Voice is only the start for discussion on closing the gap

Janet Albrechtsen is right: the Albanese voice amendment proposal is opening up a can of worms for Australians in deciding whether, in what form, by whom and to what degree it should be implemented (“Now even the voice supporters are split”, 21/9). However, the point she misses is that this proposal is just the starting point for our national discussion on this aspect of our quest to close the welfare gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians.

As a nation we must summon up the political will and clarity of thought to make this proposal work. Despite some significant reforms, Indigenous people are still oppressed by “white man’s law”. It is this that arguably has to be altered in certain important respects to enable a comprehensive closing of the welfare gap. Hence the focus on the Constitution to assist legislative moves in that direction. We must support this initiative if we are to count ourselves a civilised nation.

Terry Hewton, Henley Beach, SA

While commentator Janet Albrechtsen believes she knows better than business leaders on the Indigenous voice to parliament proposed constitutional reform (“Business on board with voice as corporate branding exercise”, 17/9), her continuing focus on seeing conspiracy shadows and proposing hypotheticals (21/9) leads me to give greater credibility to informed board member Ben Wyatt (“Corporates get it: they can’t risk a negative vote”, 21/9), who proposes that business (and the nation) cannot afford to not positively consider the voice as a welcome and supported reform.

Allan Cook, Bundaberg, Qld

The juxtaposition of commentary about the voice proposal from Janet Albrechtsen, Anthony Dillon (“Taking offence at royal name is just ridiculous”, 21/9) and Ben Wyatt was inspired. It is important to note even a minimalist voice does not address disadvantage and dysfunction in remote Indigenous communities, nor the proposed division of Australian citizenry on the basis of race. The steamroller of activist pressure on the majority is crushing the freedoms these activists represent.

Ros Tooker, Bald Knob, Qld

In Janet Albrechtsen’s and Ben Wyatt’s articles on the divisions on the pathway of the voice, one should take a step back and ask Indigenous people throughout Australia what they want. Would the $100m-plus to conduct such a referendum be far better spent on additional housing, employment, medical and educational support? My intuition would be that they would rather have such services. Let Indigenous community people speak.

Peter Fuhrmann, Watermans Bay, WA

Janet Albrechtsen needs to stick to the facts. No, the Albanese proposal does not require the voice to be consulted about anything. No, the voice’s advice will not be justiciable, as it is advisory only and does not create legal rights or obligations. No, the High Court does not have the final say over the powers of the voice, as that is to be set out in legislation, and parliament can amend the legislation to reverse any undesirable interpretation by the High Court of that legislation. No, the government is not proposing to adopt the views of the Indigenous Law Centre, so its proposals are irrelevant to the Albanese amendments.

Finally, the jurisdiction of the High Court derives from the Constitution and cannot be ousted, but that has been a fact since 1901, and so far has served Australia well.

Glenn Simpson, Elanora, Qld

It seems clear that the voice is being sought in the main by persons of Indigenous descent who have become highly successful in the culture, academe and institutions of modern non-Indigenous Australia, Well done to them for doing so.

But it seems to me a constitutional voice is likely to be captured by that Indigenous intelligentsia and as such it will not have the grassroots authenticity that the voices of, for example, Vincent Lingiari or Eddie Mabo brought to specific issues of injustice, inequality or need in Indigenous communities.

Neither will it have the power that the voices of elected representatives of Indigenous heritage already have in our federal and state parliaments. Those voices to me are far better than a constitutionally embedded voice that is liable to become a monster and a disappointment.

Peter Thornton, Killara, NSW