Voice debate needs some detail to give the issue more substance

Paul Kelly’s informative and thoughtful analysis of the Prime Minister’s approach to marketing the voice clearly highlights the lack of real substance in the government’s efforts so far (“Albanese’s choice: engage or see the voice voted down”, 22/2). But irrespective of the PM’s approach, and the aim of making some headway in this still controversial area, the government should pose two referendum questions. One, whether Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders should be recognised as the first inhabitants of Australia; and the other, whether they should have a constitutional right for a direct voice to parliament. That would provide the best possible choice for all voters.

Michael Schilling, Millswood, SA

The way Anthony Albanese is managing a successful voice vote would reflect his lack of interaction with a broad range of Australians. His approach is that of a small committee all on the same page convincing themselves they’re right, taking the high moral ground, unable to see flaws in their plan and contemptuous of criticism. Australia deserves a full disclosure of the details and potential consequences, then time to debate and digest that informa­tion.

Bruce Collison, Banks, ACT

Paul Kelly’s most important point is that “Indigenous leaders have designed a voice model to have real impacts on the outcomes from our parliament and government”. There would be little point otherwise, since the level of disadvantage to be overcome is massive. And surely “outcomes” is to do with matters relating to Indigenous people, who simply want better health, in all its aspects. To think otherwise would be jumping at shadows.

Craig Brown, Eaglehawk Neck, Tas

Super overhaul

Maybe it’s ideology that drives Peter Dutton to immediately reject Jim Chalmers’ invitation to contribute to a conversation about defining the purpose of superannuation, closing loop­holes that enable people to misuse super for wealth accumul­ation and estate planning, and modifying some of the extravagant incentives that enable wealthy people to exploit the super system? With 11,000 accounts of more than $5m, $52.6bn in super tax concessions and annual fees of $30bn, the system desperately needs a comprehensive overhaul. The 2014 Financial System Inquiry report recommended legislating to define the purpose of super so the government could better target and stabilise settings. The 2020 Callaghan Retirement Income Review urged abolishing overly generous super tax breaks for very wealthy people. Surely it’s time for enlightened planning and comprehensive reform?

Kevin Burke, Sandringham, Vic

The Albanese government must stop playing with superannuation as if it is a toy. Under no circumstances should superannuation funds be instructed as to how they invest. People have invested in superannuation under conditions agreed to by successive governments and there should be no changing of horses midstream. If the government is looking at fundraising, then it should seriously consider a death duties type of tax based on a certain value of an estate. Many millennials are going to inherit quite large estates from their baby-boomer parents due to the value of housing.

Peter D. Surkitt, Sandringham, Vic

Security risks

With revelations by the head of ASIO advising the public of foreign interference, blackmail and coercion within Australian business, academia and political elites, where does it leave ordinary Australians? We have tradies all over the country busily ripping down Chinese-built security cameras from government facilities while the same political masters have quietly approved a new Chinese-owned coalmine in Western Australia. If Xi Jinping decides to assist Russia with armaments, will that mean Australian coal and iron will be raining terror on the people of Ukraine in the future? There is a good chance we might get it back ourselves if we speak out. Pig Iron Albo maybe? No wonder we are confused.

Phil Green, Modbury Heights, SA

The announcement by Vladimir Putin that Russia will suspend its participation in the New START treaty between the two main nuclear powers puts the US and Russia on a collision course from which neither is willing to retreat. Adding to this development, China’s release of an aggressively worded diplomatic document, entitled US Hegemony and its Perils, further solidifies China and Russia’s growing opposition to a US-dominated world order. The forging of this expression of unity between two nuclear powers supersedes the dangers the US faced during the Cold War. This unprecedented reordering of the world’s nuclear forces presents the dilemma of a new cold war phenomenon: one that questions whether conventional war, such as that occurring in Ukraine, can be safely sustained.

Vincent Zankin, Rivett, ACT