Hedley Thomas deserves praise following Dawson verdict

Hedley Thomas deserves praise following Dawson verdict

High praise is due to The Australian, and Hedley Thomas’s team in particular, for the carnal knowledge verdict against Chris Dawson (“Teacher sex verdict a crucial win”, 29/6). It has taken so many years for justice to prevail, there must have been times when those journalists felt like giving up. That they persevered – after the NSW police, the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions and two coronial inquiries had failed – is a great credit to them and the paper that backed them. It may give other women the courage to come forward and expose the culture of exploitation that was, and hopefully no longer is, rife in parts of the school system.

Roslyn Phillips, Tea Tree Gully, SA

A matter of trust

I believe Australians think it’s important to bring about positive change and that some form of Indigenous recognition is, on balance, important. However, is that the voice? The Labor government is asking more than just its ardent supporters to trust it; in fact, it is asking the entire nation to trust it!

In the wake of the pandemic, how could anyone not see, or fail to appreciate, that trust of the government is likely now even less than the 41 per cent measure stated by the OECD report of 2021? Trust is fundamental to people in all circumstances and, when something is entirely new, be it a new relationship, a new mechanic, or indeed a new Indigenous voice to parliament, people in a democracy want evidence to support their decision. It is not unreasonable for Australians to be asking how a voice will operate.

The expectations of many, surrounding the voice referendum are so high and, with so much in the balance, we might well ask, how can it be that our government appears to not care, or recognise that trust is a two-way street? Our government, and many other politicians, seem to be just expecting the nation to almost blindly trust. This is the first referendum of its kind in Australia, and we are being asked to trust that the Acts or mechanisms controlling how our parliament will interact with the voice will somehow magically all be OK, without there being any “truth-telling” from the government.

My overarching question is: Will the government tap through the behind, punt from the boundary, attempt the banana, or make the play by revealing the mechanics of the voice to the Australian people, and allow us, the team, to kick the winning goal? Whatever the outcome of the voice referendum, lessons are being taught right now, though I fear many will only be learned after the fact.

Matthew Jennings, Double Bay, NSW

I think it fair to say the majority of Australians favour the formal recognition of the Indigenous peoples of this country in the Constitution. It is equally fair to say the voice as a means of increasing the influence of the Indigenous peoples is less favoured due to its lack of clarity as to what is actually being proposed. The logical solution to this problem lies in the referendum having two questions to be answered: 1) Do you favour the Indigenous peoples being formally acknowledged in the Constitution? Yes / No.

2) Do you agree the voice as currently proposed should be incorporated in the Constitution? Yes / No. This would ensure that even if Question 2 failed, at least the Indigenous peoples would achieve the formal recognition in the Constitution they deserve. Currently the failure of the referendum would leave the Indigenous peoples still without the fair recognition they crave.

I. Daly, Sherwood, NSW

When the majority of Australians realise that a voice can simply be established by legislation and need not be enshrined in the Constitution forever, I suspect the No vote will increase significantly, leaving the way open for constitutional recognition by an overwhelming majority. Enshrinement, in the vernacular, is akin to a hip pocket on a singlet: unnecessary. The answer to the PM’s question – if “not now, when ?” – is “why not already?”

Peter Bridge, Robina, Qld

When the economic cycle is in downturn, Mr Albanese, it is the wrong time to bring on a referendum that could exacerbate civil conflict and disharmony. Put it off till better times and a Yes vote will be assured.

George Fishman, Vaucluse, NSW

Risk of renewables

It seems the only form of truly renewable energy available to us to keep warm during the long winter months is via log fires. Hydro-electricity comes a distant second due to the damage done in creating giant artificial lakes and the mining and smelting required to build pipes, turbines and transmission lines. These impediments are even more dire for photovoltaic panels and wind turbines for similar reasons to hydro-electricity, exacerbated by their relatively short life span and the need to source replacements from a foreign supplier. Is it too much to ask our government to calmly manage perceived risk and find the least bad way to “keep the lights on”?

Richard McCure, Hobart, Tas