Indigenous voice to parliament referendum may leave many voters out in the cold

The voice may leave many voters out in the cold at some point

Surely Henry Reynolds (“If voice vote fails, expect radical call for global action”, 3/5) does not fail to understand that the most well-reasoned opposition to a Yes vote is the change to the Constitution.

We know the voice can be delivered through the normal democratic parliamentary process. The principal objection is not necessarily to the what but to the how.

If the voice is in the Constitution, it is out of the reach of the voters. The threat of civil insurrection if a voice referendum does not pass is reason enough for oppon­ents.

Frank Pulsford, Aspley, Qld

In all the commendable coverage by The Australian of both sides of the debate over the voice, I consider there has been insufficient acknowledgment of two related issues.

First, given that the truth is that the Indigenous inhabitants of what was to become Australia were involuntarily dispossessed of their country, it seems hypocritical to insist that those upholding the Westminster political system, as important as it is, now be the arbiters of making vital reconciliation agreements with First Nations people.

Second, insufficient recognition is given to the adverse psychological effect of this debate on Indigenous communities, having been dispossessed for 200 years.

Our agreeing to and supporting the voice is essential if any future practical measures to “close the gap” are to succeed.

Ron Spielman, Paddington, NSW

Henry Reynolds explains perfectly why a No vote is still pulling reasonable numbers. These voters would vote for the original concept: recognition in the Constitution. They will not vote for a voice to parliament.

Murray Horne, Cressy, Vic

An appeal to reason

It is interesting to juxtapose Janet Albrechtsen’s contribution (“Reason and logic take a back seat in era of emotions”, 3/5) with that of Henry Reynolds. Ms Albrechtsen decries the lack of logic while Mr Reynolds warns of the consequences of logical questioning.

Both would benefit from the referendum question being split into its different components, allowing us to recognise First Nations as inhabiting this land prior to European settlement without enshrining the voice element into our Constitution.

Alan Slade, Dover Heights, NSW

I couldn’t agree more with Janet Albrechtsen when she writes that policies are being determined by emotions without sufficient regard to whether such policies are financially sustainable and, in particular, who will pay for them. Reason doesn’t get a look-in because it’s feelings that count when determining policies.

Several centuries ago the scientific method of analysis and reasoning was adopted specifically to ensure that people were focusing on facts, not just unprovable assertions. If governments continue making policy decisions based on emotions rather than reason and logic, then when the day of reckoning arrives it will be quite a big day!

Brian Barker, Bulimba, Qld

Snowy warning

“Power shock as Snowy 2.0 hit by huge delay” (3/5) sounds alarm bells for our future energy security. In the 2017 plan, Snowy 2.0 was to be built in four years, at a cost of $2bn. It has now blown out to the end of the decade, costing around $10bn.

To appreciate the seriousness of the debacle, add in several more billions for transmission costs to Sydney and Melbourne.

Regrettably, it’s not the last announcement about transmission projects that are not going to plan. One year ago the Australian Energy Market Operator nominated five projects that were “urgently needed” to ensure energy security. Not one is yet at the construction stage and none has an official “capacity release” date before the 2025 election.

Poor forward planning, labour and skill shortages, supply chain problems, social licence challenges, environmental degradation and the eye-watering billions for transmission will plague governments for years to come. Hopefully the lessons are being learnt before we engage in further economic self-harm.

Jennie George, Mollymook, NSW

Snowy 2.0 is now a shocker legacy project shared by three prime ministers. Malcolm Turnbull’s supposed game changer was fully supported by Scott Morrison, who lauded Turnbull for his vision, declaring it “real fair dinkum power”. Late last year Anthony Albanese tipped a further $5bn into the government-funded project for the poles and wires to supposedly connect the pumped hydro scheme to the electricity grid, saying: “This is one of the biggest announcements that will be made in my prime ministership.”

Such hyperbole from all three for a project that is now giving a whopping $20bn a nudge, will consume more electricity than it will produce and, in reality, is highly unlikely ever to be delivered.

Mandy Macmillan, Singleton, NSW