Voters may be misled over true repercussions of an Indigenous voice to parliament

John Howard reinforces the obvious divisiveness of the voice by calling it a “cockpit of conflict” (“ ‘Why are we doing this to ourselves?’ ”, 26/7). Also, on the same page, the Productivity Commission pours petrol on the fire by advocating an “Indigenous watchdog ‘with teeth’ ”.

Forgetting that the voice is about sovereignty, rent and reparations, we are misled to believe it is all about “closing the gap”. We are deliberately being misled about the goals of the voice; sovereignty, reparations and rent as detailed in the plan formulated in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Seeing support for the Yes vote falling, only authoritarians would work on other ways to skin a cat and force their ideas on Australians against their will.

N. Ford, Kambah, ACT

Former prime minister John Howard once again gets it right, especially when he states: “The more you get told, ‘You’ve got to do this because it’s the right thing to do and the good thing to do’, the more people will say: ‘Hang on, tell me why.’ ” It’s a pity those in government who have the current intent in sending this country broke haven’t got Mr Howard’s predisposition for telling the truth about both sides of the debate. Instead their aggressive hostility and divisiveness towards those who disagree with them are causing more problems than solutions.

Ian Kent, Renmark, SA

It seems John Howard sees the voice as a “cockpit of conflict”. Ironic, as he is the prime minister who mobilised the Australian Defence Force, without the permission of parliament, into an illegal war in Iraq and was responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians. No wonder he doesn’t want the parliament to have a voice.

Brian Sanaghan, West Preston, Vic

John Howard asks: “Why are we doing this?” Well, John, the answer is simple – because it is the right thing to do.

It will fail, says John, the reason being that people like himself and his fellow right-wing travellers who should know better want it to fail. John then tells us how good British colonisation was for Australia. If you were white that is true, but if they could the countless Indigenous massacred by the colonists would beg to differ. John helpfully tells us we should instead be in dialogue with Indigenous communities and listening to what they tell us. What, John, you mean like the voice is intended to do? Then why should we listen to a prime minister who managed to lose his own seat?

Ross Hudson, Mount Martha, Vic

Many years ago my best friend approached John Howard, then prime minister, in a Perth restaurant and said to him: “How do you get it so right all the time?” It appears that hasn’t changed a jot. To read his quotes from 2004 about the abolition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission because he believed it had become too preoccupied with “symbolic issues and too little concern with delivering real outcomes for Indigenous people”, it reminded me that it has been 20 years since this occurred. Two decades of symbolic gestures outweighing genuine assistance.

Where is the accountability of governments or bureaucracies that have failed in these 20 years? It is nil. Yet there is an inquiry into Robodebt, which has already claimed the scalp of the highly paid bureaucrat who resigned last week. It appears that it is OK to inquire into the failure of some aspects of government but not others. Like Howard said, there are Australians who are angry at the amount of money spent on this issue with such little progress.

Until the Liberal, National and Labor parties form one policy to address Indigenous issues this will continue. If done, whoever is in government will be able to tell bureaucrats to carry out this united policy without the threat of symbolic issues blocking the path.

Francis Wright, Cottesloe, WA

Thank god for Janet Albrechtsen and former prime minister John Howard for explaining, in simple words, the ramifications for voting Yes in the coming referendum.  Indeed,  if conflict occurs in the future, it will involve our younger generations who will pay the price if Yes prevails.  Mr Howard’s wise words are many but he fingers the future in this way: “The idea that a sovereign  country makes a treaty with part of itself is just preposterous.  It is constitutionally repugnant.”  We disregard these words at our peril.

Lesley Beckhouse, Queanbeyan, NSW