Consultation, common sense are the keys to indigenous progress

Paul Kelly’s thought-provoking advocacy was an apt complement to the acclaimed appointment of Ken Wyatt as our first indigenous cabinet minister (“A strong indigenous voice must have the support of the people”, 1/6).

Kelly is correct that any proposal in that respect is unlikely to receive the required support from the Australian electorate if the notional voice is seen by it as discriminatory.

That difficulty may be overcome by a proposal embracing Noel Pearson’s framework of national identity, as mentioned at the end of Kelly’s article. Thus the consultative body might include indigenous and non-indigenous members and address the elements of indigenous heritage — our British and multicultural heritage in its quest to ensure that disadvantage, whether past or present, whether in remote communities or otherwise, is properly addressed by the parliament.

The objects of the appointed body should include the redress of disadvantage and the preservation of the Australian heritage. In doing so, regard may well be had to long-standing aspects of the Australian character such as innate common sense tempered with fairness, aspirational effort and consensual tolerance.

Ian Dunlop, Hawks Nest, NSW

China is no help

China’s recent remarks concerning its claim over Taiwan and its rights in the South China Sea must not go unheeded (“Fight to the end: China throws down the gauntlet”, 3/6). Perhaps it is mere sabre rattling on the part of China, but it indicates a willingness to go to the brink to pursue its interests, rather than being an accommodating world citizen respectful of the rights of others.

The trade stand-off between the US and China does not help and there is now a need for calm and realism on both sides. China should not be free to use force and economic pressures to pursue its aims. Our troubled world requires the maintenance of peace and world order. That requires a broad perspective and restraint.

Michael Schilling, Millswood, SA

Existential threat

Nuclear weapons cannot secure anything worth protecting (“Stance on nukes risks backlash”, 1/6). They put everyone and everything in existential jeopardy. A US nuclear umbrella that makes Australia a priority nuclear target is a nuclear bullseye. Claiming protection from US nuclear deterrence means potential use of nuclear weapons on our behalf, and us providing assistance for possible use of weapons that would incinerate millions of civilians and cause a global nuclear winter and famine.

There is nothing in the treaty that is inconsistent with an alliance with a nuclear-armed state, provided being complicit in possible use of nuclear weapons is excluded, as several countries have shown. Eleven of 17 US non-NATO allies were among the 122 governments that voted for the treaty; Thailand, New Zealand and The Philippines have signed it, and Thailand and NZ have ratified it, with no disruption to non-nuclear military co-operation with the US.

Australia has every reason to get on the right side of history and join the ban on the worst WMDs of all.

Tilman Ruff, Melbourne University, Vic

Emotion v rationality

I take issue with Kel Richards (“Folau’s faith compelled him to shout a warning: repent”, 1/6). Israel Folau assumes that each reader’s reaction to his posting will be controlled and rational. The reality is that some will read it and react emotionally rather than rationally and may be incited to self-righteousness and hate.

The New Testament tells us that the most important commandment from God is to love each other and not to judge each other. It doesn’t say to love everyone except homosexual people, drunks and fornicators.

Lorraine Chester, Burleigh Heads, Qld