Truth should be at the forefront in search for a voice

Ascertaining the truth about indigenous Australians is of paramount importance, but as Chris Kenny (“Truth is at the heart of an indigenous voice”, 23/11) articulates so lucidly, the truth is usually complex, even difficult to perceive and know.

That Indigenous Australians Minister Ken Wyatt accepts that Bruce Pascoe is indigenous obfuscates any attempt to identify the truth. Furthermore, indigenous people can be infused with opposing opinions about not just a voice but how to implement and create that voice.

Perhaps understanding a concept of truth as determined by diversity of thought and belief instead of believing it to be absolute may contribute more to achieving recognition and reconciliation for indigenous people.

Moreover, truth can change in the perspective in which we view it over the years and appreciating that as a reality could be more advantageous than deciding on a simple definition.

Paulyne Pogorelske, Melbourne, Vic

Chris Kenny and Ian Maloney (Letters, 25/11) both want a voice for Aborigines who could set one up within a year, needing no referendum nor help from Canberra. All the tribes should just each pick two voices from each and establish what each wants to say twice a year.

The chosen tribal voices select 10 regional reporters and email summarised advice. There would be no need for the voices to leave their communities. The 10 regional reporters could meet twice a year and assemble all the advice that more than 20 per cent of the tribes endorse, and prepare an advice to parliament which they take to Canberra. Yes, that is a bit clunky, but way better than the other models on the table.

David Bishop, East Brighton, Vic

Telling the truth about Aboriginal matters will not lead in the direction espoused by Chris Kenny. It is not good enough to complain about “dishonest conservative opposition” without specifying what that is.

The people he describes as constitutional conservatives are not really such at all. The conservative position, well expressed recently by Greg Sheridan (14/11), is that constitutionally all citizens are to be treated equally, regardless of their ethnicity or where and when their ancestors lived.

The controversial Uluru statement definitely seeks to unjustly extend special privileges to a group that has its own ethnicity or racial mix as well as having (not always wholly, by any means) traceable inheritance rights to this land. As is typical of proponents of Aboriginal constitutional recognition, Kenny does not really address the powerful arguments against it.

Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

After reading Chris Kenny’s rather enlightening piece and listening to a range of opinions on the writings of Bruce Pascoe and his claim to indigenous heritage, I suggest a simple and accurate way to settle this issue.

There is an online DNA test that anyone can access. It requires a small sample. It takes about six weeks to receive an accurate outline of your origins, going back many years.

Peter Steele, Brisbane, Qld

Remember Bill Shorten’s statement during the prime ministership of Julia Gillard that he hadn’t actually heard what his leader had said, but he agreed with every word she had uttered? Similarly, Indigenous Australians Minister Ken Wyatt says, in reference to author Bruce Pascoe’s, questionable Aboriginal heritage: “If Bruce tells me he’s indigenous then I know that he’s indigenous.” Faith is a most wonderful quality, but it will never supplant truth as the ultimate determinant of historical veracity.

Pascoe, renowned author of Aboriginal history, as he perceives it, is being acknowledged by leftists as a seer. His novel Dark Emu is being turned into a documentary and his spurious historical claims are being promoted in our classrooms as unquestionable historical reality.

Despite critical analysis by prominent critics, any analysis or debate is being attacked by zealots as attempts to diminish Aboriginal culture.

With Pascoe’s consistent refusal to explain his claimed genealogy, or to actually cite the 19th century references, “colonial journals”, that form the basis of his claims, we must accept on faith, just as our forebears 500 years ago put their blind faith in the accepted fact that the planet was flat.

What happened to scientific inquiry, to informed questioning and logical debate?

Lyle Geyer, Essendon, Vic