The Voice will not solve the problems in remote communities

There are always tipping points. I found mine when reading Victoria Grieves Williams (“This voice does not speak for the real Aboriginal Australia”, 5/6). Crucial was the introductory statement by Peter Sutton, possibly the most erudite anthropologist of his generation in Australia. He has not been afraid to speak out about issues that to many are too confronting to address. One only needs to read Sutton’s The Politics of Suffering to get a glimpse of the appalling situation faced by Aboriginal people in some of the remote communities to be assured of the validity of his concern over the status quo as he perceived it in 2000 and which remains relevant in many areas.

It is the vast gaps between the experiences and social environments of some Indigenous people compared with other, now mainstream, urbanised groups that resonates with me. Having known Aboriginal people from my teenage years, in remote as well as urban settings, and spent a lifetime working on issues as widely disparate as welfare, health and land council focused subjects, as well as developing my interests in the arts – traditional and contemporary, material culture and prehistory – I was never able to articulate satisfactorily my concerns regarding the “gaps” articulated by Sutton.

My primary concern about the voice is the perceived need to enshrine it in the Constitution. Not only do I fail to see how this would change the situation for those largely dysfunctional communities but also see the creation of an even more burdensome bureaucracy, required to service the voice, and the crystallisation of individual Indigenous oligarchs, into a body far removed from those who actually require assistance. Until I have been given the details on what the voice should focus on and how it should operate, I cannot and should not be asked to support any changes to the Australian Constitution.

Kim Akerman, Moonah, Tas

Regarding the hoary use of “racialise”, we must look to the top. Peter Dutton has brought this word into the vernacular; Anthony Albanese has eschewed it. Rather, “culture” is the right descriptor, for that is what must be respected. Some scorn emotion, but it must be central to any empathetic reasoning. It is said appropriate detail does not exist; yet 10 years of deliberation and two major reports exist, and further detail will come from parliament afterwards. The analyses by Victoria Grieves Williams and Ian Dunlop (Letters, 6/6) are thoughtful, but I think their reservations can be addressed by the voice with parliamentary governance. In any case, Aboriginal identity is a settler-derived issue, a straw man argument in the context of the voice. By “elites” perhaps is meant Indigenous people who are savvy with respect to mainstream structures and processes. Is that not vital?

Craig Brown, Eaglehawk Neck, Tas

Aboriginal Australians are the only people in this country who do not have a memory of “somewhere else”, yet they were mentioned in the Constitution only by way of exclusion. Like the American Declaration of Independence, which did not intend for African Americans and Native Americans to be among the men “created equal”, the Constitution did not intend Aboriginal Australians to be part of the body politic. When we consider whether to amend the Constitution, it is important we understand the interests of the people whom it was designed to serve did not include the interests of Aboriginal Australians. To paraphrase Orwell and Dutton, “some Australians were to be more equal than others”. The Constitution was a document of its racist time.

Helen Smalley, Mount Martha, Vic

Post trauma

As one who buried a young son, it is incomprehensible to me that lawmakers could reach a conclusion that a mother would kill four to whom she gave birth. For Kathleen Folbigg, this week’s long overdue pardon should grant her some 30 years of life post her trauma. The persistence of true friends along with rigorous scientific weight delivered a day of pure joy. My wish is Kathleen revert to her former name, accept compensation and, with it, purchase land in the beautiful area of Glenreagh.

Cheryl Louise Kerr, Clayfield, Qld

Call in the experts

There have been many letters in The Australian with justified criticism of PricewaterhouseCoopers. However, what is overlooked is the complexity of tax legislation, plus other areas where specialised knowledge is required. To ask public servants to have this depth of knowledge/experience is unreasonable, hence the need for consultants. Experience has given me an insight into the knowledge displayed by a reasonably high-level public servant against far more informed knowledge of people from one of the big four accounting firms. We have made our legalisation/regulations far too complex, and the specialised knowledge is beyond the wit of a slimmed-down public service.

John Amor, Mosman, NSW