The 'no' case is marked by weakness and fear mongering

The "no" case states we should not vote for the Voice because it hasn't been road tested. The then-Coalition government did not road test the 1977 referendum questions before we voted. Should we road test a republic before voting on it again?

The "no" case alleges that a Voice would expose legislation to legal challenges. All laws are open to legal challenge. It is part of having a court system and living in a liberal democracy.

The "no" case claims the Voice would be centralised and overlook regional and remote communities. Yet the Voice design principles state the Voice will have specific remote representatives.

The "no" case disagrees that the Voice should provide advice about issues affecting all Australians. However, some issues relevant to all Australians affect Indigenous people differently.

The "no" case stokes fear that the Voice would lead to reparations and compensation. As an advisory body the Voice can't make such decisions. They will fall to the government of the day. Agreeing to the Voice will not guarantee a treaty or reparations.

Voting "no" will not make these issues go away.

If, as the polls indicate, the "no" vote wins, the Voice activists will wish they had left well enough alone.

Their inability to explain why we have to change the constitution to fix problems they and their ilk failed to fix will haunt them.

Decades of massive waste have been exposed. Far too little of the per capita funding, twice the national average, has reached remote communities where squalor and violence, especially against women and girls, continues unabated and bullies reign.

Self-determination in these places will be replaced by government intervention to treat all Australians by the same standards and rules with no need for input from failed activists who will quickly fade away.

As an organiser of the Curtin "yes" event (August 26) I would like to reiterate the message that every vote counts, and we can make a big difference by talking to our families and friends across the nation.

The event was organised by residents of Curtin and Hughes with over 30 local community groups pitching in to help and rally the 500 participants.

Our central aim was to show our communities' support for the "yes" case and that we as a group accept the invitation from First Nation communities to walk together towards a better future.

It was also a fun community event, as moving Australia towards a better place, and to be actively involved in unifying and reconciling the nation, is something to celebrate and sing about from the heart.

As young parents (many years ago) we were warned about the "terrible twos" - a time in an infant's development when she or he was learning to express their will.

It was, we were warned, characterised by irrational outbursts of opposition to anything and everything, highlighted by rage and screams of "no".

It seems like Peter Dutton hasn't outgrown the "terrible twos".

The Prime Minister goes on TV making a speech to announce the referendum date. What's the point?

The date was widely known long before.

A much better use of the system would be an official announcement from the PM's office. Takes two minutes to type up and send.

Instead we are subjected to a ridiculous guessing game and self back slapping TV appearance.

In the Voice referendum there are two choices, either "yes" or "no". Nothing else, no ifs, buts or maybes. Don't use ticks or crosses.

Even though the AEC's "official guide to the 2023 referendum" is crystal clear the AEC must specifically confirm that fact immediately.

The AEC always performs with the highest integrity and any move to assist the public would help preserve the validity of the referendum count.

Peter Bennett ("Split the question", Letters, August 25) has been reading my mind. Asking two separate questions is the logical and sensible way to go.

The first question about recognition, I thought, was resolved in 1967 when we agreed that First Nations people should be counted in the census. Why do we need to ask the question again?

The second part relating to a Voice to Parliament is a bit more complex. First Nations, or persons claiming to have First Nations roots, are already well represented in our Parliament. Why do we need a vote to give a group what they already have?.

I will be voting "no" because of that second part, but I would vote "yes" if the first part was asked separately.

Amanda Vanstone ("Anger will drive down 'yes' vote", August 17) should understand very well why the "activists" she rails against are angry. It was the Howard government, of which she was the minister of indigenous affairs, that abolished ATSIC in 2004.

ATSIC, while not perfect, was the best attempt we have had to date at enabling Indigenous representatives to influence government policy and to direct funding.

Her decision to replace ATSIC with a body of government-appointed advisers (the National Indigenous Council) could never be as satisfactory as an elected body. Nearly 20 years later, we need to try again.

