A Voice will languish in the wilderness as long as Dutton keeps whistling dogs of war

Barry Welch writes: If Guy Rundle and other journalists put as much effort into writing a dot point summary of the 200-page report on the Voice as they do about the effort needed to read it, they and their readers would be better informed (“Voice supporters don’t need a reading list, they need a proposal”).

Roy Hives writes: Hey people. Dutton is a politician, doing what politicians do: looking after No. 1. He’s grabbed an issue that is popular, and he’ll manipulate it to his own ends. But why shouldn’t we ask for detail? Who’d trust a bunch of politicians who’ve served the establishment since forever to deliver an outcome they’ve never managed since Federation?

 Until today when I read Michael Bradley (“Dutton’s letter demanding Voice detail fuels lies and division. Is anyone surprised?”), I thought this referendum was to establish the Voice. So we’re going to amend the constitution to say we think it’s a good idea to have a Voice? Or aren’t we amending the constitution this time? Are we going to need another referendum?

As for the info being out there, are you kidding? I’m moderately interested in what the bastards are up to, and I haven’t bothered to look. I reckon if I did I’d be no wiser. Then, just to make sure we won’t bother, we’re assured that the Voice will make no difference: “Don’t be scared. This will not let Indigenous peoples be in charge. Just vote YES.”

Being an over-imaginative bastard, this has the potential to be a disaster for First Nations peoples, regardless of the outcome. Smells like the establishment further disempowering opponents of their environmental vandalism. A “Yes” win, but the Voice that does nothing will continue to be ignored: we have the Voice so there’s no need for treaty, no need for First Nations peoples to actually have power. No voting rights. No veto. A “No” win and the Australian people have spoken! They will brook no interference with the exploitation of our resources for the common good!

I’d call the whole thing off, and push for treaty, but it’s not my call. I vote “Yes”, but I’m betting I’ll be saying: “I told you so!”

Lynette Payne writes: Colleagues say Peter Dutton is intelligent, but apart from his personal bias, he can’t read the room. He is appealing to the likes of Andrew Bolt and his right-wing compatriots. Surely after the election results those with any intelligence realise that voters are fed up with dog-whistling.

Joseph P Quigley writes: Dutton is using one the oldest debating tricks since the days of Socrates. Socrates kept asking for more information about the practice of justice, for example, until his protagonist could not provide any more examples of justice or injustice. Moral questions do not lend themselves to black or white answers — there are many shades of grey. Opposition politicians try to drag debate into that murky grey area — more information will never be enough. It’s a stalling tactic to get Joe Citizen confused.

I’d have some respect for Dutton if he said First Nations peoples are too diverse to be able to use the Voice. But to be still asking for more detail on top of what already exists is stonewalling of the most unsporting kind.

Tim Reynolds writes: I’m not Australian by birth but came to be a very proud citizen. To me in 1969 it was the lucky country. I soon got a job in the iron ore mines in Western Australia and came into contact with mainland Indigenous people and Torres Strait islanders who worked every bit as hard as the other 20 or so nationalities employed there. They mixed with us and were colleagues we respected. There was not the slightest inkling of racism. Later I moved east and again I came into contact with Indigenous men and women who worked for the same company. Again they worked as hard as any of the perhaps 10 other nationalities employed. Again never any inkling of racism.

Jump forward 50 years and it seems that activists have taken up the unnecessary banner for our Indigenous people. Most seem to be city folk who have never seen an Indigenous settlement, or worked with Indigenous Australians. Do they really think that the hundreds of tribes will ever agree on anything? We have elected senators and MPs from Indigenous backgrounds. Surely they represent the needs of the Indigenous peoples by consultation in their respective areas.

Previous attempts to set up an organisation to specifically tend to the needs of Indigenous people have failed. We have a minister responsible for Indigenous affairs. Surely she must be able to consult with the various state governments as how to best address the needs of their Indigenous people, or what is the point of the portfolio?

By changing the constitution to allow an Indigenous Voice I think there is a risk that other minor nationalities who are Australian citizens may seek to also be included or indeed seek a second amendment to the constitution. Our government is designed to represent all of the people all of the time regardless of race, colour or creed. It is therefore the responsibility of the Parliament to ensure that each and every Australian is represented fairly and without bias. So there is no need for an amendment to the constitution, but a Voice at a lower tier is desirable so that the needs of all Indigenous peoples are catered for by further representation to the minister at federal level.

Michelle Robertson writes: Thank you, Guy Rundle, for talking about getting actual referendum votes from ordinary people. It’s not going to be easy. I have read the big report and I like the detail. The proposed model could be put into a newspaper insert or a leaflet, as was done for the Good Friday agreement for Northern Ireland. People were not expected to read the finely typed 36-page detail. In the modern day it could be searchable in Google and even explained in a YouTube video. And then I would sign up and go door-knocking, taking a stack of leaflets. Door-knocking works — just look at the federal election.

A concern not raised by Rundle is that people do not trust politicians, so we won’t want to leave it to them to sort it all out later. It would be much harder to make the “No” case if legislation was drafted so the detail was crystal clear.

Cate Cooper writes: It’s unusual in today’s world for a publication such as yours to express two opinionated sides of the same argument, while ignoring the core reasoning of the Voice to Parliament. Perhaps Crikey would do well to publish a piece on the Uluru Statement from the Heart, analysing line by line what it is the Indigenous peoples of this land have experienced and what they ask for in moral reparations. This would, in my opinion, do much to advance the discussion. 

Mark Frayne writes: Rundle either doesn’t get it or is pretending not to: the Voice is “a thing”, as he so blithely puts it, worked up through consensus by First Nations peoples themselves.

Margaret Ludowyk writes: The only goal of the LNP led by Dutton is to prevent Labor achieving anything. It cares nothing for what is best for the nation and its people — it will just oppose everything worthwhile. Its members may as well walk into Parliament every day singing this Marx Brothers song: “Whatever it is, I’m against it.”

Nicky Hungerford writes: While the average person is not going to read a 200-plus-page report (and the other few reports, including the one from the joint select committee on constitutional recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, led by Senator Patrick Dodson and the opposition spokesman on Indigenous Australians, Julian Leeser) surely Dutton and his cohort should read them, in fact everyone in Parliament should read them. I mean, isn’t that their job? Or is it to continue to thrive in ignorance? Rundle mentions the arrogance of expecting so many pages to be read — surely it is pure arrogance to not read them.

If you’re pleased, peed off or piqued, tell us about it by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.