On the closure of the Manus Island detention centre

Meredith Williams writes: Re. “What you need to know about Manus Island” (Tuesday)

So the Manus Island concentration camp closes, and those who have been illegally imprisoned there for years will be abandoned to limbo. Australian Government policy has successfully demonised these innocent men, ruined their mental health for life, stripped them of hope and dignity, and fostered a culture of fear in the surrounding community. The process, which has been neither judicial nor transparent, let alone humane, has created a diplomatic mess with PNG, cost Australia billions of dollars, and damaged our country’s international credibility. All for what? A three word slogan and a pompous show of jingoistic muscle. 

On the Uluru statement

David Edmunds writes: Re.”Rundle: how the sop of ‘recognition’ forces Indigenous people to beg” (Tuesday)

Like Guy Rundle I believe that the chance of a referendum on an aboriginal assembly succeeding are small at present.  Regardless of the irony implicit in recognition, we asked that they give it a go, and we are obliged then to listen.

It is only in the last few decades that we have seen the rebuilding of Indigenous leadership, destroyed through colonisation.  Earlier attempts to develop a representative body have not been successful, but times have moved on and emerging leaders have been welcomed by both the coalition and Labor.

The obvious solution is to do as the Uluru declaration requested, and immediately set up an assembly with the aims suggested.  It does not take a referendum to do that.

One of the problems with the Uluru declaration is that it is vague on detail.  Setting it up and working out the rules outside of the constitution would enable the development of a structure that could in time be put to a referendum.  Experience would enable the rules to be refined.

There is an analogy with the SSM debate.  Most of the structural advantages of gay marriage have already been legislated, and shown to work.  Similarly, it would be much easier to win a referendum on an aboriginal assembly if it was already in place and working.  We have seen in the SSM debate that the Australian people are contemptuous of nebulous slippery slope arguments that fly in the face of accumulated experience, and so, reflexive opposition would not gain traction if the assembly worked. 

The existence of a working assembly that produces advice with knowledge, compassion and wisdom is the best argument for a successful constitutional referendum. It is a pity that the government, as usual, is transfixed by internal bickering and incapable of governing.