Proposed constitutional change 'sensible and necessary' says Leader reader

I appreciate her view that constitutional change should only happen in 'exceptional circumstances' but I believe that benchmark is met and that 'constitutional conservatism' should not be allowed to become a barrier to sensible and necessary reform.

It is the case that the constitution was framed on the implied assumption of terra nullius. It's a long time since the fallacy of this concept has been disavowed. Our courts and our laws now recognise degrees of ownership and sovereignty of this land for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It is surely past time that the Constitution catches up and reflects this reality and the consequences of colonial settlement, including the treatment of the original custodians of this land and the moral imperative for a new approach to closing the gap.

I note the three-fold position Ms Ware has quoted as an alternative to the proposal by the First Nations Referendum Working Group (which is the subject of the government's proposed legislation). it is hard to see how it improves on the current proposal.

Commitment to supporting recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as Australia's First People in our constitution.

Commitment to local and regional bodies to deliver better outcomes for Indigenous Australians, particularly in remote communities.

A legislated (rather than constitutionally enshrined) national body developed on a bipartisan basis in advance of the referendum.

At its core, the only substantive difference in the Liberal's alternative proposal appears to be a refusal to countenance the Voice being enshrined in the Constitution.

Constitutional enshrinement is a foundational feature of the Voice proposal. It is a cornerstone outcome of the lengthy and comprehensive consultation process which culminated in the Statement from the Heart - to reject it is, in my view, unconscionable. It once again tells indigenous people that 'we know best what will work for you' ... an approach which has abjectly failed over more than a century.

We know that there have been a number of indigenous advice bodies and structures legislated by different governments over the years. Without exception, they have been removed by subsequent governments. Little wonder then that the Referendum Working Group sees constitutional enshrinement of the Voice as a non-negotiable element of the Statement from the Heart. Still, the proposed referendum wording leaves ample scope for the government of the day to legislate its structure, scope and powers ... this seems to be an eminently fair and generous proposition.

Sadly, the Liberal Party has not provided any clear justification for the refusal to countenance constitutional enshrinement although various reasons are floated or hinted at in different quarters.

In any event, it is surely a good thing that our court system provides oversight of government and executive exercise of constitutional powers. It seems to have been the only thing that rescued thousands of Australians from being - illegally - financially persecuted by the last government!

Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders are to be recognised in the constitution, not because of their race, but because they are uniquely the first inhabitants and custodians of the lands which we now call Australia. And the Voice does not elevate First Nations people ahead of other Australians based on race; rather, it seeks to provide a better mechanism to 'level the playing field' and make amends for the injustices and consequences of the past (which post-colonial Australians do not suffer). It is akin to the way we make adjustments to help people with disability participate fully in society.

Moreover, recognition allows all Australians equal, shared ownership of the full - 50,000+ year - history of this country including the oldest surviving cultures in the world - rather than just the last 250 years. It is truly a gift.

Incidentally, the continued references by Mr Dutton and Ms Ley to the "Canberra voice" and "Albanese's voice" ignore the fact that the proposal is the culmination of a long process over several years of indigenous-led consultation with thousands of participants across remote, regional and urban areas of the country. The government, to its credit, seeks to put the referendum proposal to the people exactly as it has been brought forward by the First Nations process and the Referendum Working Group.

Moreover, Mr Dutton's dismissive references deriding the Voice as just "a group of academics" insults indigenous leaders who have devoted years to working through the issues and supporting their communities. Coming, as it did mere days after the tragically untimely death of Yunupingu, one of the most important and consequential indigenous leaders of our time, was unworthy of an alternate prime minister.

After a few visits to regional or remote areas, Mr Dutton relies on an unnamed elder(s) who may have doubts about the Voice but casually dismisses thousands who participated in a years-long consultation process and polls showing that 80% of First Nations people support the current proposal. At least one of those elders (Geraldine Hogarth) has contradicted Mr Dutton.

"He (Mr Dutton) said: 'Geraldine, I advise you to go for it, say yes, [because] you might have to wait for the next 100-plus years for another referendum,' she said"

The Voice debate is far too important for senior politicians to mislead, distort the issues and sow partisan discord in order to derail the referendum.

It's been said that John Howard broke the nation's heart when the republic referendum in 1999 failed; I fear that Peter Dutton will break the nation's soul if he successfully derails this referendum. Certainly, the cause of reconciliation will be put back for generations.

K M McGuinness, Illawong

HAVE YOUR SAY: leaderletters@theleader.com.au