Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n <\/span>Credit: <\/span>Illustration: Matt Golding<\/cite><\/p>\n To submit a letter to The Age<\/em>, email letters@theage.com.au. Please include your home address and telephone number below your letter. No attachments. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published.<\/strong><\/p>\n Amid all the post-referendum analysis one point has been consistently overlooked: the biggest loser of the exercise may yet prove to be Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.<\/p>\n Of course Dutton has outmanoeuvred his opponent, the prime minister, and helped ensure defeat of the Voice referendum. In doing so he has emphatically brought down the curtain on what remained of a surprisingly protracted honeymoon for Anthony Albanese. But in reaching that victory there was an opportunity thrown away. Whenever anyone ascends to a new, highly responsible and demanding role there is the possibility that they will surprise us with hitherto unseen depths and unexpected talents. That applies to prime ministers, premiers, ship\u2019s captains, police sergeants, newspaper editors, school principals, chief executives and countless others. People can surprise. Even the least appealing candidates can grow into a role.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s remember that Dutton is the man who walked out of parliament rather than listen to the apology to the stolen generations. He arrived as opposition leader with much baggage.<\/p>\n Had Dutton embraced the Voice, which after all was a concept developed under successive Liberal governments, it would have been at odds with everything expected of him. Coming at the end of a decade of bitter, polarised politics that began with Tony Abbott\u2019s period as opposition leader, a bipartisan approach to the Voice would have been welcomed across the political spectrum.<\/p>\n Had he done that, Dutton would have surprised us, leaving us to think \u2033\u2063there is more to this bloke than we thought … maybe he could grow into a bigger person than he has shown so far\u2033\u2063. Voters in those teal seats that appear to have remained firmly in the Yes camp would have been given cause to remain open to returning to the Liberal Party. Dutton could have heralded a new era distinct from our entrenched political warfare and lack of co-operation in which opposition was not as fixed as a knee reflex. But he didn\u2019t. He is just the man we thought him to be. That is his loss. Credible claims<\/strong> Truth in advertising<\/strong> More broadly, misinformation in political advertising is a blight on our society. Claims ought to be true, and penalties applied if they are not. If I buy a $500 item I have consumer protection; if I vote in a referendum that affects my life and those of future generations of Australians there is none. Why not? PM\u2019s blunders<\/strong> Colourblind rules Second, the mainstream mercifully demonstrated that it cannot be bullied or bought by the moralising corporate elites, self-righteous big businesses or the preachy sporting bodies, who felt that due to the size of their combined bank balances, they had the right to tell the wider populace what to think and do. That is not a healthy attitude towards fellow voters.<\/p>\n Instead, Australia rightly held the line in nationally declaring that what ultimately matters in changing one\u2019s fortunes is not yet more administration, but agency and aspiration. Practical solutions<\/strong> They might just have got bipartisan, in fact unanimous, parliamentary support and not a word of complaint from Jacinta Nampijinpa Price or Warren Mundine et al. Public support would likely be in the 90 per cent range (just like the 1967 referendum). Obviously I am off with the pixies because the KPIs in play were not outcomes for Indigenous Australians but public attention on senior Yes advocates and other activists. Still confused<\/strong> Week of mourning<\/strong> State of shock<\/strong> Indigenous Australians must be allowed to mourn and come to terms with the fact that their hand of friendship has been left outstretched. Recognition and reconciliation will now be replaced by audits, inquiries and committees, again. Living in harmony<\/strong> It will enlighten most, and go some way towards ending the silly racial prejudices and division in this country. Details were there<\/strong> Deep unease<\/strong> Fair go<\/strong> Still out of touch<\/strong> Misplaced criticism<\/strong> Does it affect me?<\/strong> Finding humanity<\/strong> Pressure to partake<\/strong> Water wars<\/strong> Can we help the river and maintain this scale of industry? No. We cannot continue to deplete nature for our economic benefit. This is a classic illustration of the saying, attributed to Mark Twain, that, \u201cwhisky is for drinking and water is for fighting over\u201d. <\/p>\n <\/span>Credit: <\/span>Illustration: Matt Golding<\/cite><\/p>\n The Voice<\/strong> I can\u2019t help but wonder what the No side actually thinks they\u2019ve achieved? Obviously Peter Dutton\u2019s offer to have a second referendum to recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution was a non-core promise. Didn\u2019t know, so didn\u2019t grow. The referendum just confirms that we really are a nation divided not just between First Nations people and the rest but between city and country. Forty-five per cent of Victoria voted Yes, 32 per cent of Queenslanders did. What are we doing in the same federation? I agree with your correspondent who suggests we shouldn\u2019t sulk about the referendum result (Letters, 17\/10). That doesn\u2019t mean we aren\u2019t allowed to be bitterly disappointed, though.POLITICS<\/h3>\n
Ian Munro, Albert Park<\/strong><\/p>\n
How many people voted against the idea of the Voice thinking they could vote yes for Dutton\u2019s First Nations inclusion in the next referendum (\u201cDutton promises another vote if Indigenous Voice fails\u201d, 3\/9) only to discover this idea withdrawn (\u201cBruised PM silent on next steps for treaty\u201d, 17\/10) after the vote?
