Why the Indigenous voice may talk over parliament

Here’s another elderly Australian who has lived through decades of goodwill and support towards our Aboriginal people. In the 1960s I taught at the mission preschool in Moree run by Catholic sisters especially for Aboriginal little ones; love, caring and generosity abounded for them as well as their families. I also taught at the convent school in Moree; there were Aboriginal children in every class but there was never any distinction between them and other children. The same as when my own children went to the state primary school in Moree.

And many years later when I worked as a diversional therapist in a nursing home with a similar mix of unwell elderly people, there was no distinction between them and other patients. I acknowledge the appalling segregation at the Moree Baths that Charlie Perkins fought against during the 1965 Freedom Ride. However, my experience while in Moree showed me that goodwill and support abounded.

If the Yes vote for the voice wins, will it still be like that? I doubt it.

Margaret Brabrook, Toowoomba, Qld

I am confident that I am not a lone voice calling out to leaders, both state and federal, for some sort of apology to be made to us Victorians for having to observe the uncouth, disgraceful display against our Australian government system recently by Lidia Thorpe (“Greens’ Queen gambit backfires”, 4/8).

No workplace that I have worked in would have tolerated her actions. Nor should parliament. She must be sanctioned in some way on behalf of all voting Australians. Please address this, Mr Albanese or Mr Bandt.

Maggie Morrison, Mordialloc, Vic

Peta Credlin (“Dutton’s Libs must have guts to speak out against voice”, 4/8) is correct in pointing out the achievements of conservative governments in relation to Neville Bonner and Ken Wyatt.

Unfortunately, the Coalition has allowed Mr Albanese to take the front running on the concept of the voice. Mr Dutton needs to start hammering the fact that the concept of the voice has a place in society, but before a vote on the issue all of the cards must be put on the table.

Peter D. Surkitt, Sandringham, Vic

Despite reassurances that a voice to parliament would be purely advisory, Mr Albanese himself has said that if the voice made a certain recommendation, it would be a “brave” government to go against its advice. This suggests that even if the voice had no legal standing to enforce its wishes, it would be hard for the government to resist them.

Given this likely power, a particular concern is how such a voice could be disbanded if it became dysfunctional or was taken over by activists. This can happen to all bodies, whatever their composition, and we guard against this in our democracy by having elections every three years.

To the contrary, once a voice is enshrined in the Constitution, there seems no obvious mechanism to allow for it to be disbanded.

Nick Ingram, Richmond, Vic

One aspect about the proposed voice to parliament that, to my knowledge, has not been addressed is the number of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders who will be appointed or elected, whether the numbers are to represent a percentage of the state and territory Aboriginal population. Will they be paid and, if so, how much? Will they have an associated bureaucracy; what will be its budget? What will be the length of their appointment?

The other more important detail, sadly lacking in the proposal, is the definition of Aboriginality so that we Australians have a clear indication of who can stand for this important adjunct to parliament.

John Riley, Leichhardt, NSW

Most people, I think, would have no objection to a well thought out voice to parliament. However, a voice enshrined in the Constitution is a totally different matter. As Mr Albanese quietly admitted, it would be a brave government that ignored or amended anything that a constitutional voice recommended, thereby giving it quasi supremacy over our elected parliament.

Add to that the ambiguities that would arise from Albo’s “worry about the details later” approach. What such a voice means in practice would then be decided for us all in perpetuity by unelected, possibly activist High Court judges. No thanks.

M. Wright, Floreat, WA