Giving a Voice to Indigenous people is hardly racist

These are not people with privileged access to Parliament. Powerful people with privileged access to Parliament just pay their way in to influence ministers, as we know. Former Liberal minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt himself made the point that First Nations people were not listed as having been consulted in many important pieces of legislation that came past him, yet should have been.

The Voice is to even up the playing field a bit, which is hardly racist privilege. And as several earlier Indigenous advisory bodies have been set up by a government of one persuasion only to be abolished by another, it's no wonder First Nations want this enshrined in the constitution. Mr Pinder is concerned that there may come a time when a Voice is not necessary - well on current rates of change it will take over 100 years to even up the gap in employment alone.

As our constitution was adopted 122 years ago and is now ripe for change, so it may be again in the next 122 years, and Mr Pinder's problem can be resolved. In the meantime, the legislation to implement the Voice can always be changed.

It's interesting that Greg Pinder finds the Voice racist (Letters, June 10). The proposed change to the constitution uses two terms when referring to the people affected. According to my dictionary, "Aboriginal" refers to the descendants of the earliest people in Australia and "Indigenous" means originating in and characterising a particular region or country. There is no doubt that these people have been disadvantaged since the arrival of Europeans who took over their land 235 years ago.

Various efforts have been made over the years to improve this situation but have been unsuccessful as decision-makers have applied their European logic instead of understanding the local logic. The Voice will provide a stronger and, hopefully, more successful way to improve the situation by speaking directly to the final decision-makers.

I empathise with residentially qualified migrants who are unsure of the historical and social reasons why they are being asked to vote "yes" or "no" ("Diverse voters could shape Voice", June 11). It is imperative the "yes" side provides accurate information and much is already out there.

But, we must be able to easily identify misinformation which, unfortunately, continues to be peddled, pretty well exclusively, by elements of the "no" side, including from some apparently self-interested Indigenous individuals and groups, all of which can be quite confusing. The self-styled Blak Greens' stand cited in the story is an example. Regrettably, their views as stated lacked critical balance.

I would suggest that our migrant friends contact the umbrella Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils Association, which has announced full support for the Voice. We can all do our own research but we should make sure it's from sites we know we can trust.

The fact that more than six months have passed since the majority of Australian have had a COVID-19 booster shot ("Doctors urge COVID and flu jab as cases rise", June 9) is an entirely predictable result of the deliberate approach adopted by our governments.

Despite objections from public health and infectious diseases experts, but with little public or media concern, Australian governments decided to stop the public reporting of daily COVID-19 numbers and to end public health measures designed to reduce disease transmission. Yes, case numbers are undoubtedly unreliable since fewer people are bothering to get tested. However, hospital numbers and deaths are still high. It seems extraordinary that we now seem to accept, without any expression of concern, the deaths from COVID-19 of at least 180 people in the past seven days.

When this kind of information receives little attention in mainstream or social media and is indeed not easy to find when you look for it, it is no wonder that people are no longer getting booster shots.

I am absolutely fed up with technology "upgrades" that render perfectly-functioning equipment completely obsolete. Remember when analogue mobile phones were replaced with digital? We had no choice but to ditch the old ones and buy new ones. Did anyone think about the environmental impact?

I can't count the number of my computers that became unworkable because of the cumulative effect of software upgrades. Each replacement costs a heap of money, and created a lot of stress trying to figure out how to work the thing. It seemed that just as I'd got the hang of it, I'd have to get another one to keep up with technology changes that I had nothing to do with.

Some years ago, we all had to get rid of our analogue TVs because they would not work with the new digital network. What a huge waste.

Now, an increasing number of TV channels are being broadcast using some newfangled technological format that my current electrical equipment can't recognise. I don't want a better picture. I don't want to try to learn new technology with no teenagers at home to help me out with it. I just want to be able to watch my favourite TV shows, but one by one they are being denied to me - unless, of course, I go out and buy more technology, and dispose of the old technology which was working perfectly fine.

I didn't ask, or vote, for any of this. Am I the only one feeling like Peter Finch in Network?

As for the decision-makers responsible for all this, spare me any cant about your concern for the environment.

