Anthony Albanese wants an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. The prime minister used the opening of the 47th Parliament to reiterate his government’s commitment to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart: “We trust this Parliament will act responsibly.”
So far, this week shows how those apposed to a Voice to Parliament will try to foil those plans. During the pomp and ceremony of the first few days of Parliament, Pauline Hanson and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price have signposted their opposition to one of the government’s most high-profile commitments, a case that the Australian media are all too willing to give an inordinate amount of oxygen to.
Yesterday Hanson walked out during the Senate’s acknowledgment of country for her latest stunt. Despite having sat through a similar ceremony dozens of times, the career politician loudly objected. She posted a video on her social media channels immediately afterwards arguing that the acknowledgment alongside a plan to raise the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island flags in the chamber were stoking racial division in the country.
Australia isn’t racist, says the woman whose long political career started with the Liberal Party disendorsing her for making unsavoury comments about Indigenous welfare, but acknowledging the country’s original custodians apparently is.
Sign up to WebCam, Cam's fortnightly newsletter for FREE.
The media made this the story of the day. Coverage moved to the reaction of other politicians, before finally circling back to the One Nation leader’s defence of her stunt. Dr Kurt Sengul is a far right politics and populism researcher who’s written about Hanson. He tweeted: “The media failed this test …”
Later, Warlpiri-Celtic woman and new Country Liberal NT Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price gave her maiden speech, during which she laid out how that opposing “pointless virtue signalling” instead of addressing “true causes of why Indigenous Australians are marginalised” is her political raison d’etre.
Price directly took aim at the Voice to Parliament and the prime minister, claiming that Albanese had said “that our Voice to Parliament bestowed upon us through the virtuous act of symbolic gesture by this government is what is going to empower us”.
She was one of three indigenous MPs who delivered their maiden speeches on Wednesday. Hers was by far the most covered; the other two, Marion Scrymgour and Jana Stewart, and their support for a Voice didn’t get the same exposure.
In just a single day of Parliament, Price and Hanson have neatly demonstrated the foundations of the case against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament and how the media is ready to be hijacked to promote that view.
Polling suggests that creating such a body is fairly popular (although not as popular as some of the Albanese government’s other major policies). Giving a disproportionate amount of air time to arguments like Hanson’s case that Indigenous recognition is itself promoting division and Price’s belief that a focus on symbolic gestures obstructs real work improving Indigenous welfare will only undermine that.
Price and Hanson are from different political parties. One’s been in federal politics for decades, the other is just getting started. But what they have in common is how they’ve used racial politics to make a name for themselves.
The fight over the Indigenous Voice to Parliament will draw national attention, stoked by a media built around amplifying conflict and controversy. The first week of Parliament shows Price and Hanson are all too ready to seize this opportunity.
Leave a comment
“The media failed this test …”
So true. Outrage journalism and commentary has completely derailed an important and positive proposal and given some fringe players exactly what they wanted. disappointing, and so tedious. Just get it done.
We don’t even know who will be classed as Indigenous yet. Or how. How can we even contemplate handing Constitutional powers to such an ill defined group? The people who support the (as yet undefined) Voice need to do better to argue their case than just accuse everybody who opposes it to be a Pauline Hanson loving racist.
Give us a break. The Voice is not about power, it’s about providing a right to be heard. We don’t need our chemistry sets to determine who should have that right.
Everything in politics is about power. It is naive to assume otherwise. And no reason to believe this will be any different. Pull your head out of your Ayres Rock and think about it rationally, not emotionally.
If by ‘chemistry sets’ you are disparaging science how do imagine those “qualified” will recognised? Self assessment as with gender?
Oh for goodness sake, before you tee off on this it might be an idea to read some of what people like Megan Davis and Anne Twomey have had to say. If that does your head in, maybe go back and read the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
Yes, yes and yes. I have. Perhaps you should read some books on history.
Here is a really interesting interview with Megan Davis that you might find informative. I also found it interesting and enjoyable:
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/conversations/abc-megan-davis-life-story-uluru-statement-from-the-heart/13897326
Well, that is what they are!
The Voice will negatively affect nobody.
Who has accused ALL opponents of a Voice to parliament a “Pauline Hanson loving racist”? Why would anyone be an opponent until they had seen the detail? Are we being invited to reject the idea in principle that for too long aboriginal people have been sidelined in policy discussions of affairs that directly affect them? Why would someone call aboriginal people an “I’ll-defined” group after claiming that they are a “non-defined group”?
We are being asked to agree with it without seeing the detail. That, to me, is enough to disagree with it until we see some detail.
“We don’t even know who will be classed as Indigenous yet. Or how.”
You are wrong – you need to do some research – processes have been well established over many years.
Although the Statement doesn’t provide a standard definition, there is an explanation of sovereignty which is very relevant.
The Australian government uses two definitions: “The definition of Aboriginality has a long and contentious history in Australia. Different classification systems (many with significant personal and social consequences) have moved in and out of fashion. Even today, two very different definitions are concurrently in use. One, predominating in legislation, defines an Aboriginal as ‘a person who is a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia’. The other, predominating in program administration but also used in some legislation and court judgements, defines an Aboriginal as someone ‘who is a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia, identifies as an Aboriginal and is accepted by the Aboriginal community as an Aboriginal’.”
You can find the full document at https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib0203/03Cib10
It is hard to keep Price on task for any length of time judging from her previous career on the Alice Springs town council where she barely ever turned up. So Hanson and the press will have to work hard to keep her on the job. She has a very short attention span but on the plus side she loves attention so expect the occassional moments of sensation.
Canoeing.. its the indigenous equivalent of Showboating
“We trust this Parliament will act responsibly.” Good one AA, never loose your sense of humour – it will come in handy.
[‘God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference.’]
Loose?
… Let loose?
Lose loose loosely. Lassoo it.
Pauline Hanson’s confected outrage is just that. She has sat in the Senate since 2016 and not once did she storm out when there was an acknowledgment to country taking place.
This is about trying to stay relevant and in the news now that she has no sway in influencing legislation.
Exactly, and our best response is to ignore her. The new Parliament has the potential to see a lot of people ignored if they aren’t willing to take part in genuine discussion. These people will resort to stunts. Best that we devote our attention to those making a meaningful contribution (whether we agree with them or not).
Staying relevant will be an increasing challenge for the person who scraped back to hold the sixth Queensland Senate position. She beat out Amanda Stoker.
Indeed she did. So Hanson’s at least done one good thing in her political career.