There is more to the voice than just symbolic power

Chris Merritt’s perceptive article (“Voice to parliament is more than symbolism”, 2/12) articulates many of the concerns his fellow Australians have in relation to the voice proposal. All we have had so far, in relation to the proposal, is a draft presented by Anthony Albanese to the last Garma Festival. There has been little else since, save scornful responses to genuine inquiry intended to interrogate the proposal and derisive dismissal of voice nay-sayers, such as that of senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (“Indigenous leaders condemn Price, Nats”, 1/12).

In Merritt’s words, the voice debate has been clouded by government secrecy. It is enlightening, if disturbing, to learn from Merritt’s article that there is a final report of the Indigenous Voice Co-Design Process calling for an administrative structure entirely separate from any existing body and under the control of voice members and co-chairs. Why was that final report not tabled in the current session of parliament and why has it been withheld from the public? Most Australians will be concerned that the control provision in it suggests voice autonomy separate from the parliament and any existing processes that could enforce accountability.

Merritt’s article examines the details of the proposal and there is much devil in it. The more disturbing the reading of the report becomes, the more apparent is the true nature of the government’s proposal. That nature is best described in the Australian Law Journal article by Noel Pearson-Shireen Morris referred to by Merritt. The article describes the voice as a constitutional platform for Indigenous empowerment. It is to this likelihood that Senator Price refers when she posed the question, still unanswered, “Why should I, as an Indigenous Australian, be governed by a separate entity because of my race?” She shouldn’t.

Having been found out in its deceit, the government forgoes any goodwill it may have accumulated. Its default position is that the Prime Minister should, without any further delay, publish the voice report to the nation. Then sufficient time should be allowed for the nation to absorb and debate that report before any further move to legislate the voice proposal.

Ian Dunlop, Hawks Nest, NSW

Chris Merritt is spot-on. In 2017 the Uluru Statement from the Heart rejected the idea of tokenistic constitutional recognition, instead favouring a voice to parliament, treaty and truth-telling about Indigenous history. This longstanding focus on power provides a clear context for Noel Pearson’s ABC interview comments on November 29. His denigration of the National Party, its leader and Senator Price fits with his tone of resentful and entitled victimhood that seems to come from a lack of acceptance that others may have legitimate and different opinions and they are free to change their opinions as circumstances change.

Mr Pearson’s attack makes it clear that it is inevitable that the Liberal Party also must oppose the voice proposal on the simple basis that we are one nation and we do not wish to add to our Constitution in a way that will divide us purely on the basis of race.

Peter Balan, St Peters, SA

The voice referendum is looking like a pot of simmering stew into which more and more ingredients are being tossed, to the point that ordinary voters have no idea what we are being expected to eat. Once it is dished up, will we stick our forks in and find something nutritious for the First Nations people and the nation at large? Or will we pull out hard-boiled resentment and ongoing national indigestion? The referendum plate needs to be minimalist, like that served in a Michelin-starred restaurant – one or two items beautifully prepared and clearly understood. That item needs to be a constitutional acknowledgment of the long-term existence of the First Nations inhabitants of this land, recognition of their exquisite value, and consequent responsibility for the preservation of their dignity, wellbeing and equality. Upon this foundation the voice to parliament sits as a legislative entity but not a constitutional bone of potential contention subject to High Court interpretation and interception.

Meanwhile, the voice that needs to echo in all of our hearts is the cry of our land for its inhabitants to live together in harmony simply because we are fellow human beings; a voice for unity, mutual respect and national pride in this remarkable place.

Jeanette Drummond, Kalorama, Vic