Ludi Servadei, Malvern East<\/strong><\/p>\n
During the Brexit vote, one of the key arguments was that the NHS would benefit by hundreds of millions of pounds annually. The day after the vote, Nigel Farage, who had pushed this point, admitted it was not true and there would be no extra money for the NHS (Brexit has subsequently cost the British economy billions). At least Peter Dutton waited two days before admitting he would not support a second referendum, despite offering that as an incentive to those who say they want constitutional recognition, but not a Voice.<\/p>\n
Louise Kloot, Doncaster<\/strong><\/p>\n
Anthony Albanese\u2019s time as prime minister has been marked by three major policy blunders \u2013 the $370billion AUKUS nuclear submarines deal, the commitment to stage three tax cuts for high-income earners, costing $313billion over 10 years, and the Voice referendum debacle. All three of these policies were initiated by Liberal federal governments. If the Australian people had wanted Liberal Party policies then Scott Morrison would still be prime minister. If Albanese is wondering what his next steps should be, he could start by acting like a Labor PM and scrap the AUKUS deal and stage three tax cuts.
Peter Martina, Warrnambool<\/strong><\/p>\nTHE FORUM<\/h3>\n
Now that the dust is settling on what was at times a remarkably divisive and contentious referendum, both sides will indeed enter a season of due introspection about their respective campaigns.
Two key points to take away: First, the voting patterns unequivocally demonstrate that there is now a clear and present social demarcation between the more affluent inner-city enclaves and the outer suburbs. For a host of reasons, new migrants and established communities away from the niche coffee shop and artisan baker strips decided not to amend our nation\u2019s colourblind rule book. It was a vote for universal equality under the law, regardless of your heritage or background.<\/p>\n
Peter Waterhouse, Craigieburn<\/strong><\/p>\n
Imagine, if you will, that the federal government allocated $130 million to a set of test case housing, hospital and education projects in remote areas with associated skills training programs, emphasis on local Indigenous labour and say prefabrication to speed up implementation and a few million more to promote the projects and promise more of the same based upon the lessons learnt etc.<\/p>\n
Mike Seward, Port Fairy<\/strong><\/p>\n
Now finally, after what can only now be described as a painful if not reprehensible period in our nation\u2019s brief history we find ourselves even more confused. Definitely divided, and in a sort of opaque trance, wondering where to now. The Yes-ers blame the No-ers, and vice versa, and nobody is celebrating. The Indigenous flag is at half-mast and their constituency are largely sad, along with a good portion of the voting public. What has been achieved after more than a decade of what was intended to be a bipartisan compact of \u201cClosing the gap\u201d? Nonsense and more nonsense it appears was the cause of this tragic failure. The cause, however, remains honest and true.
Keith Brown, Southbank<\/strong><\/p>\n
The decision by Indigenous leaders to retreat for a week of mourning (\u201cYes campaigners started to draft vow of silence statement before polls closed\u201d, 17\/10) exhibits a sophistication and humility that is to be applauded. Their ability to contemplate and reflect before taking action is one of the many reasons they have survived for 65,000 years. We can learn so much from them.
Mark Hulls, Sandringham<\/strong><\/p>\n
It is disappointing that your correspondent (\u201cDemocratic right\u201d, 17\/10) sees fit to do a victory lap while accusing Yes supporters of sulking. With Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price claiming that colonisation has had a positive impact on Indigenous Australians, and Warren Mundine stating that the Uluru Statement was a declaration of war, Indigenous Australians are in shock, and Yes campaigners wondering how such statements were allowed to enter mainstream media with little scrutiny.<\/p>\n
Doug Shaw, Sunbury<\/strong><\/p>\n
Australians should be strongly encouraged to live in Indonesia for six months. It is there they will clearly see and experience the harmonious, heartening integration of indigenous culture with Muslim, Christian and Hindu religions and cultures.<\/p>\n
James Henshall, Richmond<\/strong><\/p>\n
Those correspondents insisting there were justifications for voting No (\u201cNo shame in voting No to an ill-judged referendum\u201d, 17\/10) need to be challenged. Claiming there was insufficient information ignores the detailed report that the Coalition government (including Dutton) received and accepted years ago. Claiming that it was a threat to the Constitution ignores the advice of the vast majority of the country\u2019s most senior jurists. Claiming that it was Albanese\u2019s referendum ignores the detailed, consultative work done over many years by First Nations leaders.
