The "no" campaign and Peter Dutton have a lot to answer for

It is crude, simplistic and plain wrong. Dutton is a dud. A Voice to gain equitable access to the needs for raising the overall standard of living of Indigenous Australians to the levels of non-Indigenous Australians is long overdue. It is also desperately needed.

There is a real need for the Parliament and executive government to listen to the advice and recommendations received on policy and programs from the Voice.

The government of the day will decide what advice is accepted or rejected.

The referendum is only about the principle of the establishment of the Voice and its inclusion in the constitution.

The mechanisms for its implementation will be determined by the Parliament.

The unworldly views of misinformed and self-aggrandising "no" campaigners are well recognised.

The referendum is about equity for all Australians.

The Voice will go a long way to closing the gap in critical areas for Indigenous Australians.

Parliamentarians have forced division upon the nation through their poorly considered Voice proposal. They should have known better than to break the rules of public relations.

Firstly, don't ask the question without knowing the answer. MPs instead pushed ahead with a proposal that only initially enjoyed popular support.

Secondly, under-promise and over-deliver. The proposal is full of unrealistic expectations for struggling Indigenous communities that will not be achieved.

Thirdly, never take people by surprise. Yet we've seen one embarrassing revelation after another, including the risk to representative government and parliamentary sovereignty.

After tallying the expected miserable result of zero out of six states on referendum night it can only be hoped our leaders will learn their lessons.

One example of the benefits of a Voice can be seen in NSW where there are already a number of regional Aboriginal "Voices" under the NSW local decision-making policy.

These are regional Aboriginal governance bodies who advise the NSW government on priorities in their region.

During COVID-19 the existing emergency management structures were not equipped to respond to Aboriginal community needs on such a large scale.

The regional Voice, the Three Rivers Regional Assembly, was invited to the table and gave advice on how to inform Aboriginal people in the Dubbo region about COVID and on how achieve a high rate of vaccination.

Their volunteers worked alongside police and health workers.

This success has been acknowledged by the NSW government.

Having Aboriginal people at the table changed the authorities' messaging and approach - and it worked.

So too can a national Voice.

I was pleased to see your Voice referendum explainer in the October 11 edition.

Like you, I deplore wilful ignorance as represented by that awful slogan you so rightly amended on your front page to "If you don't know then find out".

The trouble is early voting opened on October 5. By now, a great many people have already voted.

Your explainer should have been published well over a week ago.

Your recent and excellent explainer of the referendum mentions that "no" voters may see the constitution as belonging equally to all Australians.

Australian politics is not entirely based on equality. Just think of the balance of power that Tasmanians often enjoy in the Senate.

We will soon know the result of the referendum and it is assumed that the majority always get it right.

One test will be to compare the national vote to polling booths that have predominantly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island electors participating.

I would be interested to learn where these polling booths are and how they voted. Note polling booths, not electorates.

The APY Lands in South Australia, the Tiwi Islands in the Northern Territory, Palm and the Murray Islands in Queensland all come in mind. And what about booths in regional Western Australia?

Voting "yes" at the local, regional and national level offers a fresh system, a new start with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders directly advising the politicians we choose on improving life expectancy, reducing prison rates, and increasing access to education, employment and alleviating housing overcrowding.

Surely this is a better approach.

The recognition bit is that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have inherent rights arising from their unique status as Australia's first peoples. This is consistent with international human rights law.

Recognition has long been achieved in countries we identify with including New Zealand and Canada.

I've enjoyed the company of lots of our First Australians, playing footy together as kids, workmates, out in the bush and special time with David Gulpilil, learning a lot along the way.

"Yes" makes for an even better and more inclusive Australia.

Amending the constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as our First Nations and provide them with an advisory (not decision making) Voice cannot and will not adversely affect me.

It will, I believe, have the positive effect for our First Nations peoples of making them feel recognised and respected. It will also hopefully lead to better health and wellbeing outcomes.

In 2007 PM John Howard said it was time for constitutional recognition. In 2014 PM Tony Abbott asked First Nations people to advise on what form that should take.

In 2017 they responded with the Uluru Statement. They requested the right to be consulted on matters that affect them.

The proposed constitutional amendment would give effect to the request which has the support of over 80 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

Voting "yes" is not about feeling guilty about the past. It is about acknowledging the reality and legacy of the past, and the ongoing disadvantage many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders suffer.

My dilemma on Saturday night will be whether to tune into my ABC to watch its commentators don ashes and sackcloth, and set their hair on fire. There will be weeping, and wailing, and much gnashing of teeth.

Or do I switch to Sky and witness the popping of champagne corks, dancing on tables, and scenes of unbridled joy?

Angela Kueter-Luks (Letters, October 10) worries about a young shop assistant not knowing anything about the constitution.

I'm much more concerned that so many older Australians are just as uninformed.

Even more worrying is that they will be voting on Saturday without having bothered to find out.

However Angela votes, to her credit it is clear she will have made up her mind from a more informed base than far too many others.

What on earth possessed the "yes" campaign to roll out Ray Martin in the hope he would assist their divisive campaign? I thought they wanted to win the referendum.

Ray is somewhat of a dinosaur in contemporary Australian media. He really belongs to a bygone era. To make things worse, on mainstream media he appeared to claim that the referendum proposal was not political.

Sorry Ray. It has always been political. After decades in the media if you don't know what is political then do your research.

Reasons people cite for voting against the Voice are rooted in a belief white people know what's best for Indigenous people. Recognition in the constitution, through a permanent advisory body, was requested by Indigenous people.

This resulted from a lengthy process of consultation involving thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Not everyone agreed but this was the position settled on by a large majority.

Who are we to think that we know better? I'm voting "yes".

I expected better from someone of Ray Martin's standing. But then this seems to be par for the course for the "yes" mob when things are not going their way. Imagine what he is going to be like if the "no" vote prevails.

I find it interesting that the survival of the indigenous people of Palestine is of less interest to Anthony Albanese than a shuffle sideways in our country.

Don't be an idiot and vote "no" if you don't know. Find out before you decide which way you are going to vote.

It's a simple decision we all have to make. Vote "yes" to go forward together.

I'm disappointed the PM has ruled out legislating the Voice if there is a "no" vote on Saturday. He has spent many months telling us the status quo means more failure and we need a Voice to achieve real change. How can he reconcile this with walking away?

Angela Kueter-Luks (Letters, October 10) may be interested to know the pocket edition of the Australian constitution can be purchased from the Parliamentary Education Office for $3 which includes postage. I am purchasing a copy now in the hope that there may be an amendment to it soon.

"No" campaigners rant and rave about the farcical idea 3.8 per cent of Australia's population could disadvantage the other 96.2 per cent financially, legally and psychologically. "Yes" voters just want the 3.8 per cent to be heard on matters that affect them. It's that simple.

Michael Olinder (Letters, October 10), people are listening but all they hear is discord. Therefore they seek sounds of harmony through the lens of their political persuasion. A Voice elected by Indigenous communities should ensure politicians of all persuasions hear everything from bass to soprano.

Hey, Eric Hunter and Peter McLoughlin (Letters, October 10), take it easy on Greg Cornwall's pointing out discourse on the Voice has hardly flooded the international media. I often have a giggle myself when some pious prodnose occasionally claims voting "no" will ruin our international reputation.

Pope's cartoon The Cycle of Violence (October 11) is simply brilliant.

"A proposed law: To alter the constitution to ensure Peter Dutton is never allowed to open his mouth again. Do you approve of this proposed alteration?"