We must debate the voice, but make sure we keep it logical

Ian Bowie (Letters, 24-25/12) writes, “while our federal parliament has had the power to legislate ‘for the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws’ since 1967, it has chosen not to legislate for an Indigenous voice”. Really? Has he considered the Council of ­Aboriginal Affairs (Chaired by HC “Nugget” Coombs) 1967-76, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, the Ministerial Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs, the Office of Indigenous Policy Co-ordination, the National Indigenous Council and now Closing the Gap?

Prior to the 1967 referendum, we had the Federal Council for Aboriginal Advancement (1958-78, the first national body representing Aboriginal interests. In particular, the Closing the Gap homepage states: “Closing the Gap is underpinned by the belief that when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a genuine say in the design and delivery of policies, programs and services that affect them, better life outcomes are achieved. It also recognises that structural change in the way governments work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is needed to close the gap.”

Given the success of these initiatives, if the answer is another federal bureaucracy, perhaps we’re asking the wrong question.

John Egan, Pymble, NSW

Shireen Morris (“Many liberal democracies have a First Nations voice”, 24-25/12) lost me with her last paragraph associating closing the gap with constitutional recognition. I think a close ­investigation into the listed ­democracies (with indigenous recognition) will reveal poor ­indigenous people are still poor. This problem needs to be tackled at grassroots, not in Canberra.

David Harrison, Coogee, NSW

Paul Kelly (“PM in charge but his design has risks” 24-25/12) writes about challenges facing Anthony Albanese. I may have missed it but I did not see any mention of the referendum as a challenge.

It won’t surprise me if this turns out to be the biggest ­challenge for Labor and may well end up as its Achilles heel, especially with diehard Labor voters.

Clive Jensen, Merewether, NSW

I AM not an anti-voxer, if anything I lean toward supporting the voice. Nonetheless I think Shireen Morris’s argument is a distraction from the public discussion. The bulk of the article lists seven successful democracies with various instruments ­recognising their indigenous populations. It does not discuss the cost of the recognition, whether each has achieved anything better than would be the case without the instrument or how non-democracies with such recognition have performed.

The only inference we can logically make is that the recognition has not destroyed those democracies, hardly a convincing case for Australia to follow suit.

The author also points out Australia’s Indigenous population is not properly heard in decisions made about them. From this she moves to the conclusion that “the voice” is required.

This is a logical fallacy as it fails to relate the “proper hearing” problem with the voice as a solution. Keep the debate coming, but contributors, please keep the ­arguments logical.

Paul Bates, Bellara, Qld