Bert Hetebry writes: After years of having the Uluru Statement from the Heart available to read and doing nothing, Tony Abbott’s appeal to start over is a call to keep on doing nothing (“Tony Abbott asks Voice committee to ‘pull’ referendum proposal and start over”).
Robert Morgan writes: Abbott has told a parliamentary committee the Voice would be a “mistake” because it would give “about 4% of the population” a greater say in government affairs than “everyone else”. Well this may be news to him, but we already have lobbyists who have a far greater say in government affairs and policies than an Indigenous Voice to Parliament could ever hope for.
Colin Ross writes: Presumably Abbott will now turn his attention to banning paid lobbyists who give “special interest groups” a greater say in government affairs than “everybody else”.
John Illingworth writes: There are very few people who have the credentials and credibility of Abbott when it comes to considering issues relating to Australia and its Indigenous people. Not only has he represented Australia as prime minister, and as minister for Indigenous affairs, he has spent long periods on numerous occasions living with many different Indigenous peoples.
The fact that so much effort has been put into censoring Abbott from expressing his views in Parliament and media and social media tells us everything we need to know about the honesty and integrity of the campaign to rewrite our constitution with the addition of the Voice.
Francis Lamb writes: What is the point of having a voice if no one listens? If Abbott can be prevented from speaking so too can activists for the Yes vote. If the referendum debate is truly about listening, all points of view should be welcomed so genuine consensus can be reached.
Kerry Lovering writes: The committee is said to have legal experts and Indigenous people but there doesn’t seem to be any ordinary Australians. Is Abbott the only person to be called to discuss the ramifications of what appears to be a special group of people who make up less than 4% of the population? Would the committee consider the same sort of provisions for the disabled community which is far more than 4%?
I am sure almost all Australians would vote for an acknowledgment of the First Nations peoples, but they are ordinary Australians like all of us. They compete in sport and politics and have access to an excellent education — as we all do. Healthcare should be improved for all Australians. It should not be the job of the constitution to make special provisions for anyone based on race as this Voice would seem to do.
Debra Moen writes: I have no interest in anything Abbott, a private citizen currently employed by the UK government, has to say. It is outrageous that the committee felt the need to offer him a platform for his abhorrent views.
Richard Thompson writes: I am not the slightest bit interested in anything that Abbott has to say about the Voice. From his time as leader of the opposition and then prime minister he has wrought a path of destruction never seen in my long lifetime by any politician. I would be very happy to see him return to his place of birth and involve himself permanently in something — anything — there.
Peter Kulikowski writes: I don’t have a problem with Abbott being silenced. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but I find his opinions very righteous. The history of his anti-same-sex marriage stance is a good example because it certainly didn’t represent the views of his electorate. And he initially pushed the idea of the Voice but his successor Liberal leader has changed the concept of how it was interpreted.
Jim FitzSimons writes: The man who spoke regularly to George Pell while PM is worried that a small section of society would have a greater say in government than everyone else?
Marinus van der Kooij writes: Of course Abbott should be heard. Freedom of opinion must be from both sides. So for balance, he should have his say — whether you like what he says or not.
Marc Carter writes: Imagine anyone trying to silence Abbott — hell will freeze over first. The key takeaway from his intervention is that if Abbott is against the Voice then it must be a good idea and hopefully the majority of Australians will vote Yes.
Marilyn Hoban writes: Tony Abbott is not being gagged (“All the places humble citizen Tony Abbott finds himself silenced”). He has a multitude of outlets that will print his misinformed and colonial views on First Nations peoples. But he is very aware that a Senate inquiry gives him a wider platform. Now a private citizen, I think he is suffering from relevance deprivation.
Geoff Bower writes: The attempts to “gag” Abbott speaking out against the proposed Voice to Parliament are entirely appropriate in my opinion. As he confessed publicly: he is not the suppository of all knowledge; his philosophy on death in the service of an American military adventure in Afghanistan is that “shit happens”; his dietary tendency to eat raw onions without peeling them has been well documented. All these emphasise his alimentary unsuitability to comment on important matters.
