To The Australian Robert Tickner is merely the latest advocate of "indigenous" constitutional recognition to repeat a set of unconvincing assertions ("Indigenous voice to Parliament 'can't fail'", 10/10). Claims that a constitutionally entrenched "voice" to Parliament would not amount to a "third chamber" miss the point that it would inevitably place undue pressure on politicians and easily be given greater powers in the future. The phrase "closing the gap" also needs to be challenged. What if that gap cannot be closed in the foreseeable future for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with constitutional recognition? Is the phrase itself a wooden horse? As for the need to hear "the aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people", we hear these already every day through the mass media. The “greatest social justice issue in our country” is not Aboriginal disadvantage but the growth of poverty generally with increased homelessness.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic