Finding our voices to respect Indigenous rights and recognition

Greg Craven argues persuasively that our First Nations people are indeed special and as such deserve a voice to parliament. And realistically he recognises that a referendum on this is unlikely to be passed unless there is bipartisan support (“Voice cannot happen without the right”, 28-29/5).

The right of the political spectrum has some concerns that need to be addressed. Perhaps incoming senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price outlined them best. Firstly, priority should be given to action on the ground in the areas of health, education, employment and the continuing presence of racism. That questions the priority for a voice. Secondly, the voice could lead to divisiveness due to one group being given privileged access to parliament. And thirdly, how will it work, also recognising that the many Indigenous groups have had problems speaking with one voice in the past.

Perhaps, and given the growing support for it, the voice is a foregone conclusion. But with the work still to be done, idealism should not be allowed to submerge healthy scepticism and questioning commentary.

Michael Schilling, Millswood, SA

It may have escaped the notice of Mark Leibler and others who are advocating for a voice to parliament that after this election there is likely to be 10 MPs of Aboriginal heritage (“At long last, nation’s ‘it’s time’ moment on Indigenous voice”, 30/5). At over 4 per cent of the parliament they will proportionally represent those of Aboriginal descent in the community. Among them are Labor’s Linda Burney, the Greens’ Lidia Thorpe and the CLP’s Jacinta Nampijinpa Price so the representation is across the political divide. Labor and possibly the Greens have an affirmative action policy for women at preselection, but it doesn’t extend to Indigenous women, or men for that matter. It seems these MPs have been elected in the normal course of events without quotas or amendments to the Constitution. And on the evidence their voice will be heard loud and clear in the parliament.

Kim Keogh, East Fremantle, WA

Further to Mark Leibler’s insightful article, I note Leibler has not addressed the possibility of “unintended consequences” that may arise from the inclusion of an Indigenous constitutional recognition.

With our nation becoming more divided into diametric political, religious and ethnic tribes, I am of the opinion that recognising two distinct tribes in our Constitution will now set a precedent, thereby exacerbating the current tribal divides and initiate the pursuit for other tribal “voices” to be incorporated into our Constitution and parliament.

David Spratt, Mosman, NSW

Changing the climate

The electorate has made it clear climate change must be the priority for this new government. We now need politicians who are sharp-minded, analytical decision-makers who can cut through the body of research and data, and rhetoric of all the lobby groups, to arrive at policies that will serve both the planet and the country well.

We have to be realistic. Renewable energy is not without its own significant environmental shortcomings. Our search for a low-carbon future will involve more mining of raw materials, not less, with the side-effects of environmental degradation, water consumption, pollution, and First Nation cultural damage. Are we prepared for more mines in Tasmania’s wilderness and the outback if it means a “greener” future? What is the position of the Greens and teals regarding the expansion of the mining industry? The electorate has voted them in on a generalist cry for the planet, but we now need the details and consequences of the policies they hope to enact.

We are a clever species and I am confident we will find solutions, but we have to embrace open, respectful debate that seeks to genuinely analyse all positions without the vocal cancelling of any view that does not suit. Rather, we should be seeking the truth, whatever that is shown to be.

Caroline Thomson, Kew, Vic

A soft touch

As China’s Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, meets his Pacific Island counterparts to pursue China’s systematic, long-term endgame of dominant power and influence in the Indo-Pacific, it seems among Pacific Islanders only the lone voices of Fiji’s former prime minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, and PNG’s Minister for Immigration Bryan Kramer express qualms (“Fijian vow to hold the line on China influence”, 30/5).

Meanwhile, China asserts that any alarm expressed over its putsch for a regional agreement comprising a vast suite of areas – economic, technical, policing, security, cyber communications, fisheries and infrastructure development – is Cold War hyperbole. Perhaps, but although not a Cold War, what is happening right now in our local Pacific region is no longer soft power peddling, but arguably the waging of a Soft War.

Deborah Morrison, Malvern East, Vic