Albanese government must provide more detail on Voice implementation

Surely the onus of showing that the change will make a difference must rest with its proponents. If they are unable to do this then the status quo should prevail.

So far all we have seen are warm and fuzzy assertions, encouragement get behind the vibe, and the questionable claim it is "obvious" the Voice will reduce disadvantage.

Those of us who are more cautious fear it will simply bring more grist to the grievance industry's mill.

Given this, it makes perfect sense to ask for more detail on how the Voice will be implemented before Australians have to vote either "yes" or "no".

People should be told how it will improve conditions for disadvantaged Indigenous Australians.

We should also be assured there will be controls and strictures in place to ensure this does not get out of hand in the way as the NDIS and Snowy 2.0.

Until these issues are addressed caution should prevail. That is why many of us will vote "no". We should not be berated or belittled for taking a considered position.

If the referendum fails the government still has the numbers in Parliament to legislate measures it deems necessary - including a Voice.

A legislated Voice could then be tweaked and modified by future governments if and when adjustments are required.

Amanda Vanstone ("Our Welcomes can be a lot better", August 31) just doesn't get it.

Something like the welcome to country that she outlines could - subject to negotiation with our First Nations peoples - be appropriate if non-indigenous Australia had already negotiated a Makarrata or treaty.

That is if genuine reconciliation had taken place with recognition of the injustice of colonisation, and agreement about how we can all try to make amends for it.

Amanda's proposal asks First Nations peoples to ignore the past 250-odd years, put on a smiley face, and talk about "what we together have achieved".

That is, the smiley face that some people thought Grace Tame should have put on for the Prime Minister at the Lodge in February 2022.

If the material and social living conditions of the bulk of First Nations Australians were actually comparable to those of the rest of us, then given the generosity that the majority of them have always shown us and which is once again shown in the incredibly generous "Statement from the Heart", many of them just might be prepared to do what Amanda is asking.

That is, to let bygones be bygones and celebrate what has been achieved in Australia. But the fact is that, as we all know there is an enormous gap in those living conditions.

In the current circumstances I think that what Amanda wants would be an insult.

Prior to reading Katie Gallagher's article "Three simple reasons to vote 'yes'" (August 31) I had not seen a coherent argument to vote "yes".

After reading the article I still haven't.

I still fail to see how this yet to be defined "Voice" will achieve anything useful.

I wonder how many people realise a Voice already exists; it's called the National Indigenous Australians Agency.

The NIAA's "vision", according to its website, is to ensure "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are heard, recognised and empowered".

And their purpose? "We lead and influence change across government to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the decisions that affect them".

Their responsibilities? "To lead and coordinate Commonwealth policy development, program design and implementation and service delivery for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; to provide advice to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Australians on whole-of-government priorities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; to lead and coordinate the development and implementation of Australia's Closing the Gap targets in partnership with Indigenous Australians; and to lead Commonwealth activities to promote reconciliation".

Given that this organisation already exists what is the point of the referendum? It seeks to replicate a body that is already in being.

I very strongly support the Voice. What a wonderful thing for Australia if it gets up. But it may fail because the ACT and the NT do not count in the "majority of the states" aspect of Constitutional referendums.

The territories miss out having a significant voice on the Voice.

This discrimination must end. The Constitution needs to be amended to give the ACT and the NT the same rights as the states.

There is no reason why the ACT and the NT should not have a voice.

Parliament has painted itself and the people of Australia into a very tight corner with its ill-considered Voice proposal that has utterly divided the nation.

No matter what the outcome of the referendum, bitterness and anger will escalate.

History shows that the only proposition to present in a referendum is one which the people are overwhelming ready and willing to endorse. The Constitution demands nothing less.

Politicians should understand and apply the first rule of public relations: "Don't ask the question without knowing the answer".

The Voice encompasses a vision of Australian nationhood that is inclusive, tolerant and open to plural understandings of sovereignty. These values are central to Australian nationhood.

