Kenny’s valiant voice argument to come up against reality of human nature

Chris Kenny literally took my breath away with his opinion piece in The Weekend Australian (“False alarms overstate the risks of Indigenous voice”, 3-4/12). I thought I would never agree with anything Kenny wrote or said but his defence of the voice was so well argued that I might just start reading his columns again. He mentioned former High Court chief justice Murray Gleeson and it would be worthwhile for anybody offering an opinion about the voice to read Gleeson’s 2019 paper about recognition. Gleeson made the suggestion that the body constituting the voice be set up before the proposed referendum so we could do some tyre-kicking to see the whole thing in action prior to voting for or against an amendment to the Constitution. Pity that advice was not taken.

Janusz Bonkowski, Sunshine Beach, Qld

Chris Kenny’s valiant effort to support the proposed Indigenous voice deserves acclaim. However, at this stage the voice is at best an ambitious idea, meant to address past and present disadvantages experienced by First Nations people. Realistically, and in the cold, hard light of politics and human nature, it can also be described as a risky proposition.

Australia is now one of the most culturally diverse nations on the planet with about a quarter of the population speaking a language other than English at home. First Nations people have and should always have a special place in this mix. Their history, and the injustices they have suffered, must not be forgotten. However, given today’s ever-increasing multicultural Australia, an Indigenous voice in the Constitution for a very small part of the population is counter to the principle of equality for all. Most Australians would support recognition in the Constitution as they were the first inhabitants of this country. But, as has been argued before, to do more in the Constitution is likely to seed discontent and division among the general population when the aim should be unity. And to have the voice proposal fail in a referendum will do untold damage. A wise government would not risk that.

Michael Schilling, Millswood, SA

Chris Kenny is, as always, an enlightening read but his weekend column regarding the voice has left me wondering. As he points out, we already have Indigenous affairs ministers and their departments at state and federal levels, native title legislation, Aboriginal heritage legislation and special Indigenous programs. Why has parliament not been ensuring these initiatives have the necessary practical and responsible outcomes for Indigenous people that Australians expect and are already paying for?

To suggest a “suck it and see’’ approach to changing the Constitution and changing it again if the Indigenous voice “proved to be irreparably damaging” is neither practical nor responsible. These are real families in need of help we are talking about. The local community elders are the people best placed to provide that help because they have personal and vested interests in practical solutions and successful outcomes for their suffering families. The proposed constitutional change is like trying to use a hammer to remove a splinter. The scale is all wrong. People might hear a hammer but it will fail to remove the splinter.

Merinda Robbins, Dunwich (Gumpi), Qld

In response to Greg Sheridan’s article “Liberalism equals equality” (26-27/11), in which Sheridan argues that the Aboriginal voice is unnecessary because liberalism guarantees equality for all, I find it difficult to find any basis for this argument. After many years of Liberal government it is difficult, if not impossible, to find any statistical measurement of increased equality between Aboriginal and other Australians. The voice is not a solution for everything, it is a bid for recognition put forward by representatives of the First Nations people of this land and a small step forward toward healing. To deny it will result in a country in shame.

Jenny Scott, West End, Qld

Thank you, Socceroos

The Socceroos lost but Australia won. Many millions tuned in to watch, allowing a valuable promotional opportunity for our “brand”, much more extensive than that conveyed by the successful “put a shrimp on the barbie” clip.

With our football fans dispersed across four codes, media reporting on local soccer has been disappointingly minimal. This is incongruous as more people play soccer than rugby and Aussie rules combined. Let’s hope press coverage of the domestic “world game” will now increase and not just during the honeymoon aftermath of our over-achievement in Qatar.

The growing influx of high-standard foreign players into the A-League attests to its improving standard and we should continue to witness increasing interest in our national competition as well as a boost to our credentials to one day host the World Cup.

John Kempler, Rose Bay, NSW