments that objectors to an Indigenous voice to parliament have used. Apart from the skill of its composition, what adds so much power to his opinion piece is that, as a former UN assistant secretary-general, Thakur would have seen and experienced first-hand, in many countries throughout the world, the tensions and problems between different cultures. And the often unseen and unintended consequences in even well-meaning efforts to resolve said tensions and problems. If Australia wants to keep and even improve its social cohesion, Thakur’s thoughts amount to critical and timely advice.

Peter Wargent, Mosman, NSW

In Joe Kelly and Sarah Ison’s article (“Farmers’ revolt threatens to stifle voice”, 29-30/7), they report that the “nation’s agricultural lobby says Western Australian farmers are ‘paralysed with fear’ and uncertain ‘what they can do on their own land’ because of new Aboriginal cultural laws that loom as a key threat to the voice referendum and Labor’s political dominance in the state”.

I think many voters from states and territories outside Western Australia will be looking very carefully at the WA experience, and this may well influence the way they vote in the upcoming voice referendum. Hopefully, Anthony Albanese and the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, will provide detail of their attitude to the WA situation very soon to help Australians cast an informed vote on the voice later this year.

Adrian Hassett, Vermont, Vic

Megan Davis and George Williams cite New Zealand as one of the countries that has First Nations representation in parliament (“A voice isn’t an outlier – it’s a way to be heard”, 29-30/7). They correctly state that there are seven Maori seats in parliament. These seats are guaranteed to Maoris but do not preclude other Maoris becoming MPs representing non-Maori seats. What the authors failed to document was the division that the actions of the Maori Party have created in New Zealand. The Maori Party wields enormous power as it is needed by either National or Labor in order to form a majority government. That power has been used to create a raft of special benefits for Maori people that many non-Maori people, the Pakeha, resent. Winston Peters, who has been an MP since 1979 with the National Party and then as leader of New Zealand First, is one Maori voice that decries this division of New Zealand referring to it as “racist separatism”. Rather than simply make reference to the special provisions other countries have in place for their indigenous peoples, information about the consequences of those provisions would be more instructive.

Peter Hill, Balwyn, Vic

I was staggered by Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ statement in The Australian last week: “In total, the commonwealth spent $2.64bn last financial year aimed at closing the considerable gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians … But these significant investments aren’t driving the significant outcomes Indigenous Australians need and deserve.” (“A vote for the voice makes economic sense”, 28/7.) From all of this, one point is clear: What we’ve done for the last decade hasn’t worked. It hasn’t worked because Indigenous people are not listened to. Government and bureaucracy can start listening today – for nothing. While the voice may force them to listen, will it force them to act?

Jill Matters, Taigum, Qld