This vision of Australia represents an important step towards justice for Indigenous peoples. Justice in the Australian idiom translates to "fairness".

We Australians pride ourselves on the "fair go". To make this a reality we must close the gap.

Listening to First Nations voices will ensure that policies designed to close the gap actually work.

We must heed the call for a Voice which came in a petition from the First Nations people in the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart and vote "yes" on October 14. When "yes" wins all Australians will win.

Amanda Vanstone promotes "acknowledging what we've built together" ("Our welcomes can be a lot better", August 31).

But what have we 'built together'? Colonialism has comprehensively failed to incorporate or respect the culture and needs of First Nations people and their country.

In the Uluru Statement from the Heart, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples invite us "to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future".

If we vote "yes" in the upcoming referendum, perhaps then we might begin the process of building together.

The Voice isn't about Anthony Albanese. It isn't about Peter Dutton. It isn't about the Liberal or the Labor Party.

It is about acknowledging the oldest inhabitants of this land. It's about giving them the means to consult and work with the government to improve their lives.

It will have zero effect on the lives of most Australian people. How can anyone oppose this?

Referendum day will be an important one for Australia. The world will be watching and we will be assessed on the result.

"Yes" campaigners will be happy they win. We have tried for many years to address the injustices accorded to our Indigenous brothers and sisters.

These efforts have largely been driven by public servants from Canberra. They have not produced a good result.

The Voice is the way to go about it. Its members will be accountable for their successes and failures.

The "no" campaigners, on the other hand, are saying that there are not enough details to show how the Voice would work. I disagree. I believe it is crystal clear.

We have tried many things on Indigenous issues but we haven't got very satisfactory results. We have to try a different way. If that doesn't work then will look for yet another way.

It's interesting to see that ageing features heavily in the Intergenerational Report.

If they say that's an issue now, imagine what it will look like in 40 years when the current surge in immigration hits retirement age.

Ageing population? You ain't seen nothing yet.

Yvette Berry, Minister for Housing and Suburban Development, claims "We need to not take our foot off the pedal at all". Considering the diminishing public housing stock in the ACT, it would appear that the government's foot has not been on the pedal for 15 years.

Surely even the Liberals must realise when cleaning out the pantry that any item with a use-by-date 10 years old should be tossed out. Same for Zed Seselja.

Attending a recent comeback tribute night for Zed was not a good career move for Elizabeth Lee. Is she just a puppet on a string no longer allowed to promote the "yes" vote?

John Howard has implored people to maintain the alleged historic "Anglo-Celtic scepticism" toward contentious issues such as the Voice. Talk about divisive.

Slightly ahead of schedule I was buzzed by the first blowie of spring down here in Kambah on August 25.

Miss Piggy said that you shouldn't eat more than you can lift. Alan Joyce's remuneration should relate to the cash he can carry while sitting in an economy class Qantas seat.

The Kosciuszko National Park is a delicate ecosystem containing many vulnerable plants and endangered species. The NSW EPA recently issued penalty notices to contractors who polluted waterways in the park. The same waterways Brumbies are being scapegoated for. One group gets fined, the other one is to be killed.

To add to the discussion on the English language, my gripe is with disappearing adverbs. One often hears "eating healthy" instead of "eating healthily" as one example.

The Union Jack is the flag of a foreign country. That's why people object to its presence in the corner of our flag, not because of its Christian roots.

I don't know if any taxpayers' money would be saved by Albo flying commercial business class (Letters, August 30). Not at current fares when you add up the cost of the entourage he needs to take with him. Still, the up-side could be that Qantas wouldn't be game to cancel a flight out of Canberra if the PM were on board.

The high levels of scepticism about the Voice should have been anticipated. The issue is not the Voice itself; it's that as a result of bad experiences, people don't trust the government to carry it through. Confidence in politicians is at historic lows.