The major flaw of ATSIC was that it had no constitutional status. Vanstone could decide to abolish it simply by putting a bill before Parliament. With Mark Latham's support as Labor leader, this was achieved.

The colonial attitude that omitted mention of Australia's original inhabitants in the constitution, except to deny them rights, persists in Vanstone's "angry activists" label.

Our First Nations people should have been recognised in the constitution from the very start. It is time to correct this great injustice.

As a result of the 1967 referendum the original inhabitants of this land, who had been here for 60,000 years or more, were counted as part of our nation's population.

I am not qualified to speak for Aboriginal people. I have not shared the pain, loss and Stolen Generations experience. I will vote "yes" and will ignore any mealy-mouthed politician telling me to vote "no".

I find it strange a recently arrived majority is telling a community that has been here for 60,000 years or more, how to vote.

What a surprise. Both Tony Abbott and Peter Dutton misusing Martin Luther's "I have a dream " speech.

They seem unable to understand that King's fight was to "eradicate racism, not difference". In speaking against the Voice, both have also failed to note that "equality" is not the same as "equity". This inability by some of our "leaders" to grasp such nuances is only likely to entrench rather than remove racism. Where is Australia's Martin Luther King Jr?

David Bailey said (Letters, August 29) referring to Senator Cash: "If we followed her logic, we would still be living in the trees, eating nuts and berries. Surely no-one is that conservative?".

I think he misunderstands the position of the senator and her fellow travellers.

It is more like: "The conservatives would be living in McMansions, drinking fine wine and eating prime steak while the rest of us are living in the bushes and grazing on whatever we can scrabble".

Aboriginal people have had voting rights under the constitution ever since 1901. Aboriginal people in NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania could vote in colonial elections before 1901.

At Federation in 1901, by virtue of Section 41 of the constitution, they could vote in Commonwealth elections.

Aboriginal people could vote if they registered. In 1962 - before the 1967 referendum - the Commonwealth legislated to extend the vote to any Aboriginal person who was not already registered to vote.

This demonstrates Aboriginal people were not excluded from the constitution before 1967.

Listening to the ABC's Voice coverage on Wednesday I was perturbed to hear reporters using Americanisms such as "swing state" and "battleground state". Is Trump campaigning down under?

Trump's Fulton County Jail mugshot reflects what he is: evil.

There is justified concern and angst about the government's refusal to expose Qantas to competition and not to retrieve its $2 billion subsidy. Was Qantas's granting politicians access to the Chairman's Lounge money well spent?

Leigh Sales is using her taxpayer-funded salary to do a sales pitch for the Voice. Are there not grounds for sacking ABC journalists who stray from the charter and support one side of an issue?

I just found out the hard way that there is no longer a viable bus service from the Kingston Canberra railway station. The expense of the tram is presumably to blame. I also found out that taxi fares have risen - like everything else.

Why we pay big dollars to consultants to tell the heads of departments, who also earn big dollars, what they should be doing? It just doesn't make sense.

The federal government needs to rethink blocking Qatar Airways' additional flights to Doha. If it's for human rights reasons few airlines would be welcome here. Or is it we passengers might prefer Qatar's service to the Flying Kangaroo?

Um, a maximum performance bonus of $476,351 for an EL2, significantly more than for SES3 (Public Sector Informant, August 28)? What's going on?

The payment of "performance bonuses" within the Australian Public Service puts the gifting of watches for employee performance to Australia Post employees into perspective doesn't it?

Countless thousands of emperor penguin chicks have died in an Antarctic ice break-up in 2022. The ice is melting and with it their habitat. Perhaps now we can set a date to phase out fossil fuels.

Finding the Loch Ness Monster is one thing; the next question is how to kill it? Instantly or over a long time in captivity?

I hope Foad Munir (Letters, August 25) on Islamic boundaries between men and women doesn't also extol keeping women out of the workforce or out of universities.