Peter Dutton’s voice response is measured and thoughtful

I’ve never been a great fan of Peter Dutton but I object to the biased and potentially untruthful way in which the Opposition Leader’s response to the proposed voice has been reported. His referendum response, when viewed in its entirety, has been measured and thoughtful.

Like many Australians from diverse ethnic and political backgrounds, he and his party want more clear information about how this important change will work. It is not enough to merely state that it will dramatically improve the lives of Aboriginal Australians, there must be some practical suggestions as to how this will happen. Otherwise all the goodwill in the world will be bogged down at great expense in endless bureaucracy.

Judith Eagle, Mile End, SA

Looking the other way when confronted with serious societal problems is sloppy neglect (“Truth on trial over NT child sex abuse”, 14/4). However Northern Territory Police Minister Kate Worden chose to deflect this serious issue by having us look at Peter Dutton committing a “dog act” by wanting to do something about it. I can cynically see a reworking of the truth, backed up by Our ABC in its critical reporting of Dutton’s efforts to expose horrendous abuse of children in the NT.

Lynda Morrison, Bicton, WA

Henry Ergas rightfully defends Julian Leeser’s principled resignation from the frontbench as evidence of liberalism’s most deeply held core value, in allowing the free and unfettered expression of one’s individual conscience (“Leeser dissent shows Liberal values at their finest”, 14/4).

But Leeser’s support for Labor’s proposed Indigenous voice to parliament sets him apart from his own party’s liberalist position.

This is borne out by Peter Dutton’s opposition to the so-called Canberra voice, on the grounds there is not enough emphasis being placed on individual responsibility. Hence Dutton’s calling out of alcoholism and child sexual abuse within Indigenous communities in Alice Springs.

Ultimately, this ongoing political dialectic between Labor’s emphasis on the collective and the Liberals’ emphasis on the individual will define not only the future of the voice but the future course of our democracy.

Vincent Zankin, Rivett, ACT

Peter Dutton seems to have spent his time in Alice Springs talking with people in shopping centres rather than Indigenous groups. From his subsequent comments, and calls for the AFP to intervene, it seems his alternative model for the voice is a local, non-Indigenous voice that tells the federal government how to intervene in Indigenous affairs.

Sue Lester, Grange, SA

Articles about the dire ramifications of the voice by Robert Gott­lieb­sen (“Voice will end federal budgets as we know them’’, 14/4) and Chris Merritt (“Equality of citizenship at stake in voice referendum’’, 14/4), as well as others including Janet Albrechtsen and Paul Kelly for some time now, are so on the money. However, it would be even worse should the voice become a fourth arm of government. One must never ignore a fundamental strategy of Labor to implement policies that increase the permanent Labor vote – policies to get ever more voters hooked on welfare, mass immigration of grateful refugees and others.

Make no mistake, the voice is nothing short of a power grab by the part-Indigenous elite, aided and abetted by a willing Prime Minister who will come to rue the day. Labor, wake up! Put the national interest before that of the party.

M. Flint, Canberra

Why does the Uluru Statement from the Heart propose that the voice is a vital part of the constitutional recognition of our First Peoples? Given successive governments’ overall failure to ‘‘close the gap’’, a new way to tackle Indigenous needs is sorely needed. The Uluru statement proposes a bottom-up process guaranteed to at least bring a triage of local and regional Indigenous views to the notice of policymakers.

Peter Dutton has misrepresented the Uluru proposal as a “Canberra voice”, because the essence of the proposal is a bottom-up process of consultation. On the other hand, his own legislated proposal will result in politicians grappling with deeply embedded cultural complexities and the outcome will inevitably become a “Canberra voice”. This is the same approach that has failed so often – good intentions and political solutions – when what is needed is a well-resourced and competent Indigenous guide.

Len Monk, Belmont, Vic