Voice wording requires greater public scrutiny ahead of referendum

I thank Paul Kelly for his incisive and compelling piece on the Indigenous voice to parliament (“Albanese’s flawed voice fails the test”, 25-26/3). The proposed voice represents one of the great risks in Australia’s recent political history.

Labor successfully fought for the introduction of one vote, one value for federal and state elections. Yet the proposed voice would give a greater say to a minority group, at the expense of the majority. Indigenous people deserve to be recognised in the Constitution. But the proposed linking of recognition and the voice in the same referendum question is a bridge too far. It should be reconsidered to prevent the whole process ending in tears.

Peter Kennedy, Mt Lawley, WA

Paul Kelly’s powerful contribution to the voice debate at the weekend should be a “mind where you go” warning to all Australians. At this point, the voice discussion is referring to a referendum working group of unelected people empowered to give advice to the PM.

I am worried that power factions would emerge through the composition of a voice to parliament. I think this is a reasonable concern that should be debated.

No doubt there are other serious impacts that are as yet unrecognised. Fortunately, there is time for the nation to discover and consider all such matters.

I hope people will consider the points raised by Kelly.

Rob Davies, Drysdale, Vic

As Dennis Shanahan points out (“Defiant PM’s all-in gamble”, 25-26/3), Anthony Albanese is intent on creating history with or without bipartisan backing.

The last constitutional change in Australia was made in 1977, more than a generation ago. Bi-partisanship was always thought to be a prerequisite to success. Maybe times are changing with the major political parties both commanding less than 40 per cent of the vote.

One thing that has not changed though is the need for a double majority for constitutional change requiring the support of the smaller states. NSW and Victoria cannot get the voice over the line without two other states as determined by section 128 of the Constitution, which requires a majority of states to support change. Could WA and Tasmania save the voice?

David Muir, Indooroopilly, Qld

I continue to be heartened by the great range of coverage devoted to the voice in The Australian. There is much water to pass under the bridge of popular opinion before the vote, but many unmentioned influences have been fairly raised through the newspaper’s reporting and opinion.

The PM is clearly staking so much on voters’ trust in him, and this from the same PM who has now broken election promises. Is he worthy of trust? As several commentators pointed out, if Peter Dutton opposes the voice on the basis of too little detail, it will be on his head that the referendum goes down. It’s early days, and I look forward to more unbiased commentary from The Australian.

Don Stallman, Blackbutt, NSW

Censoring women

Just as I was thinking I was going mad (or that the world has gone mad) I was fortunate enough to read Brendan O’Neill’s article (“Iron fist of intolerance in velvet glove of woke”, 25-26/3). Women need more men like Brendan O’Neill on our side. I grew up in a time when women were heard thanks to the hard work of some amazing feminists. Now, we are being erased and cancelled by misogynistic men and women.

Men such as John Pesutto and Murray Watt are finally getting the chance to flaunt their intolerance and be applauded for it. In fact, I question whether these men actually give a fig about the rights of trans people.

O’Neill is absolutely correct about the element of violence; it has never come from Posie Parker. The violence has only ever come from the far left. Transgender women have accused lesbians of being TERFS because they do not acknowledge their identity. These trans women have threatened many of these women. Anthony Albanese and Daniel Andrews openly associate themselves with gay pride, which means they should also care about the rights of lesbians. But do they?

Clare Knight, Eden Hills, SA

Transgender women want fairness, but how fair is it to compete against women who are not your equals in strength and endurance? This is not true sportsmanship, so it would seem that being recognised as a woman by competing in women’s events trumps everything else, including fairness.

Elizabeth Moser, Highton, Vic

The bullying of conservative women in response to their valid criticisms of transgenderism is appalling to witness, especially from male politicians in this country. I think Peter Dutton made a mistake in not making a stronger stand when he was challenged on this issue last week.

Mary-Anne Higgins, Rose Park, SA