Letters and short takes May 25 2023

Aboriginal people in prison are in there for the same reason as anyone else: they were convicted of crimes to get there.

I tuned in to watch a historic event that has only occurred once in my lifetime, not to listen to a hate-filled rant about white people and history. It didn't take long for me to turn to another broadcaster who was actually informing us about what was going on. No wonder the support for the "yes" vote is falling. Why would I support the "yes" vote when large numbers of Aboriginal people allegedly detest me for no other reason than I am a white person of British heritage? Reconciliation? It's never been further away in my lifetime.

DESPITE what some say, racism is very much alive and its ugly head is rearing and threatening like that of a cobra. This is because many see the Voice to Parliament as a direct threat to their white nationalistic view of history and way of life.

Opponents are current and ex-politicians, big media people as well as far right and neo-Nazi groups who are using every means they can to create division, spread lies and attack supporters of the Voice.

Ex PMs John Howard and Tony Abbott are known to have connections with the Ramsay Centre, an institution that continually pushes the elevation of the Western view of history to the exclusion of other more truthful versions.

While watching the May 15 episode of Q&A, I thought host Stan Grant's hand was noticeably shaking. Since hearing of his hiatus because of vicious race hate trolling, I can understand why. Other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are subject to abuse every day.

Racism needs to be named and shamed and I ask all Australians to think outside the square and what it would be like to be part of a minority group that does not have the same rights and advantages as the majority. We must not allow anyone or anything to hinder this great step forward for it will improve and contribute to a fairer and more just way of life for First Nations people.

I WISH to explain my objection to the creation of an Indigenous Voice to federal Parliament. According to the Census 2021 Census, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people form 3.8 per cent of the Australian population. Yet, they form 4.8 per cent of federal parliamentarians, with eight Senators and three House of Representatives members identifying as Indigenous.

I think with that percentage of members already in the parliament their voice is more than adequately represented and heard. And before anyone labels me a racist, I was present at Manly Town Hall the day in 1992 when the Aboriginal flag was first flow. And to prove my presence, when the flag was raised there wasn't a breath of air to fly it but with the goodwill of all present a gust of wind blew the flag out to full extension only to immediately cease and let the flag drop back down the flagpole. Pat O'Shane and Lois O'Donohue were also present and I suggested they contact the ABC archives and retrieve a 1960s documentary series regarding a balanced view.

PAUL Duggan ("Why it's a 'no' for me - for now", Letters 19/5), states that he needs to understand the political structure of the Voice. How is Aboriginal representation determined? Is the mob of elders representative of all Indigenous people, or organised on a state basis due to different state demographics?" He asks several other questions about the role and structure of the Voice.

These are important questions. Citizens quite rightly wish to know and understand how a change to the constitution which they are being asked to endorse will operate.

The designers of the Voice process have addressed these questions by developing a two stage process:

The Voice is incorporated into the Constitution via a referendum voted on by all citizens. This is the "establishment process". It establishes the concept of the voice in the Constitution. But it also establishes the Parliament as the determining organisation for the establishment and operation of the Voice. Then the Parliament (elected by all Australian citizens) will legislate the size, structure and operation of the Voice. So the very valid questions Paul Duggan asks will be answered by the parliament that he helps to elect. It will pass legislation to set up and operate the Voice in the same way that all legislation will be passed i.e. a majority in both houses.

So, the referendum we vote upon this year will incorporate the Voice into the Constitution. That is all it will do. Because the referendum we vote on will also establish the Parliament as the organisation that will set up the Voice and oversee its operation. And if citizens don't like the way the Voice is operating they can work through the parliamentary process to have it changed. Mr. Duggan says he can give a "yes" to constitutional recognition if his concerns about the operation of the Voice can be reconciled. The referendum this year will provide that recognition. The referendum will also ensure that the legislation which will follow and establish the Voice, will have all of the oversight necessary to answer his concerns about its operation.

REGARDING Matthew Kelly's story ("Solar sting", Newcastle Herald 18/5), I have been a customer of a large power supplier ever since private power companies came to be. On my last two power bills I have had a demand charge. The first one was for $70; this was for 90 days. The second was $90 for 60 days. Upon contacting my power retailer I had this explained to me this was to encourage me to use less power at peak times.

The peak time is between 2pm and 8pm. The demand charge is 30 cents per kilowatt on your highest 30 minutes of usage in the quarter, and then charged at that per day for the whole period. For the other hours the rate is 18 cents for the highest 30 minutes as above. As I said, this has cost me an extra $160 on two bills. In my opinion this is purely price gouging.

I have written to my local member who offered little help. Ausgrid is our wholesale supplier in our area and I was told they have added this charge, but this appears to be untrue as I have changed my retailer and the charge is no longer on my bills

I WOULD like to congratulate Stan Grant for his display of wonderful dignity under duress from ranting racial bullying. You will win in the end, Stan. Keep up the good work. You are a true Australian good guy.

The coal ships are bad enough. Now we will have floating wind turbines. The turbines will be positioned 10km off the coast by the Hunter Offshore Wind Project. They will be clearly visible from most places near the coast ("Push turbines further out to sea", Herald, 23/5). Wind turbines destroy visual amenity. They are ugly unnatural things, an ever-present reminder of human imprint on an otherwise pristine ocean-scape. To be invisible from the shore on a clear day, the turbines, for their height, need to be positioned at least 50 kilometres off the coast. The coal ships will, in time, disappear as the coal industry winds down. How long will the floating wind turbines be there?

PAT Garnet ("Debate won't solve all problems", Letters, 22/5), whilst your apology is accepted without hesitation, I don't believe anyone feels you live under a rock, I certainly don't. I think we both want the same end result, a peaceful and harmonious community where we are all treated as equals, we just don't agree on the way to get there.

I THINK John Arnold may have been wearing rose coloured "made in China" glasses while compiling his letter ("China threat seems overblown", Letters, 23/5). Perhaps Mr. Arnold considers that China's annexation of Tibet and its similar plans for Taiwan, to be acts of goodwill.

WHAT does Mac Maguire (Short Takes 24/5) think of the Indigenous Australians that agree with the poor old white bloke about sporting bodies backing the 'yes' vote?

I DON'T need to search Peter Dolan's past letters for "incriminating comments" (Letters, May 24). Conspiracy theories produced with such regularity are hard to forget. My memory also tells me Mr Dolan likes to accuse people of "playing the man rather than the ball" to avoid dealing with their arguments. If you publicly peddle conspiracy theories, it seems to me that makes you a conspiracy theorist. And before you accuse the Bureau of Meteorology of brazenly corrupting data to deliberately mislead the public, in the process outrageously smearing its integrity, you should have actual hard evidence, and quite a bit of it. If you don't, but go ahead anyway, it's a textbook example of playing the man instead of the ball.

YES Greg Hunt (Short Takes, 23/5), you can get your information from the internet, but it can be sourced from Sky News. I'd suggest that you are a regular Sky News viewer or follower because my internet exposure has led me to the conclusion that much of your contributions to this paper has their fingerprints all over it. For Sky News to accuse the ABC of being biased is a blatant case of the pot calling the kettle black.