A voice to parliament (not in) would not diminish its authority

I commend Chris Kenny on his essay (“Truth is at the heart of an indigenous voice”, 23/11). The Uluru Statement is a magnificent document.

I agree with constitutional recognition of a voice to parliament. Murray Gleeson’s often cited paper “Recognition in keeping with the Constitution” argues that there can be a constitutionally established voice to parliament (rather than a voice in parliament), which would not diminish the parliament’s authority. But he also says: “I think it very likely that Australians, and parliament itself, would want to see what the body looks like, and hear what the voice sounds like, before they vote on it.”

Despite Gleeson’s eminence and the clarity of his views, there is significant opposition to the constitutional path. If a referendum was held without wide support for a Yes vote, a loss would set back progress for years.

I hope Ken Wyatt’s work towards a non-constitutional voice will gain broad support from all sections of society. If it is developed and implemented successfully, we can then pursue its inclusion in the Constitution as the next step in fully recognising our history.

Ian Maloney, Narrabeen, NSW

Economy off-colour

Your editorial on Scott Morrison’s economic policy rightly supports the maintenance of the budget surplus and the lowering of debt even though the economy is a “little weary and off-colour, growing at its slowest rate in a decade” (“Hanging tough on strategy amid calls for stimulus”, 23/11).

Morrison tells the Business Council “the last thing our economy needs is reckless spending, dressed up as a sugar hit”. But is there no way of lifting spending by businesses without affecting the surplus?

In his admirable piece Paul Kelly includes “faster environmental approval for projects” (“PM gambles on a ‘don’t panic’ strategy in uncertain times”, 23/11). Kelly refers to Morrison’s important indication that climate change is global and Australia could not stop bushfires by adopting something different in climate policy.

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

Westpac in disgrace

Peter van Onselen is right (“Arrogant Westpac chief symbolises bank industry shame”, 23/11). The appalling allegations brought against Westpac, if justified, demand the resignation of those responsible, senior management and directors alike.

The plunge in Westpac’s share price reflects the dismay of those who must eventually fund the possible multi-billion-dollar penalties thereby risked. Yet Alan Kohler, points to a broader issue (“Bonus culture leads to bankers behaving badly”, 23/11). He writes of the stratospheric pay of bank executives many times that of their average fellow employees,

Munificent rewards may be justified for those entrepreneurs who risk capital as well as acumen. But a regime in which senior employees are paid embarrassingly more than their salaried colleagues bids as an unacceptable face of capitalism that, by presenting a ready target for class-warrior socialists, threatens the very system that has engendered so much of today’s prosperity.

John Kidd, Auchenflower, Qld

Well the Westpac board would back Brian Hartzer, wouldn’t it? They are all in the same boat, careless and complacent. As businessmen, they should be hanging their heads. How could they ignore the terrible example of the CBA? It should have rung klaxons. Urgent checks and steps should have been taken. Onwards, blind and deaf, they sailed towards the iceberg while software and systems upgrades went round in committees. Committees are the antithesis of accountability. Chief executives at a pinch have to cut through. The most important quality of a CEO, when it needs to happen, is to make it happen. This is a case study in abject failure.

Paul Everingham, Hamilton, Qld