Dear Editor,
I agree with the thrust of Geoffrey Yeo’ letter to you where, now having read the Electoral Office leaflet covering the Yes/No vote, I see the ‘Yes’ vote side of the argument as being specious and not delivering any certainty as its base. On the other hand, the ‘No’ information and argument is clear and not filled with wishful statements and assumptions of trust us, ‘we’ll fix it after you vote’.
My main rejection of the ‘Yes’ is that we have a situation now where nobody appears to be listening and sorting the problems after many years of different Governments and vast sums of money so what, with the best of intentions, will change.
A ‘Yes’ outcome will be divisive and lead to a two layered society which, in South Africa, led to apartheid and all those extra problems. There seems to be a background desire expressed by many in “first nations” groups who are waiting to expand into treaties and reparations, a State-by-State issue, rather than a Constitutional and Federal position that ‘The Voice to Parliament’ will take.
It is the situation now that ‘if it is broke’, get to it and fix the problems that many generations have not had the courage to correct in a true, Federal, all encompassing spirit without petty political point scoring being introduced by this outcome.
Regards
Robert Sherwood
Perth Western Australia
PS: I was saddened by reading of the death Kevin Walker. Requiem Im Pace Kevin.