Liberals' Voice opposition further cements their irrelevance

Is Peter Dutton aware of the irony of a white, male Canberra-based politician accusing the referendum model of being designed by an elite group of Canberra academics who ignore the Indigenous residents of remote and regional Australia, when in fact 1200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives from 12 different locations were consulted over a six-month period, and 250 people were involved in writing the Uluru Statement from the Heart? This simple basic information is available on a click of the internet.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart is celebrated as a remarkable consensus on such a complex problem in a process designed and led by First Nations people, a process with no precedent in Australian history.

Hopefully the Australian public will not be confused or diverted by the Opposition's misrepresentations.

The predictable decision of the Liberal Party to argue the "no" case for the Voice to Parliament is made even less palatable by the constant, imbecilic, divisive reference to "the Canberra elite".

On ABC we have had Karen Andrews hammering that the Voice to Parliament only represents the Canberra elite. It's a tedious, meaningless, ignorant distraction. If that's their argument it's nothing but a dishonest hoax. It reminds me of the story run by 60 Minutes decades ago when they filmed the embassies in Red Hill and suggested that's how Canberrans lived while the rest of Australia was suffering a recession.

Canberra is a wonderful city with an amazing mixture of cultures and representing a broad spectrum of people. The constant reference to the Canberra elite shows how many light years out of touch the Liberal Party is. I have enormous respect for Bridget Archer who incessantly attempts to take the high road and get her colleagues to think; a major task.

Sadly the Liberals seem hellbent on using US-style politics here. Argue against the Voice if that's their choice but the dishonesty of the Canberra elite argument is a disgrace.

I am voting yes for the Voice. I respect the Uluru Statement from the Heart as being what the majority of our First Nations people need. Its creation was a thoroughly inclusive process. Inevitably there are multiple minority views muddying the waters.

The second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum related to the referendum legislation are integral to the government's response to the Uluru statement. These documents should be compulsory reading for all voters.

Where commentary and parliamentary questions have not fairly represented the government's intentions as reflected in these documents, they should be called out. For example, claims that decisions equally applicable to all Australians might be successfully challenged for failing to consult the Voice.

Will the Voice attract litigation and dickheads? Almost certainly, but no more than what all Australian parliaments have in recent times. The public will reward the government of the day that bats back claims contrary to the intentions of the enabling legislation. By the same token the public will punish a government that fails to consult the Voice on matters that are clearly most or more relevant to First Nations people.

That is as it should be.

It is astounding that our First Nations people have to even ask for a 'voice' in matters that affect their lives.

It is even more astounding that, after Indigenous Elders invited the rest of our country to "walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future" the best the Coalition can come up with is half-hearted support for constitutional recognition of our First Nations people and the absolute rejection of the Voice design that has resulted from a long, extensive - and possibly unprecedented - consultation process with highly-respected Indigenous Elders and Indigenous communities across Australia ("Liberals set up Voice battle by saying no", April 6, p1).

If this is an example of the Liberals "getting back to their true values" the outlook for this once-great party looks bleak.

I listened to Radio National on Thursday as Noel Pearson was being interviewed. I could not be helped but moved by his measured and compassionate language. He was followed by a Liberal MP who evaded and tried to bamboozle the issue.

It is clear, the Liberals had 11 years to deal with the issue and did not. Labor have been in power less than a year, and by the end of this year we will have something in place.

I don't support either party. I also don't think what will be put in place will be ideal, but you cannot dispute the difference between the two parties.

As the referendum on the Voice approaches it seems increasingly bewildering that Aboriginal people should be asking the colonising populace, i.e. the 97 per cent who have come to this continent in recent times, if they can have say in the laws and policies made by the government in matters which affect them.

In over 20 years of Australian governments trying to steer Aboriginal people away from seeking any real power in their own country the overwhelming view of the people has remained: no to symbolism and yes to a nationally representative organisation which governments can't get rid of at the stroke of a pen.

It is becoming increasingly clear that aspirations have been set way too low. Human rights were not won by asking the invading majority their opinion about whether this was a good idea. It is simply incredible that in the 21st century there should be such debate about the right of a distinctive minority, the rightful owners of stolen land, to have a voice in the system of government now in place.

The way things are shaping up Aboriginal people are set to remain beggars in their own land.

Today, April 6, I received an email from Peter Dutton re his party's decision to not support the referendum on the Voice.

I see this as an invasion of my privacy. I did not request, nor do I wish, to receive emails from his irrelevant party.

How many other people's emails have been abused to disseminate his party's propaganda?

Fellow coeliacs will be familiar with the awful experience of being 'glutened' when dining out. You enjoy a pleasant meal, only to become sick as soon as you have finished it, either due to the undeclared presence of gluten-containing ingredients, or more commonly, cross-contamination.

When I noticed that I was getting 'glutened' more and more frequently, it took me a while to identify the culprit: oat milk. Oat milk is now offered as an alternative to dairy milk in most cafés, which is great - except that it contains gluten. Cross-contamination of milk jugs and steam wands means that if a café uses oat milk at all, traces of gluten can find their way into every cup of coffee. Until I figured this out, I was getting sick every time I ordered a flat white or a latte.

I am sharing this for any other coeliacs out there who can't figure out why they are suddenly 'coffee intolerant'. I'm hopeful cafés will eventually become more mindful of cross-contamination. In the meantime, I guess we will have to learn to love black coffee.

I can only sympathise with the plight of Stuart Watts (and many others) caught unawares by speed limit reductions in the Civic area in 2021 ("ACAT refuses to withdraw fines issued to Stuart Watts after Civic speed limit change", April 7).

When it became apparent that a large number of penalties were being applied to unsuspecting motorists inadvertently exceeding the newly imposed limit, surely a simple and effective measure would have been for ACT Policing to broadcast advisory text messages to all mobile phones within the Canberra region, warning of the new speed limit.