Voice to parliament is not the threat some readers imagine. Read the detail

I’m grateful that my article (“Support for Indigenous voice grows stronger”, 14/6) generated a number of common questions and misconceptions from your correspondents.

Two letters focused on the need for more detail to be available to the electorate before a referendum is held. This is why, in October 2019, the federal government established a process to “co-design” options for an Indigenous advisory body and, a year later, released an interim report with 200-plus pages of clearly set-out ideas, with a final report to come.

Another correspondent asked what the advantage would be in having the Indigenous Voice enshrined in the Constitution, rather than simply legislated. He was concerned that constitutional validation would make it difficult for parliament to dismiss or replace the body “even if it became dysfunctional”. No such concern is needed. All that’s envisaged in terms of a constitutional amendment is to insert wording that enshrines the existence of the advisory body — parliament would determine every detail through legislation, which could be amended at any time.

So why bother with constitutional enshrinement at all? The Indigenous Voice, as presented in the Uluru Statement, would have political and moral authority. A purely legislated Voice would likely be rejected by Indigenous Australians, which would render it illegitimate, ineffective and unsupportable at a referendum.

The final question was whether a certain group should be able to establish different laws from those applying to other Australians. This argument was most eloquently addressed in a speech by former Chief Justice of the High Court Murray Gleeson in 2019, where he pointed out that the Constitution already treats Indigenous people differently from other citizens under the race power.

“The division between Indigenous people and others in this land was made in 1788. It was not made by the Indigenous people,” he said. “The race power in the Constitution is now used in practice to make special laws for them. The object of the proposal is to provide a response to the consequences of that division.”

Mark Leibler, co-chair of the expert panel and the Referendum Council on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians

Hard decisions

Once again those ever-virtuous folk on the left take the easy route of championing a sick child, happy to ignore the bigger picture with its pesky facts and likely consequences. Those ogres on the right are left with defending the rather more stuffy concepts of sovereign borders and our nation’s policies and laws.

The relentless refugee activist industry will not rest until our borders are open to all. In contrast, Sensible Australia recognises the need for laws, boundaries and processes. Sensible Australia understands the concepts of resources and fairness, and the danger of precedent. Sensible Australia can make tough and unpopular decisions when it’s the right thing to do. Sensible Australia would appear to be losing. Vale Sensible Australia.

Jane Bieger, Brisbane, Qld

I can’t help wondering if people like Roger Dace (Letters, 15/6) would still be writing of “green-left whining” — and the Morrison government still be playing hardball — over the Biloela family Nades, Priya and their two Australia-born little girls if they were white Christians. I dare say he and the majority of the federal government would be calling for, or exercising, a fair measure of Christian compassion.

Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin, ACT

Civic decline

What a great article by Troy Bramston with its insight into what Australian politics used to be like (“When politics was more than petty personal rivalry”, 15/6). Bramston recalls Robert Menzies’ emotional response upon announcing the death of political foe Ben Chifley. We have not seen the likes of Menzies or Chifley since they departed, although John Howard and Bob Hawke went close.

The adversarial nature of our politics is responsible for the lack of respect our politicians now hold for each other. Throw into the mix a few loose cannons and our political life is disgraceful.

There are few Australian politicians today with whom I would like to sit down and have a beer.

Peter D. Surkitt, Sandringham, Vic

Troy Bramston reminds us of the bitter realities of contemporary politics. As I see it, the hardening of our political arteries reflects a corrosion in the wider community of the virtues of civilised, intelligent, robust debate and the ability to tolerate different points of view. Menzies and Chifley were honourable human beings who did their country proud; they were fortunate to have lived before the age of social media when reputations and careers can be destroyed at a malevolent touch of the keyboard.

Helen Jackson, Higgins, ACT