Voice voters may draw on experience from 1967 referendum

Henry Ergas pricks our conscience with Friday’s article (“Referendum can’t afford to repeat error of ’67”, 2/6), reminding us of the well-intentioned 1967 referendum’s objective to unambiguously deliver equal rights.

It had long been the overriding objective of territories minister Paul Hasluck for Indigenous people to be members of a single Australian community enjoying the same privileges and obligations as other Australians.

In that referendum, Australians endorsed that positive vision when they overwhelmingly voted to remove from the Constitution words they believed to be discriminatory.

But, as Ergas explains, the substantive effect was discriminatory and essentially unsuccessful in achieving the Hasluck ideal.

That outcome, Ergas asserts, should be remembered when considering the voice proposal (and voting in the associated referendum). Ergas points out that experience has shown how something that failed in the past may reflect concerns on the voice vote.

Ian Dunlop, Hawks Nest, NSW

In arguing against the voice, Henry Ergas invokes the concern that positive equality will divide us. He argues that we failed to achieve equality in the way promised by the 1967 referendum, but I cannot understand how that equality failing to materialise is somehow justification for opposing the voice.

To achieve this equality we need the precondition that all three levels of government in a governance structure work together in policy development and program delivery.

All levels must act consistently and coherently. There must be co-operative approaches between Indigenous people and government – often with the non-profit and private sectors as well.

Community involvement is essential in program design and decision-making – as well as good governance at organisation, community and government levels. The purpose of the voice is to achieve such objectives and bring about the equality Ergas and his coterie argue will divide us.

Jon Jovanovic, Lenah Valley, Tas

For those who are concerned about whether the voice will advise or direct, you should perhaps read the text of the proposed referendum question. The voice “may make representations”. That’s it. Neither the parliament nor the executive is bound to do anything about any representations it receives.

Paul Connelly, Gawler, SA

No, Henry Ergas. The 1967 referendum deleted an aberration in the Australian Constitution – section 127 – which explicitly excluded Aboriginal people in the census. The voice will go a step further than 1967 by again recognising – and empowering – Indigenous Australians in the Constitution.

Steven Baker, Engadine, NSW

Energy tax breaks

While many lament the loss of coal power because they say it is so efficient and reliable, scientists have warned us about the terrifying effects of fossil fuel pollution on our climate and our health.

Then we consider the reality of the largesse that fossil fuel companies have received from governments for many years: $10.3bn in 2020-21 in tax breaks and subsidies, according to the Australia Institute. Which realities should matter most?

Elaine Hopper, Blackburn, Vic

PwC irony

You just can’t miss the irony – PricewaterhouseCoopers showing a website that positively glows with social virtue and now being embroiled in what could be the nation’s biggest tax fraud (“Working masses a cause lost to woke capitalism boom”, 2/6). Yet, while not condoning any such law-breaking activity, there are nevertheless big profits to be made from everything resembling “fizzy feel-goodism”.

The rush to the left can be explained as much by profits as by ideology, with the incentives of a huge gravy train from government contracts and favours, renewable energy subsidies and corporate assignments from being on the same progressive page. Tragically, without a political entity that is based on pragmatism and common sense as an alternative to woke capitalism, the public misses out on a choice, business is too scared to speak out and the nation progresses in ideological causes but regresses in economic growth and living standards.

Ron Hobba, Camberwell, Vic

Trans rights

Thank you, Claire Lehmann, your article is spot-on (“Leaders and trans activists shamed in feminist rights war”, 2/6). The greatest tragedy about the censoring and punishing of gender-critical women wishing to discuss the differences between trans women and biological women, who do not share the same health issues for example, is the type of behaviour you would expect from countries where free speech is forbidden. I thought we lived in a democracy where free speech is a right, but apparently not.

The irony, for me, is that over the ages it has always been women who have been more accepting of trans people. You judge people on who they are as a person, not what they are. Who would ever have expected the trans rights movement to turn on biological women? It certainly is a strange new world we live in.

Glenys Clift, Toowoomba, Qld