A feasible pathway towards achieving a voice mechanism

Former High Court chief justice Robert French (“Voice of reason not beyond us”, 31/7) outlines a feasible, indeed necessary, pathway towards achieving a “voice mechanism” which should not provoke many of the objections to such a voice that have been frequently offered to the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

He begins by emphasising the reality of indigenous history and culture prior to the colonisation of Australia, and the further waves of migration that have led to our multicultural society. As has been asserted by Noel Pearson many times, this triple-stranded history should be understood and acknowledged in some formal way by the Constitution and by parliament.

Without this, indigenous people will continue to feel that their long-standing prior historical presence on this continent remains under-acknowledged. Some form of authentic recognition along the lines proposed by French must be achieved before all other measures can succeed in restoring some justice to our First Peoples. As French concludes, “creation of a national consensus should not be beyond our wit” — given good will.

Ron Spielman, Paddington, NSW

Robert French simply ignores the cogent arguments that have been brought up against any kind of amendment to the Constitution favouring Aborigines. He says, correctly, that “recognition is a fact”. That is true and that is where it should end.

However, he adds that recognition in the Constitution “would reflect an existing national growth of respect for our First Peoples”. He does not say how or why. There is reason to suspect that popular affection for Aborigines is actually waning a little as more Australians become aware that “the Aboriginal industry” is engaging in selfish demands at the expense of the rest of us.

French concludes that “the creation of a national consensus should not be beyond our wit”. That is dreaming. Australia is deeply split on this issue and thus any referendum appears doomed.

Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

Convention on Speaker

George Williams calls for the role and independence of the Speaker of the House of Representatives to be examined in the coming inquiry into the conduct of question time (“A vital Westminster convention we somehow overlooked”, 31/7).

While I accept it could be the subject of examination, I don’t agree with his argument that we need to follow the Westminster system to the extent outlined. To do this in our much smaller house would potentially bring the career of the incumbent to an early conclusion after their term in the position.

When you look at post-war Speakers such as Harry Jenkins (senior and junior), Joan Child and the present Speaker Tony Smith they have shown an admirable degree of impartiality. Even with the British model, there would always be more ejections from the opposition benches. Maybe there could be more consideration of how to select the new Speaker with more weight given to a bipartisan approach.

R. T. Hawksley, Benowa, Qld

Voters were delighted

The arrogance of former Labor leader Bill Shorten describing his loss as “disappointing for Australia” is beyond belief. Unambiguously, voters said they didn’t want Labor and, in particular, they didn’t want Shorten. The majority was not disappointed — they were delighted.

Labor’s and Shorten’s detachment from reality over recent years underscores where the Shorten-led party is at in 2019. Precisely what Labor understands these days isn’t at all clear, but the efforts by Shorten to blame “corporate behemoths” for his failure is so laughable it provides a clue to task ahead for those trying to breath life into the Labor cause.

John Simpson, Melbourne, Vic