Covid, Andrews and the looming Victorian election

Some might suggest that despite new Covid variants, record daily cases and deaths in Victoria, the reason we see nothing of Dan Andrews is the keeping of a low pre-election profile (Last Post, 13/7). But it could be that Andrews – like so many – has given up. Or perhaps he has accepted the reality that there would be widespread civil disobedience and disruptive unrest if mask and vaccination mandates were to be reimposed, let alone another lockdown, curfew or 5km travel radius.

As for the invisible Brett Sutton, his Covid authority was effectively neutered when it was transferred to the Health Minister. And although lawfully required to consider chief health officer advice, minister Mary-Anne Thomas has defied Sutton’s recommendation “to mandate mask wearing in schools, hospitality, retail and early childhood settings” (“Covid U-turn rattles business”, 13/7)

This transferral of authority from health official to politician allegedly allows for “a more nuanced government response” and a “more transparent” government “decision-making process”.

It also seems to include a not-so-nuanced primary consideration of the election outcome.

Deborah Morrison, Malvern East, Vic

Voice unnecessary

I refer to your editorial on Labor’s proposal for putting an Indigenous voice into the Constitution (“Voters would be reluctant to support a blank cheque”, 13/7).

I fail to see why putting a voice in the Constitution will help reverse “Indigenous disadvantage in health, welfare, education, employment and law and order”. All that is needed is for all levels of government to consult and identify the causes of the problems and then set about fixing them.

At a federal level the Labor government could be doing it now. Instead of that it is focused on its voice referendum. This will require legislation for the referendum to be passed by the Senate and it won’t surprise me if this proves impossible for Labor to achieve.

Clive Jensen, Merewether, NSW

I was very pleased to read the letter from Noelle Oke (13/7) regarding the voice. Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians have a government that has a Constitution that governs all Australians. All Australians, including Indigenous Australians, can approach a local state or federal member on any issue.

What is it that is not available to Indigenous Australians that requires special constitutional change in order for them to procure it?

We don’t need to embed in our Constitution some second sovereign nation. What comes next, every other ethnic group demanding special consideration?

Just let great Australians such as Noel Pearson and Jacinta Price (wonderful and truthful) get on with their objectives.

Evatt Furney, Gordon, NSW

Quad history

Nick Cater’s claims of a Quadrilateral Security Dialogue in 2007 are completely ahistorical.

First, Cater claims this “security dialogue” was made “concrete” by a document “signed in 2007 by (Shinzo) Abe, John Howard, Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh and US vice-president Dick Cheney”. I am aware of no such document. If it exists, let Cater produce it. In reality, no dialogue ever happened – just an informal meeting of diplomatic officials that the Howard government sternly insisted was “not a security dialogue”. Cater’s assertion the purported document was signed by Cheney – not president George W. Bush – also makes plain that, if it did exist, it would have no presidential authority since by 2007 the pair were at loggerheads over so many aspects of foreign policy after the unravelling of the Iraq War.

Second, Cater claims Australia “pulled out under Kevin Rudd”. This too is false. In July 2007, defence minister Brendan Nelson travelled to People’s Liberation Army headquarters in Beijing where he publicly “reassured China that so-called quadrilateral dialogue with India is not something that we are pursuing”. In fairness to Nelson, all sides had cold feet by September 2007 including Japan under new PM Yasuo Fukuda.

Third, Cater says my purported decision was “made without notifying Washington”. This is also false. When we took office, undersecretary of state Nick Burns was touring Asia with the message that “meetings of the four countries would not take place at a ministerial or sub-ministerial level”. A common position was agreed between Burns and my foreign minister, Stephen Smith, in Canberra on December 5, 2007. This is all documented in WikiLeaks cables cleared by Burns himself.

While Cater’s errors appear merely careless, Greg Sheridan should reflect on his decision to use Abe’s death to score a cheap point against me as a “notable” sceptic of the Quad. Perhaps he meant Howard, Fukuda, Bush and Singh, who were actually there at the time?

Kevin Rudd, Brisbane