Voice is not perfect but it will be better than what we have

My wide regional experience left me with great respect for country people's warmth and compassion. There is though a conservative tendency to shy away from institutional change, as evidenced by the Nationals' ability to hold firm in their regional electorates. And it was they who perfunctorily decided against supporting the Voice even before discussions started.

It's not about expecting the Voice to be perfect. Why would it be? Nothing else is. But it has the chance of being better than what's come before because, for the first time, parliaments will be listening to what First Australians believe they need to fix their problems.

They might get it wrong sometimes, but the Constitution-based process will enable corrections to be made - and that will be up to all of us through the Parliament and public comment, while the Indigenous advisory body itself will have no veto power.

Whether we're from the country or the city we shouldn't need to rely on celebrity-led information and publicity campaigns, but on our full understanding of the well-documented, intergenerational discrimination, persecution and murder. They're the details we need to grasp hold of.

Nor is it about claiming we're already equal. Just think for a moment and its blazingly evident that in many ways we are not, and the least equal are Indigenous Australians.

Keith Davis (Letters, July 1) I wholeheartedly agree about government providing assistance to those in the community who are disadvantaged.

But that only applies to a large minority of Indigenous people.

By putting the Voice in the Constitution, we are sending the message that not only are all Indigenous people disadvantaged now, but we expect them to be disadvantaged for all time.

I don't believe that is the case.

That's one of the reasons I support a legislated Voice that can be dissolved once the current disadvantage has ended.

As for Peter Dutton, he is hardly dividing the country, but trying to bring it together. Liberal policy is to legislate for local and regional voices so those who are disadvantaged can be heard.

Australia is fearful of referenda that lack bipartisan support. This means the task of the "yes" campaign is difficult.

The last time we had a referendum on an Indigenous issue, the support was general (90 per cent). We have been trying to integrate, assimilate and "develop" the First Nations unsuccessfully for 200 years through expensive paternal policies.

Self-determination is what is required. It will be successful based on support and help in the past (such as the Victorian Aboriginal Education Incentive Scholarship Fund for schooling).

Closing the Gap is a complex challenge. So is developing treaties. The Uluru Statement, prepared by a representative group, sought a way with initial emphasis on an Indigenous Voice Advisory Council at the top with successive state and remote communities formed to elect local area advisory groups.

Policies to Close the Gap and provide sovereignty and dignity will be sponsored and supported ensuring a progressive development outcome.

It is disappointing that the opposition has politicised the process; basically to try to embarrass the government with a failure.

We have a national obligation to help our first peoples by voting "yes".

Mokhles Sidden ("Voice a farce", Letters, July 3) finds in the proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament not a skerrick of merit and much to be suspicious about.

Couldn't it be argued, with equal cogency, that Lord Sydney's decision, way back in 1786, to send the First Fleet to Botany Bay, was likewise an attempt to divert John Bull's attention from the twin embarrassments of Britain's loss of its American colonies and the shameful overcrowding of its prisons?

The article "Vietnam villains become heroes 50 years on" (July 4, p3) rightfully helps promote the coming commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War. Unfortunately, it also promotes the myth that "523 [Australians] lost their lives".

This is the number of those who died within the prescribed period of the war (which ended on April 29, 1975) or within two years of returning to Australia. Their names are inscribed on the Roll of Honour at the AWM.

The figure does not include the many hundreds who have died as a result of their service, but outside the prescribed period.

As with other wars, the cost to the nation of involvement in Vietnam is masked in this way. School text books maintain this myth. The AWM is currently considering a proposal to recognise the continuing sacrifice of those who are otherwise unacknowledged.

I presume your reporter ("Australia to mark 50 years since end of involvement in Vietnam War", canberratimes.com.au, July 4) has read Mark Dapin's Australia's Vietnam Myth vs History which debunks certain misconceptions of aspects of our involvement.

In his book, Dapin "disproves claims that every national serviceman was a volunteer; questions the idea that Australian troops committed atrocities; debunks the fallacy that there were no welcome home parades until 1987; and rebuts the fable that returned soldiers were met by spitting protesters at Australia airports".

