to THE AUSTRALIAN
How amazing to learn that a law professor was able to persuade some netball parents in five minutes that the indigenous ‘voice’ to Parliament should be supported (‘Pollies, not people, the real obstacle’, 3/11)! How could the rest of us not see that it’s all so simple? It’s odd, however, that nowhere in Rosalind Dixon’s statement can we find a single reasoned argument justifying the proposed change.
By contrast, Simon Breheny (‘Decision on “indigenous voice” a big win for liberal democracy’) gives us at least six such arguments to justify the Government’s decision. The most important of these is that any ‘advisory’ voice does not need to be constitutionally enshrined. Adequate recognition can be achieved without any tampering with the Constitution.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic