Readers respond to the invitation to be heard on the Voice. “CityNews” welcomes all opinions. Respectful letters to editor@citynews.com.au, please.

I ACCEPT that some correspondents (CN February 23) may have doubts about the Voice, but it is disappointing that, thus far, I’ve seen no objection that can be backed by any authoritative evidence. 

There’s no space to go through each item of misinformation, especially those that simply rehash old mythologies, like blaming the demise of ATSIC solely on local Indigenous workers (there is documented evidence detailing considerable blame also falling on other, white-controlled areas).   

The prime minister’s draft amendment released at Garma refers only to the Voice and its limited power, so where does Max Flint get the idea that the Makarrata will also be enshrined and that the Voice will interfere in all aspects of Australian life?

Then there’s Noel Beddoe’s unsubstantiated statement about creating two classes of voters. I don’t get his ensuing argument, because the premise is completely wrong. All eligible Australians have the right to vote in a referendum and that’s the only vote we’ll have to consider. The operational details of the Voice, Makarrata and Treaty will fall to the parliament.

Warren Mundine and Jacinta Price are also cited favourably, but what significant national good have either of them brought to the table? Both delight in uttering catchphrases and buzzwords but, dare I ask, where are their details?

Nothing is perfect, but the Voice does point to constitutionally-backed processes for us all to work in close collaboration with indigenous communities, to make more harmonious progress than we’ve seen to date.    

Eric Hunter, Cook

Little for the wellbeing of indigenous people

IN his speech before the resumption of parliament, Prime Minister Albanese said that the Voice referendum is “for the simple principles of recognition and consultation enshrined in the constitution”.

There are two questions in the referendum, as described:

1. Do you agree to this (specify) clause acknowledging the indigenous people as the first inhabitants?
2. Do you agree to this (specify) clause for the Voice?

Question 1 would have almost unanimous acceptance. Question 2 should not be put for the following reasons:

• The people should be treated equally in the constitution.
• A consultative body (Voice) comprising representatives of the indigenous people can be established by legislation.

Once question 1 is approved, then enshrining the Voice in the constitution does little for the wellbeing of the indigenous people and could be an impediment to further change.

John L Smith, Farrer 

Doomed to failure as voters are not mugs 

PRO-Voice advocates are getting desperate as momentum has ceased, and are now clutching at straws by saying that conservatives are out to confuse voters. 

They don’t have to, as Voice advocates are doing an excellent job in that regard all by themselves! 

The indigenous community, the people that count, are hopelessly divided on its capacity to give them an effective voice in Parliament, which is indicative that the proposal is flawed.

Until such time as the government presents the Voice proposal in a concise, informative manner to enable voters to make an informed decision, it will be doomed to failure as voters are not mugs and will not vote for the unknown. 

Mario Stivala, Belconnen