The voice will have a useful advisory role in Indigenous affairs

The voice will have a useful advisory role in Indigenous affairs

Michaelia Cash (Voice is “divisive and breaches discrimination laws”, 10/5) makes the claim that the voice “does nothing to help the most marginalised members of the Indigenous communities”. Published research has often provided a counter argument. There is evidence of better health outcomes when Aboriginal community-controlled health organisations provide services, rather than mainstream general practice. Similarly, the evidence is there for supporting services to smaller decentralised communities, or “homelands”. Government policy in the past two decades has been to wind back these services, thus putting Indigenous health at risk and reducing autonomy. In the words of Sir Michael Marmot, known for his work on the social determinants of health, “low levels of autonomy and low self-esteem are likely to be related to worse health”. The voice will have a useful advisory role in these kinds of decisions.

Craig Brown, Eaglehawk Neck TAS

A referendum officially tests public opinion on a constitutional change proposed by the federal parliament. In doing that, a referendum always succeeds. Either the yes case or the no case will succeed while the other one must fail. The referendum itself is neutral. More precision in language and less emotion would be welcome in the discussion.

David Morrison, Springwood, NSW

The enormity and depth of misunderstanding by those opposed to the yes case for a voice to parliament beggars belief in my opinion. How is it possible so many do not know of the dedicated, amazing effort that it took to come up with the Uluru Statement from the Heart? We need to give much more thought to the importance of this referendum.

Shirley Duffield, Warrnambool, Vic

Energised approach

It is excellent that the budget injected significant funds toward decarbonisation (“Industry help to cut emissions” and “Economy to thrive on green hydrogen”, 10/5). A $2bn green hydrogen program, $600m to support trade-exposed industries to reduce emissions, and $1.3bn for a household energy upgrades fund were most welcome. The flip side, however, is that, even with a reformed petroleum resource rent tax, taxation of oil and gas exporters remains embarrassingly low. Norway has been taxing oil and gas profits at 78 per cent for almost three decades and subsequently now boasts a sovereign-wealth fund worth more than $1.2 trillion. The Australian public have missed out on benefiting from the extraction of our natural resources. Imagine the clean energy, health and social benefits that could be gained if we properly taxed exporters of our goods.

Amy Hiller, Kew, Vic

Included in the budget is a new agency to be formed that will oversee environmental approvals for mines and infrastructure projects (“Mining projects to face ‘tough new cop’”, 10/5). Environment and Water Minister Tanya Plibersek says that Environment Protection Australia will be a “tough cop on the beat”, having the power to ensure the conditions it places on projects are adhered to. The EPA will have its work cut out assessing the environmental impact of climate change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen’s renewable energy infrastructure project, which involves the rollout of large-scale wind and solar farms and at least 28,000km of new transmission lines across the country. Unless the EPA applies the same rigorous scrutiny to Bowen’s renewable energy plans as it will to mines, then the voting public will be justified in concluding that the new agency was formed to act solely as a battering ram against the nation’s mining industry.

Dale Ellis, Innisfail, Qld

It is unfortunate that carbon credits are going “mainstream” (“Markets for carbon credits are moving into the mainstream”, 10/5). Fossil fuel producers who resist the transition look to ways to continue business-as-usual. The carbon credit market is happy to oblige. As we reach climate tipping points, the market finds new ways of making profits from, in many cases, a faux transition to renewables. At their best, carbon credits allow more transition time to those hard-to-abate industries such as concrete, but do not take away the incentive to decarbonise, as the credits must be paid for. Polluters can simply buy carbon credits, rather than making meaningful moves towards decarbonisation. Carbon credit schemes have little to do with climate action: they simply move the proverbial deck chairs.

Fiona Colin, Malvern East, Vic

Taiwan fight

Taiwan is wealthy and democratic due to its well governed free enterprise system (“Taipei’s anti-China resilience is boosted by our engagement”, 10/5). Australia’s prosperity and freedom require that we continue to resemble Taiwan. Support for Taiwan cultivates the moral value of economic trust with the national security benefits of deterring Chinese aggression. Further to John Lee’s argument, Australia’s own economic and cultural resilience are boosted by solidarity with Taiwan.

Robert Tulip, Fraser, ACT