the evidence?

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