Pollies' Chairman's Lounge memberships conflict of interest

Do they also accept freebies from Virgin Australia, or any other airlines?

As a local government councillor in NSW, I would likely have been removed from office had I failed to declare an interest in, and remove myself from discussion and decision-making about, any issue that affected a person or organisation who had given me something worth thousands of dollars, even once never mind every year.

The Chairman's Lounge issue is probably the tip of the iceberg.

It certainly demonstrates the almost complete lack of controls on the integrity of our MPs and senators.

NSW local government is by no means perfect.

Many councillors fail to declare friendships and other connections that aren't easily detectable, knowing the chance of being caught is slim, and the benefits may outweigh the risks.

But it seems that standards in NSW councils are streets ahead of those of our parliaments.

On Sunday, Sydney Imam, Sheikh Ibrahim Dadoun, proclaimed his happiness and excitement at the unfolding events in Israel and praised the "bravery" of the Palestinian fighters.

I can't help but wonder if the God, who the Iman claims to serve, is equally impressed by the murder of unarmed men, women and children, the slaughter of innocent families as they huddled in their homes, and the machine gunning in the back of hundreds of music-goers fleeing the attacks.

Surely his God would be appalled that such atrocities were carried out in his name and would never admit those responsible into his paradise.

The Iman should return to his texts and learn the passages on Islam as the Religion of Peace, and read them, rather than hatred, to the protesters on the streets of Sydney.

I never thought that I would see the day when Hamas would violate the sovereignty of Israel.

Islamist terrorist squads have murdered and kidnapped innocent and unarmed civilians.

I suspect that the gates of hell will shortly open for those two million citizens who live on the Gaza Strip.

No nation state can tolerate such egregious behaviour.

I am deeply offended by the front page "advertisement" on Tuesday's The Canberra Times. It says that a vote for the Voice will bring on "Invoices" for the support of Indigenous communities and people who have been downtrodden since the arrival of the English in Sydney.

I say "bring it on." It is about time - way past time - we give our original people some real care and attention.

There will be a lot more than just invoices if the "naysayers" get their way.

I am an old white man and, literally, a blood brother since my young life. I have seen deprivation. I have seen my brother and his family pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make great contributions to the whole Australian community.

I have also seen dreadful waste perpetuated by white overlords with sneering attitudes. Whenever I see the naysaying politicians I shake with anger deep inside. We know who you are and we don't forget.

Advertisements urging a "no" vote funded by Clive Palmer have appeared in The Canberra Times. The questions are little more than scaremongering. The issues they raise have already been dismissed by numerous legal experts.

It is ironic that Mr Palmer assumes he can assert the privilege that comes with great wealth and have a personal voice to government while seeking to deny a voice to disadvantaged Indigenous Australians.

The penultimate line in the first ad says "All Australians should have an equal voice". One hopes that there will soon be legislation enacted to block such blatant misuse of private wealth to promote personal political agendas inhibiting such equality.

An ad, one-quarter the size of the front page of The Canberra Times, urges voters to vote "no". It asks "what comes after the voice".

A good question. But first who is paying for this ad? Clive Palmer the billionaire who famously spent more than $120 million not to win a seat at the last election.

So back to the question "what happens after the voice referendum?" Either a party like the "Same Sex Vote Party or shame and regret.

We can move forward in reconciliation or stand with the Clive Palmers. Choose wisely. Vote yes.

An anonymous gentleman responding to a "vox pop" in Yarralumla said he would vote "no", albeit reluctantly.

Why? Greeks and Italians had arrived, didn't have a special voice, and integrated just fine. Why can't our Indigenous peoples do the same?

How could he even make that comparison? Greeks, Italians and others came with the purpose of integrating into their new homeland.

Aboriginal people had been here for 65,000 years when Europeans arrived and said "this is ours now, you don't count".

They've had a very raw deal ever since.

Isn't it time we give them a voice and listen to what they want?