Mark Kenny "The unbearable weakness of strongmen" (Opinion, June 11) unfairly suggests that President Biden is "incapable of unscripted remarks".

This ignores his tour de force at the most recent State of the Union where he tangled with Republican interjectors and managed to get them on the record opposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare, something borne out in the recent debt ceiling deal.

I refer to Phillip Pocock's comment (Letters, June 9) about a Manuka supermarket using security devices to stop shoplifters stealing steaks.

I understand from reliable sources that another regional supermarket recently apprehended a shoplifter with $120 worth of meat tucked inside his pants. You would have to agree that is a lot of meat.

I have also witnessed a shoplifter being apprehended outside a supermarket by security. Later I learned that $80 worth of stock had been recovered.

Shoplifting is on the increase unfortunately and it is a sign of how difficult people are finding it to make ends meet but there are other ways of obtaining food rather than stealing it. Everyone is finding it tough even supermarkets.

When the British arrived in Australia, they deemed it "terra nullius" (land belonging to no-one) and the Crown gave itself the ownership of all land in New South Wales. Since that time, each jurisdiction in Australia has enacted legislation granting power to their executives to acquire privately owned land for public purposes.

One of the few individual rights in the Australian constitution is that of compensation on "just terms" if the Commonwealth is acquiring land for any purpose for which the Commonwealth has the power to make laws. Perhaps "just terms" is not the most ideal term if the dispossessed owner feels the acquisition was unjust.

But the fact remains, this is what the First Peoples of Australia have been grappling with since 1788. All of our cities and towns are built on the stolen lands of the First Peoples. The land was taken from them without their consent, and they have never been compensated for their losses.

In response to Anne O'Hara (Letters, June 10) stating that 12 per cent of childhood asthma cases are linked to gas cooking in the home which justifies switching from gas in schools, I am left wondering to what extent other important research has been considered and about Ms O'Hara's justification.

The Lancet is arguably the most prestigious international medical research journal. In 2013 it published an analysis of data into cooking fuels and prevalence of asthma in children (Wong et al). The study involved over 500,000 children across 47 countries. It found "no evidence of an association between the use of gas as a cooking fuel and either asthma symptoms or asthma diagnosis".

In The Canberra Times TV guide of June 9, in a review of TV program The First Inventors, Glen Humphries writes that Bruce Pascoe's book Dark Emu "blew apart long-held myths that First Nations people had no idea of agriculture or land management". He should consult Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers by Sutton and Walshe which "blows apart" most of Pascoe's theories in Dark Emu.

The Australian Christian Lobby's ACT political director, Rob Norman, stated regarding the Calvary Hospital takeover, that the ACT government is determined to impose its view on its people. That is what Christians have been trying to do for centuries.

Pope's cartoons are always "on the money". Lately they've been "on the planet" too (cartoons, June 10, June 6). Great work, Pope. Keep cartooning for the earth and koalas. Unfortunately, they need all the help they can get.

Surely if the next president of the United States works and lives in a prison cell it would be worthy of any Monty Python skit.

Last August, at the ACT Labor conference weekend, motion 0124G was carried by over 265 delegates. The motion was "That there be an independent review of the annual cull of Eastern Grey Kangaroos in the ACT Nature Parks". Something animal defenders have asked for years, so where is it?

Jonathan Hunyor (Opinion, June 12) makes the extraordinary suggestion that it's the responsibility of Voice "no" proponents (whom he repeatedly calls "cynics") to help people answer questions about how the Voice will work. Might I suggest that is actually the responsibility of "yes" proponents?

Economists will become an endangered species if they continue forever to be taken by surprise.

Your editorial ("A war without end in central Europe", June 12), with its emphasis on the pressing need for bringing the parties together to the negotiating table "before it is too late" was a light in the darkness. Strong initiatives for peace by the international community would bring much pressure to bear on the Russian leader. Putin is adept at putting a good light on a doubtful cause, and will think of a way to declare a peaceful resolution a victory for Russia.

Our most important ally is going to indict a former president for stealing and revealing classified security documents while Julian Assange who has never been charged is still held in jail in by another AUKUS ally whose former prime minister has had to give up his parliamentary seat because of his behaviour.

With allies like this it's a bit scary to think about our adversaries.