Constitutional principles are not challenged by the Voice

Ms Clegg’s fears therefore have no foundation to claim that the Voice will be “a novel advisory arm of government” or will have an “impact” on the division of public power currently exercised by the parliament, the executive and the judiciary.

Ms Clegg goes on to pose many serious questions which she contends remain unanswered concerning the Voice, but they all rely on the premises that it will be a “new arm of government” and will have an “unconstrained ‘positive’ right … to make representations”. As I have outlined, these premises are just unsupported fearmongering.

Derek Norquay, Pelican Waters, Qld

Plenty of vacuums to be filled

I was disappointed to read that a reason some are voting No is out of anger, and a reaction to the government’s perceived focus on constitutional recognition of a Voice for First Nations people rather than on the cost of living (“Albanese to focus on energy policy after the Voice vote”, October 3).

Craig Emerson is right to remind us that the government has a huge agenda, not least of which is filling the climate change vacuum left by the previous government. But it’s not the only vacuum.

Anthony Albanese’s focus on the Voice is a commendable effort to complete the reconciliation and recognition process started in a bipartisan fashion by Tony Abbott and Bill Shorten eight years ago.

Let’s hope all Australians on October 14 can rise above their personal concerns and vote Yes, moving the country forward rather than nowhere, or even backward.

Ray Peck, Hawthorn, Vic

Constitutional myths repeated

Shireen Morris repeats two deeply entrenched myths about Indigenous Australians and the country’s constitutional arrangements (“Even the recent past is a reminder of why we need a Voice”, September 29).

Under Section 41 of the Constitution, Aborigines who had the vote in the states at federation, which was most states, automatically had the right to vote federally. The 1962 law simply extended that right to the recalcitrant states.

Section 25 does not contemplate banning races from voting. It works with Section 24 to punish any state that introduces race-based voting by depriving it of seats in the House of Representatives in proportion to the number of people excluded from voting. The removal of section 25 would not take away the capacity of states to enact racially discriminatory voting provisions, but it would remove the punishment they would face for doing so.

Chris Curtis, Hurstbridge, Vic

Super’s unfair hit on the young

Well might Garry Weaven say superannuation funds must help solve the housing affordability crisis (“Why the rebound in housing prices is bad news for super funds”, October 2). Never have young people wishing to create their own family been so constrained by a compulsory commitment to direct such a large share of their take-home pay so early in their lives towards providing for their retirement when, by a country mile, the greatest financial priority facing them at this stage in their lives is to buy their first house.

Of course, this early and relatively out-sized commitment is not the only factor at work. But its impact is real and strong – so much so that it’s high time for common sense to prevail across all sides of politics by recognising the priorities as they apply to young families and acting accordingly – always remembering that the monies in question are the property of the members and not of the super funds.

It is not beyond the wit of industry funds and others to provide timely payouts not only for pensions in retirement but also for our young and vital “up and comers” to assist funding of their first house. More emphasis on fund liquidity and less on chasing (marginal/illusional) higher returns through investing in private (non-listed) markets would seem to be a good place to start.

Rob Little, Cheltenham, Vic

Rein in the Wallabies woe

Why this torrential outpouring of gloom and doom bewailing the Wallabies near-ousting from Rugby World Cup (“‘Walking dead’ Wallabies wait on fate after beating Portugal”, October 2)?

Australia’s two-time rugby union world champions may just be naturally bottoming through the peak-trough cycle that all sports teams endure. In boxing terms, the Wallabies have been down for the count for a prolonged period.

I take hope from soccer’s deposed superpowers. Germany, the 2014 World Cup men’s soccer champions, did not make it out of their group in 2022. Brazil, five-time champions, also underperformed. Worst of all, four-time world champions Italy have not qualified for the World Cup in its past two editions.

Fans unfairly expect the Wallabies to have a deep run at every RWC and not to stumble early. Commentators need to dial down the recrimination of unrealistically pregnant ambition. Winning and losing are cyclical. Future Wallabies will rise from the ashes – it’s just a matter of when they wake up from the coma of underperformance.

Joseph Ting, Carina, Qld

Please explain, Jim

Treasurer Jim Chalmers says fuel excise won’t be lowered, despite petrol being a current cause of higher inflation (“RBA squeezed by oil, spending, $A shocks”, September 29). He says there are other ways to reduce the cost of living by rolling out “billions of cost-of-living support”.

Jim, tell us what these cost-of-living measures are instead of continually making vague statements.

John McLennan, Caulfield South, Vic

Captives of ideological inclination

Congratulations to John Kehoe for his timely piece on market economy critics (“Market economy critics have no better way to lift incomes”, September 21).

History proves neo-liberals right on economic and fiscal reforms and social-democrats on social and environmental reforms.

Pity neither left nor right accepts the evidence where its ideological inclination is wrong.

Progressives find it hard accepting economic and financial realties while conservatives struggle to support social progress and the environment.

That’s the iron law of Australian politics.

Percy Allan, Balmain East, NSW