Some people are voting "no" because they believe it will make non-Indigenous people unequal to Indigenous people.

Did those same "no" voters oppose the Northern Territory intervention on the basis it did not treat Indigenous and non-Indigenous people equally? Is equality only an issue for them if Indigenous people are perceived to be receiving a benefit?

"Reason and emotion counsel and supplement each other. Whoever puts aside the one, and heeds only the other; recklessly deprives themselves of a portion of the aid granted us for the regulation of our conduct".

That is a great piece of wisdom from 18th century French soldier, essayist, and moralist, Luc de Clapiers - aka the Marquis de Vauvenargues. He was much admired by Voltaire. Surely such wisdom would be of great assistance to all those pondering the pros and cons of the proposed Voice which is proving such a conundrum for many.

Mr Dutton's antipathy to voting without the detail can only leave one to think he would have voted against Federation, a sketchy promise of a better future.

Pity he is without vision and hope in the Voice.

Your editorial "American politics just got even weirder" (October 6) asserted that "the peacemakers, despite scriptural assertions to the contrary, are seldom blessed".

It is highly unusual to read a claim that Jesus was mistaken.

So it's only fair to point out that the blessings Jesus referred to are not of this world (power, wealth, and prestige).

Rather, they are spiritual kind - a deep sense of inner peace, contentment, fulfilment and a greater sense of purpose.

In this realm the peacemakers are always blessed, here and now.

Indeed, there is no greater blessing, for both giver and recipient, than to genuinely wish another peace.

I ask all electors to vote "no" in the referendum to avoid the creation of an undemocratic enclave representing a tiny percentage of Australian people with unspecified influence over decisions made by current and future governments.

The Voice will never be results driven because if it was members would do themselves out of a job. The danger is a Voice would generate issues that can never be resolved.

While we are multicultural, we are all Australian. The Voice would divide us by race for as long as it existed.

On Saturday, if you do what you have always done, you will get what you always got. Take a chance, Australia.

Re: Israel and Palestine. Here we go again.

Clearly Israel's intelligence and security apparatus was caught napping, a very dangerous thing to do considering the neighbours they have.

The knee-jerk reaction of the US and vassal states such as Australia to Palestinian retaliation against 75 years of dispossession at gunpoint demonstrates their attitude to the conflict in Ukraine has nothing whatever to do with justice and respect for international law, just prejudice and geopolitical despotism. You can't pick and choose on questions of principle.

I wholeheartedly agree with Gil May (Letters, October 9). Not only is the Voice voting card question misleading and unconstitutional, it is also an affront to a voter's intelligence . By only partially asking the question it is in effect giving preferential treatment to the Voice and that, together with the controversial "tick" is unconstitutional and unfair in my view.

I expect a boost in the "no" vote from virtue-signallers including celebrities who have concealed their true intent in pre-polling. Once in the privacy and anonymity of the polling booth, they will be able to happily, and with a clear conscience, write "no".

If the "no" campaign's arguments persuade you to reject the Voice would they also persuade you to reject the constitution?

No Mark Sproat (Letters, October 8) John Farnham will not be crying himself to sleep. He graciously approved the use of You're the Voice for the "yes" campaign. He said "I can only hope that now it might help, in some small way, to change the lives of our first nations peoples for the better".

I agree with Marilyn Quirk (Letters, October 8) that the assertions of the Voice are not benign. Albanese calls it a "modest request". However, he refuses to provide the detail. He will divide the nation by race.

People say that if the Voice gets up and we change the constitution it's virtually impossible to change it back. Why? If we can have a referendum to add something, we could have one to take something away.

I have to support Greg Cornwell's statement (Letters, October 6) that other countries have no interest in Australia's referendum. I watch a Spanish news program daily to keep up language skills. The Voice referendum has never been mentioned.

We should vote "no" to anything promoted by the ABC, Qantas, big business, big government and big banks.