Is this really the very best that Peter Dutton and the Liberals can do?

However, the best Dutton and his brains trust could come up with over the Easter break to try to explain away Mr Leeser's demonstration of integrity and principle, was to blame the PM for being mean to Mr Leeser for pointing out his previous comments and position on the Voice.

He then repeated his own falsehoods and misrepresentations about the role and authority of the Voice.

While recognising, and welcoming, Mr Leeser's stance, I noted he praised Mr Dutton's leadership and claimed that when Mr Dutton first became Opposition leader, he came to Voice referendum debate with an open mind.

As far as I can tell, however, the only thing open about Dutton's attitude to recognition and reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples was the door, when he walked out of Parliament during PM Rudd's apology to the Stolen Generation and their families.

To all those looking on with glee at Julian Leeser resigning from the opposition frontbench over the Liberal Party's position on the Voice, can you imagine if he was in the Labor Party and publicly opposed party policy?

He would have been expelled from the Labor Party.

At least the Liberal Party allows people to vote according to their conscience without ending their political careers in the party.

The Labor Party affords people no such freedom; it's either vote with the party line or you're out.

The Albanese Labor government has been so sneaky and underhanded with the way in which it is trying to bring in the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

They won't even tell the Australian people the wording of the legislation to bring in the Voice until after the referendum.

They are asking us to vote for something without even knowing what powers it is going to have.

This is dangerous territory and something that needs to be opposed until we have all the information at hand.

If you don't understand it then don't vote for it.

According to Peter Dutton the proposed Indigenous Voice would be a "Canberra voice".

Yet it would come from a wide geographic constituency across Australia and speak in Canberra.

Using Mr Dutton's "logic" it would appear federal political organisations such as the Liberal Party are also "Canberra voices".

I wonder if he's game enough to tell that to his electorate.

Remember all the shouting from all sides we endured during the gay marriage "debate"?

I see the same thing today over many issues, race, gender, religion and so on.

Hordes of young people are ready to shout down speakers who they don't agree with (Lydia Thorpe is a prime example). They think being shouty and giving nobody a chance to speak validates their arguments. It does not.

The Nazis in Germany would stack halls with their supporters and disrupt opposition events.

If those who fought in the war that followed those times are called the greatest generation, then this must be the worst generation of all.

Barnaby Joyce tells us he opposes the Voice because it would introduce a racial element into the constitution.

This conveniently overlooks the fact that this land was already occupied in 1788. The constitution, which would not have existed without the events of 1788, should have prior Indigenous occupation.

Of course Barnaby's mob, the Nationals, are not really into the land rights for First Nations people. Presumably they don't want to see any strengthening of their capacity to influence policy development.

Economic self-interest is trumping ethics and principle.

Peter Dutton has now joined his Coalition partners in opposing the Voice. Trying to figure out what he and his shrinking frontbench actually think and believe is far more difficult.

It would seem that for Dutton political self-interest is the overriding preoccupation.

If he is wrong in his judgement about what the majority of Australians can be persuaded to believe on the Voice he will surely be finished as leader of his increasingly out-of-touch party.

At least the Nationals generally speaking know what they stand for.

I recall Professor Megan Davis giving a presentation at the National Press Club last year.

She gave a detailed explanation of how the Uluru statement was developed through consultations with diverse Indigenous groups throughout Australia.

How is it that there are so many voices questioning the process by which the proposal of Voice to Parliament came to fruition?

Are these people unable to read or listen?

Felicity Chivas (Letters, April 3) extols the health benefits of EVs. However she has omitted to take into account the lithium-ion batteries that they use as their means of propulsion.

Lithium-ion batteries consist of lithium, nickel, cobalt and manganese; all toxic minerals.

The batteries are also susceptible to spontaneous combustion if exposed to excessive heat, damaged or improperly charged. Fires caused by lithium batteries are also very difficult to extinguish.

Mining of the minerals is detrimental to the environment as it may result in soil degradation, damage to ecosystems , biodiversity loss and air contamination.

It is also a potential hazard to the health of miners, particularly those in third world countries where safety precautions are often non-existent.

There is no such thing as a "free lunch". One has to accept the good with the bad.

AECOM's recent report says unit complexes should have less carparking to "encourage ''people'' to stop travelling by car".

This is completely undemocratic and fails the golden rule "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

"People", in town planning talk, means other people, not themselves.

The use of the word "people" should echo the Gettysburg address: "Government of the people, by the people for the people". But in this case what is happening is the complete opposite.

People aren't stupid, why not ask them what they want?

I bet most, if not all, the town planners live in safe, leafy well-appointed suburbs with plenty of carparking.

What they are recommending is unsafe poorly serviced suburbs for others. Why don't they go out and have a look at these new suburbs they are causing and ask the ''people'' how they are getting on?

Ian Warden's latest column calls for the poetic celebration of trams in Canberra . I offer the following:

The tram to Gungahlin is beaut -

It's efficient, and well-used to boot.

But the Stage 2 extension

Is ripe for dissension,

'Cos nobody lives on the route!

I do not know what policy areas John D Purcell (Letters, April 9) worked in but I spent 35 plus years in areas concerned with policies directly related to people's needs, particularly minorities.

I do not remember a single policy that was implemented without consultation with those. That could either be a broad category (women) or more specific, such as particular Aboriginal communities.

Frequently government policy statements are brief and thin, and need to be fleshed out to work as an ongoing program.

I see no hassle with "having to consult" the Voice to ensure a new policy would work universally or was adjusted to meet Indigenous needs.

For years departments and agencies were required to define how a cabinet submission would affect women. The APS didn't come to a halt as a result. Nor is it likely to when the Voice is implemented.

Zoe Wundenberg wonders "Is answering the question too much to ask?" (canberratimes.com.au, April 11). The answer is "probably: most, if not all, politicians have elevated not answering the question asked to an art form".

Government agencies that use paper ("Government agencies still buy a sheetload of paper", Public Sector Informant, April 10) will have to source it from overseas. The Victorian mill can't manufacture this type of paper as the state government has stopped the supply of the necessary type of wood. So much for local manufacturing.

Voice critics should read the constitution and note the absence of detail on taxation, quarantine, immigration, marriage, foreign affairs and all the other things listed in Section 51. The constitution and our founders allowed the Parliament to determine the detail after the constitution came into force.

How much further can the federal parliamentary Liberal Party fall?

How refreshing to read an article by Mack Williams (Public Sector Informant, April 10). Mack Williams is a distinguished former diplomat with extensive experience in Asia. Could we have more such objective rather than the inflammatory polemics of Bradley Perrett?

Dr Bill Anderson no longer feels "warmly and completely welcome here" because he is "bombarded with the ubiquitous Welcome to Country ceremonies and the Voice proposal" (Letters, April 10). He has a voice. Why does this diminish him?

Apropos Julian Leeser. Now is the time for all good men (and women) to come to the aid of the Liberal Party - by leaving it.

Opposition spokesperson for Indigenous affairs Julian Leeser has resigned from the Coalition frontbench. He has shown himself to be a man of principle. He must have felt that Peter Dutton's move wasn't the right one and stepped aside. Good on you Julian.

Most problems can be resolved through respect. The Voice is about respect for Indigenous Australians. It needs to be supported.

Ian Pearson asks, "Who is running this city? The government or the developers?" (Letters, 11 April). Surely, that's a rhetorical question.

Ian Douglas (Letters, April 12) asks for evidence Aboriginal reliefs in the AWM courtyard document a time when Indigenous Australians were regarded as "fauna". The series was entitled by the artist and the AWM as Australian Fauna. Isn't that evidence enough?