Voice momentum grows but many questions remain

Anthony Albanese says that momentum is growing to enshrine an Indigenous voice to parliament (“Momentum growing: PM to start countdown to voice vote”, 28/12). Would it count as a counterargument if I said, during the Christmas week I’ve been away with around 16 relatives, the subject of the voice never once came up among a family that loves its political stoushes?

Rosemary O’Brien, Ashfield, NSW

I fear for the future of democracy in our country today. Our federal government is asking us to make changes to our Constitution in 2023 with its voice legislation without informing us of the ramifications these changes will have.

Surely it is the responsibility of government to inform its constituents of the proposed changes, and to encourage discussion and debate to ensure these changes will benefit all Australians?

This is something we have not seen so far.

Unless I am convinced that this legislation will benefit all Indigenous people and will not discriminate against other Australians, I will not be supporting this change to our Constitution. One of the benefits of a democracy is the right to free speech.

Bill Glasson, Buderim, Qld

George Williams states that a constitutional expert group determined that the Prime Minister’s proposed voice wording did not confer special rights on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (“Expert stress tests show the voice is not a threat”, 23/12). Of course it does.

It creates a constitutional right to be heard, in addition to the existing right to vote. Indigenous people will have access to a constitutionally enshrined, taxpayer-funded body to make representations on their behalf to parliament and executive government between elections. No other Australians have any such right under the Constitution. Williams admits that the drafting permits Indigenous peoples a new opportunity to provide advice on laws and policies that affect them. If that is not an additional right, I am not sure what is.

Where is my right as a non-Indigenous Australian to have a well-resourced, influential, constitutional body represent my interests to government? In a multicultural democracy, all Australians must have equal rights under the Constitution.

Duane Sewell, Carseldine, Qld

I might not totally agree with David Alexander (“Beware the slippery slope down to more price controls”, 28/12). However, I do think he has a strong argument when he warns of setting unintended precedents. It can also be applied to other areas of government. The Indigenous voice comes to mind. Why not a voice for New Australians? Those who arrived after 1945 have not been heard and their numbers must be increasing. Unintended consequences can indeed create a slippery slope. Not only in the free market.

Glenda Ellis, Bardon, Qld

Albanese has said that momentum for the Indigenous voice is growing. I think he and his supporters really need to get out in the real world and out of the cities and inner suburbs. The many people I talk and listen to have an entirely different take on the voice and most of it is not said in polite company.

The left-wing media plus Labor and the Greens are pushing an agenda that says the voice is a done deal and that the rest of us are basically just racists for not agreeing. By the time this thing is finished the divisiveness they are creating in this country is going to be overwhelming.

Those against the voice should be entitled to their say (within reason) in the media and not be shut out and treated like the black sheep of the family.

David Barnes, Wallsend, NSW

The article by former High Court justice Ian Callinan (“Examining the case for the voice – an argument against”, 17/12) is outstanding and gives a clear reason why the voice is not the way to go. It is the document I have been waiting to read to gain more knowledge of the implications and other side of the debate, written with knowledge and experience, and giving great respect to our Indigenous people. He joins with senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and many other Australians, and lawyers of goodwill, who do not think the voice is the way to go. This article should be read and absorbed by every vote-intending person.

Jennifer Tucker, Killara, NSW