Selective detail

It seems Mr Dutton’s modus operandi is to continually demand more detail on the Voice while remaining loath to identify any of those Indigenous Elders he claims to have consulted (Rick Morton, “Dutton refuses to identify ‘Elders’ he met over the Voice”, April 22-28). Is the issue of the Voice going to be yet another example of our failing to listen to the First Peoples of this country and our deciding yet again what is best for them? There are Indigenous people, like the newly appointed shadow minister, who oppose the Voice, but is this a reason to reject the request of the vast majority? As a democratic nation, why would we expect any sector of the populace to be unanimous on any issue? For many of us, the Voice may be a subject for debate, but for Indigenous people it is a matter of their lives. – Genevieve Caffery, Greenslopes, Qld those representations”. In other words, it is entirely up to Australia’s federal politicians. Hardly a situation likely to inspire confidence, especially given the Coalition’s stance. It is also proposed that the parliament will have complete control over every aspect of the Voice, “including its composition, functions, powers and procedures”. If the relationship were a contract (which in a sense it is), this would surely be regarded as unconscionable. There are many other troubling aspects in the Voice proposal. Consequently, as much as I would like to support it, in the absence of any genuine critical discussion (as opposed to political dog-whistling) about any problematic issues around the current proposal, I’ll be voting “No” in the referendum.

– Gavin Oakes, West Melbourne, Vic