LETTERS Only indigenous Australians should vote

MAY I ask why are we being asked to take part in a referendum on The Voice to Parliament when the indigenous population is of the opinion that non-indigenous Australians are perceived to be all of the problem? It just doesn’t make sense.

Surely there would be a more equitable outcome if the referendum targets only indigenous Australians particularly given that more than one opinion for the way forward exists in their own community.

If we are to resolve this issue for all Australians then our indigenous ing “real case example” for future students looking at “good public policy” of how a focus upon a “feels good” means entirely lost sight of the intended ends.

The proposed “representative” bodies are not a new concept. Advisory bodies of various kinds have been a part of earlier models intended to build stronger indigenous communities (for example, ATSIC from 1989 to 2004).

But this latest proposal merely “complements and amplifies existing structures” (of which there are many). Its purpose is to achieve a “greater say” in matters that affect indigenous lives, but the chosen means is to create an expensive, constitutionally embedded “talk fest” for a mere couple of dozen people who will have the status of being a part of that advice structure but no actual power and, most importantly, no responsibility for outcomes.

The report recognises the challenges of bringing people together, given divisions within indigenous communities that reflect the same strengths and frailties in any community. Tellingly, this report, by and supposedly for all indigenous Australians, wants the representatives to be “fit and proper” persons. It excludes as representatives those convicted of an offence carrying a jail term of more than a year (pages 62, 139-141).

There is no need for a referendum, no need for yet another forum of talkers. It’s responsive actions to address known problems that are needed: actions that speak louder than words.

It’s telling because it shows the gap between “indigenous haves” (who wrote this report) and “indigenous have nots” (for whose benefit it is supposedly written).

If my grandparents died too young, if my parents are old before their time, if I never absorbed an education that respected my cultural background and equipped me to deal with today’s Australia, if I know that substance abuse is rife among too many people – young and old – around me, if relatives in juvie and adult prison is a given, if never having the readies to engage the best

Australians must have total ownership of the outcome without input from those who are not part of their culture.

Patricia Parker, Duffy

A blatant abuse of political power?

IN respect of the Voice referendum, how can any fair-minded person believe it proper for the Labor government to permit tax deductions for donations to the “Yes” vote but deny it for donations for the “No” vote? Is this not blatant abuse of political power?

teachers, health and legal workers is both now and the future horizon, if that is the collective environment more than a half century after Wave Hill (when some 200 Gurindji took strike action), how does the proposed Voice help me and my similarly placed relatives in 2023? It doesn’t and it won’t.

That bleak picture must be seen alongside the dazzling successes of indigenous Australians in music, dance, the arts, and many sports. There are also those who have benefitted from education that has led them to successful and uplifting field and technical careers, to academic and professional lives. They don’t warrant a special Voice.

The report authors acknowledge that “people need to be involved in decisions that affect them”, that any kind of “top down” won’t work.

Sadly, this is a report that replaces a discredited form of “top down” with a new form that will be harder to change because it will be constitutionally enshrined.

Even rusted-on Labor and Greens voters should acknowledge that, or otherwise be shameless. What else would such an authoritarian government be prepared to do to abuse the rights of citizens that oppose them?

Max Flint, Erindale

All opinions welcome “CityNews” welcomes all opinions on the Voice. Respectful submissions of up to 750 words to editor@citynews.com.au, please.

Today, when current “local views” can be known quickly and inexpensively with widely used social-media tools, why set up another bureaucratic logjam?

Let the existing indigenous organisations use their links with their communities to prioritise issues and to tell government the level of service delivery (expertise and time required) that will work.

In short, there is no need for a referendum, no need for yet another forum of talkers. It’s responsive actions to address known problems that are needed: actions that speak louder than words.

Hugh Selby is the “CityNews” legal affairs commentator. His free podcasts on “Witness Essentials” and “Advocacy in court: preparation and performance” can be heard on the best known podcast sites.