Given that there have been no scholarly rejections of the historical validity of Dapin's writing, it should be required reading by all who seek to comment.

Janine Haskins ("ACT govt must act to alleviate inmate boredom at the AMC", Letters, 4 July 23) expressed concern that I had been "pushed" from my role as the ACT Inspector of Correctional Services.

I could give a complicated answer, but the fact is that I completed my five-year term (2018 - 2023) and did not apply for reappointment.

I was delighted that my deputy Inspector, Rebecca Minty, was appointed as the new inspector and I can assure Janine that Rebecca will continue our work without "fear or favour", which will be depressing news for the Justice and Community Safety Directorate (JACS).

As Mark Kenny explains, "many, perhaps most, political protests through history have turned out to be right" ("Annoying activists are often right", canberratimes.com.au, July 2).

Of course. If protesters' opinions were being heard or they had no foundation for their concern, what would they be protesting about?

Most people don't choose to be out on the streets or on sports fields risking arrest.

Currently, however, the lack of urgent and comprehensive response to the escalating threat of global warming is galvanising people from across all walks of life.

The gap between scientific understanding and policy response on climate is not only alarming but threatening all life on earth.

To me, climate activists and protesters have very good reason to be shaking up the status quo.

More power to them.

Over the weekend, a young couple I know were outbid at an auction for a family home. It was later revealed by the real estate agent that the successful bidders already owned six houses in that suburb.

Family homes are not like other asset classes, such as shares. They provide much-needed shelter and protection and give families a level of certainty and security that is unmatched by other investments.

So how much is too much? Six houses in one suburb owned by one family is.

I'm sure many Canberrans (not to mention developers) were delighted with Anne Willenborg's very sensible suggestion to fill in Lake Burley Griffin (Letters, July 4).

Anne makes the incontestable points that more land would be available for cultural and sporting facilities, with associated parking, and make the advance of light rail easier.

The Canberra Times readers no doubt can think of other potential benefits.

I think one could be that, without the blinding mirage of the lake, our north-focused ACT government might descry one city instead of two, and allocate its resources appropriately.

Mind you, I would warn Tuggeranong residents from getting prematurely excited.

Ian Morison (Letters, July 2) thinks the plight of Australia's Indigenous people is a leftist cause, a guilt trip, or both. He believes voting "no" kicks back against "woke culture". No Ian. You are showing a lack of vision.

Australians are happy to claim the sporting heroes, land, culture, imagery and traditional foods of Indigenous peoples as their own but are not apparently generous enough to let First Nations people present their pressing needs and proposed solutions directly to government.

Given the mess Britain is in, you'd reckon that the British PM, Rishi Sunak, would have far more important things to do than have a shot at colonial cricketers beating his team of "Bazballers".

Bairstow was run out and stumped. How much more out can you be?

There has been a lot of hand-wringing and tears over the loss of five wealthy explorers at the bottom of the Atlantic. I don't see the same amount of angst for the loss of 500 migrants at sea in the Mediterranean. Strange that.

Peter Dutton's declaration Gladys Berejiklian is "not corrupt" after the NSW ICAC found she was raises a red flag regarding the ethical standards of any government he would lead.

I am haunted by the word picture the ambassador for the Ukraine gave us of the mother who will follow tradition and dress her twin 14-year-old daughters in wedding dresses for their funerals occasioned by a Russian missile that hit a pizza shop.

Imagine working for a senior Optus executive who steadfastly maintains that grubby black is pristine white.

Will the ACT government bulldoze Calvary Public Hospital to make way for another public hospital or simply remove all references to Catholicism?

The ACT recognised animal sentience in 2019. But I guess the government turns a blind eye to its own legislation when it tears kangaroo families apart each night over winter from their annual killing spree.

Confidence in the banking system is vital. But in the digital age runs on banks are unfortunately much faster.

Cricket historians will note how appropriate it was that Alex Carey used an underarm delivery to dismiss Bairstow.