Focus needs to be on remote disadvantage, not a voice

With respect, I disagree with Chris Kenny (“Path to practical reconciliation”, 4-5/6). By all means let us acknowledge in the preamble to our Constitution that our Indigenous peoples were the first to inhabit this land. On that basis alone, they deserve our respect. That said, we are now a land of immigrants, some arriving 60,000 years ago and some arriving yesterday. We need a Constitution that addresses the needs and aspirations of everyone who today calls themselves Australian.

Let us foster diverse voices in our parliaments and communities, but it is invidious to give any one group a louder voice than others. To do so would be divisive; we are one nation, not many.

Furthermore, a Constitution is a high-level document. Contrary to Kenny’s argument, I fail to see how a constitutional amendment could have any beneficial impact on the social dysfunction that plagues some of our remote communities.

Graeme Suthers, Woodforde, SA

I don’t recall ever disagreeing with Chris Kenny, and with good reason. His contributions are well reasoned and extremely well written. However, his argument for constitutional recognition of a voice is unconvincing. Contributions by both he and Paul Kelly (“Tests for the voice at a time of dissent”, 4-5/6) make essential reading. The reasoning presented by Kelly goes to the heart of the difficulties associated with constitutional recognition of a voice.

I am not against involvement by Indigenous people in decision-making in relation to issues that impact them. I strongly support such representation and having it enshrined in a formalised body. That body needs to have the ability to come to grips with the genuinely difficult issues that are the genesis of so many of the problems, particularly in remote communities. It needs to do so without being stifled by symbolism and virtue signalling.

It is no surprise Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is against the voice. Price is a remarkable woman and has made a significant contribution towards addressing Indigenous disadvantage. However, if I understand her correctly, she is against the symbolism associated with the voice on the basis that it diminishes much-needed focus on the genuine issues.

I am reminded of the illegal Black Lives Matter march in the early days of the pandemic. It received massive coverage and support from the ABC and elsewhere. Yet on that same weekend a very important report by Price was published, dealing with the serious problems associated with disadvantage in remote Indigenous communities. I don’t recall that report getting more than a passing mention, if that, in the mainstream media. We need to get our priorities right.

Peter Husband, Eight Mile Plains, Qld

Australia, the lucky country. People of Indigenous heritage making submissions for the voice are the lucky people. Good jobs, safe homes and education. Women trapped in violence in the bush are the unlucky people. Will a voice to parliament protect them from their own families and communities? Who will volunteer to live on country in the Northern Territory for six months before making decisions on the future of the people who are trying to maintain their culture and move forward into the life the lucky people are enjoying.

Education and support for women are needed, not endless dollars. This shame is happening in our own backyard. It is not solved by celebrity visits or claims of racism by prominent people. Wake up, Australia.

Peter Deans, Katherine, NT

Paul Kelly provides much to consider. But he misses another point in this proposed madness. A voice will have to be created, then elected. This means politics. Elections, campaigns, skulduggery, corruption, more politicians, parties, costs, bureaucracy. Why would we want more of this?

Brian Austen, South Hobart, Tas

A point that both sides of the argument for an Indigenous voice to parliament seem to overlook is that laws made by parliament are applicable to everyone equally irrespective of race or nationality. Aborigines have, since at least 1967, been citizens with the same rights and responsibilities as every other citizen. A special voice would not change anything and is therefore unnecessary and a waste of time. Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is right – concentrate on practical matters to close the gap.

Paul Magoffin, Camp Hill, Qld