Peter McPhee, Abbotsford<\/strong><\/p>\n
I suspect a large percentage of the No vote was triggered by a deep uneasiness about being reminded how Indigenous people have been treated since settlement and an unwillingness to accept any responsibility because that is really awkward. Australia has been a deeply divided country since its inception.
Linelle Gibson, Williamstown<\/strong><\/p>\n
Your correspondent asks how The Age could initially publish so many letters on the referendum without any hailing the result (\u201cOut of touch?, 17\/10). As a reader and occasional contributor to the Letters page, I believe the answer is fairly simple: The Age and most of its readership is in touch with thoughtfulness, decency, morality, the concept of a \u201cfair go\u201d, and they did not choose to celebrate what is a disastrous outcome for Australia.
Ian Usman Lewis, Kentucky, NSW<\/strong><\/p>\n
The recent history of Age readers who were out of touch includes those who knew climate change is real, those who knew that Mabo and the Apology would destroy our way of life, and those who knew that marriage equality was right.
Paula O\u2019Brien, St Kilda<\/strong><\/p>\n
Criticism of Anthony Albanese for proceeding with the Voice referendum is misplaced. He fulfilled a promise to put to the Australian people a request from Indigenous Australians made after an extensive consultative process and supported by a large majority of Indigenous Australians at the time. It was a simple, moderate proposal. Indeed, polling in August last year after draft wording of the amendment was released showed 65 per cent saying Yes given a binary choice.
Tony Ralston, Balwyn North<\/strong><\/p>\n
During the same-sex marriage plebiscite, as a heterosexual male I knew that the outcome would not impact me personally but would benefit gay and lesbian Australians enormously. So I, along with many other heterosexual Australians, voted Yes. As a non-Indigenous Australian the Voice would also not impact me personally but would be the beginning of positive change for our Indigenous Australians, so I also voted Yes. It\u2019s difficult to understand why more did not see it the same way.
David Parker, Geelong West<\/strong><\/p>\n
In 1937, Japanese journalist Genzaburo Yoshino wrote How Do You Live?, a story of a young boy and his relationship with his uncle in the absence of his deceased father. It\u2019s great for young readers, encouraging independent thought, standing up for others and friendship. At the end, the young boy demonstrates his appreciation to his uncle, and his personal maturity, in a written note: \u201cI think there has to come a time when everyone in the world treats each other as if they were good friends. Since humanity has come so far, I think now we will definitely be able to make it such a place. So I think I want to become a person who can help that happen.\u201d
Simon Williamson, Footscray<\/strong><\/p>\n
As a former teetotaller and now an occasional drinker, it was wonderful to read the social pressure and irritation felt by a committed drinker when friends suggested she cut back or stop (Comment, 15\/9). I cannot tell you how many times I was asked with great suspicion \u201cwhy don\u2019t you drink?\u201c, wine was poured assuming I would pick up the glass, or it was inferred I didn\u2019t like parties. It was relentless. This went on for 40 years of my life. Now people are waking up to the idea the cost, health issues and boring conversation of drunks are maybe not worth a drink.
Geoffrey Conaghan, St Kilda<\/strong><\/p>\n
There is irony in the heading of your article about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan (\u201cState heads for deep water\u201d, 17\/10). The Victorian government is opposing the Commonwealth\u2019s intention to buy more water from irrigators to supplement river flows, to in effect ensure sufficient \u201cdeep water\u201d. It has long been apparent the health of Australia\u2019s largest river system and its many precious water-dependent species, are suffering because too much water has been extracted. But it is also true that a large irrigation industry, and the communities it supports, have become dependent on that water.<\/p>\n
Ian Penrose, Kew<\/strong><\/p>\nAND ANOTHER THING<\/strong><\/h3>\n
<\/p>\n
How long must we live in the fairytale world which says, \u201cthe Australian people always get it right\u201d. That statement doesn\u2019t help any of us understand what\u2019s being debated now or in the future.
Sue Littleford, Clifton Springs<\/strong><\/p>\n
Michael Carver, Hawthorn East<\/strong><\/p>\n
Eric Butcher, Eltham<\/strong><\/p>\n
David Jones, Essendon<\/strong><\/p>\n
Terry Kelly, Coburg<\/strong><\/p>\n
Tony Haydon, Springvale<\/strong><\/p>\n
Brian Collins, Cardigan<\/strong><\/p>\n