
Native American women are bringing back facial tattoos: ‘We're a living culture'
Receiving her inchunwa was not something Faithlyn Taloa Seawright did lightly, but when the moment 'just felt right', she knew it was time. Seawright, who was the 2024 Miss Indian Oklahoma and a previous Chickasaw Princess, had long studied the tradition that she inherited from her ancestors.
In Choctaw and Chickasaw languages, inchunwa means 'to be marked, branded or tattooed'. So receiving inchunwa, or traditional Indigenous tattoos, is something that must be done with reverence, Seawright said. The practice was once common among the south-eastern Indigenous nations (Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee and others), but after colonization the tradition faded away for many.
Now, through efforts like those from the Inchunwa Project, a community-rooted collective that is working to revitalize the tattoos, south-eastern Indigenous people across the country are breathing new life into the practice.
Last year, the Inchunwa Project, which began in 2017, hosted its first retreat, which included traditional tattoo artists, people entering tattoo apprenticeships and south-eastern tribal folks who were interested in learning about tattoo revitalization.
Those gathered played games, wrote poetry, ate traditional foods and talked about the research they'd found. The retreat was a time for fellowship, but it was also one for action, in which people could share their research into the ancient practice and decide what they were going to do with it.
'We met to talk about how and why we got involved with tattoo revitalization, where we want to see this project going, what would our full vision be and how are we going to get there,' said Seawright, who is a Chickasaw citizen. Some artists brought their supplies to the event, which led to a few tattooing sessions where people received their finger inchunwa, or tattoos, that have different meanings. Seawright, who had already received six lines on her fingers years prior, received her first facial tattoos at the event.
Her latest inchunwa consists of two lines on either side of her mouth. One line represents the fact that Seawright has entered adulthood and the other signifies that she is a young adult without children. If she has children, she will have three lines. Once she is an elder or has grandchildren, she will have four. The facial inchunwa is intended to grow with her throughout life.
Seawright said that the inchunwa session had been full of encouragement, with people gathering to witness it. 'That's really what help[ed] us to have that traditional aspect, to have support there, those that are there to give guidance: 'Remember to breathe', 'it's OK to cry if you need to', 'you need water', 'maybe it's time for a break'.'
For Seawright, receiving her inchunwa reflected her commitment to her community and to setting the groundwork for being a good ancestor. The six lines on her fingers represent a personal promise to better herself, an homage to her siblings who are not with her in the physical world and the thousands of missing and murdered Indigenous women.
'I prayed on it and I waited for years for that moment to come,' she said of her finger tattoos. 'The only way I can describe that decision of knowing when to get it is you just feel that pull, that emotion, and you just know that's the time.'
In 2017, about 30 Choctaw women and two-spirit people planned to walk the Trail of Tears and receive their inchunwa at the end to commemorate the action, their friendship and their commitment to community.
The group approached a wall of logistical questions: who would tattoo them? What designs would they receive? What did those designs mean? They decided to pause the walk and instead research and learn more, meeting online from 2018 to 2021 to discuss their findings. The Inchunwa Project was born from this research and collaboration.
While they initially considered compiling all of the information into a book, they realized a podcast would be a better way to reach people. 'Since so many of us were Washington-based at that time, we would travel back to Oklahoma or to the south-east specifically for cultural gatherings,' said Lisa Fruichantie, the executive director of the Inchunwa Project. 'It was a way for us to connect no matter where we were.'
In receiving and promoting inchunwa today, south-eastern Indigenous people are continuing a millennia-old tradition. 'Tattooing is a really ancient art form,' said Mairin Odle, an associate professor in the department of American studies at the University of Alabama. 'If you're looking at south-eastern communities, there's an almost thousand-year artistic tradition that you can look to for examples and for proof of it.'
Images and descriptions of south-east Indigenous people during the early years of European contact, such as a 1732 image of a Choctaw warrior with a painted face and tattooed neck and torso, and an 1834 image of two Choctaw women with facial tattoos, refer to or depict tattoos. Three Cherokee men, known as the 'three kings', who traveled to England in 1762 to meet King George III, were all heavily tattooed across their faces and bodies.
People who receive inchunwa today can draw from their ancestors, using pottery, shell carvings and other artisan works from pre-contract, during the Mississippian Era, as inspiration for designs. They can also use modern works, from south-eastern basket weavers or stick makers, to create new meanings. 'We can't say for sure that that is what it meant to the ancestors,' Fruichantie said. 'But we can say that this is what has come to us, and what [it might mean] for the future.'
There are key differences between traditional Indigenous tattooing and western tattooing. In the latter, it is common to use stencils, a tattoo gun and brightly colored ink. For many Indigenous tattoos, however, hand poke, in which artists make the images without a stencil as a guide, is more common. As such, receiving the inchunwa may take longer. 'It's a more intimate process between the person getting the tattoo and those that are giving the tattoo,' Seawright said.
Though older Indigenous methods included using garfish teeth or deer bones, modern practitioners caution against the potential of blood-borne pathogens and for ensuring a sterile environment. The decision on the type of method used – tattoo gun or hand poke – is ultimately left to the personal preference of the person receiving the tattoo. Seawright's face and hand tattoos were both done with tattoo guns, but, she said, 'it doesn't make them any less traditional compared to someone else that did hand poke tattoos'.
The Inchunwa Project's work in promoting traditional tattoos has brought deeper understanding to south-eastern communities. It is part of a larger effort around revitalizing traditions after the colonial era and centuries of forced assimilation.
'I was raised up to believe that nothing was extinct. Nothing dies. We call it going to sleep,' Seawright said. 'My father was a part of our Chickasaw revitalization of stomp dancing and that's what he taught me. He's like: 'There's a time we stopped doing these; these dances went to sleep. But with the help of our fellow tribes, like the Muscogee and Seminole, we were able to bring this back.' And so, I never thought of it as them being gone, they just went to sleep and somebody had to have that vision and bring it back and bring it back to the people.'
The Inchunwa Project and the community that has developed around it have connected the group 'very deeply', Fruichantie said. Last year, when the group had a table at the Indigenous tattoo music festival, a woman approached them and specifically referenced an episode of the podcast with Julie Cordero-Lamb, an ethnobotanist and member of the Chumash Nation who teaches traditional regenerative horticulture. 'She said that [the episode] inspired such a sense of pride within her community,' Fruichantie said. 'And that there are about 20 different women that have now received their facial inchunwa, which is really big because it's such a big commitment.'
Revitalizing the traditional practice has an impact both on the person who decides to receive their inchunwa and the community at large. 'I'm old enough to have had the conversations with my parents that a lot of people have had where it's like: 'Don't get tattoos, don't get your hair dyed, because that's going to be a job killer',' Fruichantie said. 'It's a big deal for people to get their hands tattooed, but even bigger on the face. I think that shows such a big commitment to their culture. We often say it's a responsibility to my people and to my culture that I literally wear on my face,' she said.
Similarly, what's most important for Seawright is the impact her tattoos have on the future generations. 'We believe that our culture is a living culture,' she said. 'Unlike what western society puts in the history books, we're not a past people. We are a continuation. And I think a lot of our listeners really resonate with that.'
Seeing her two-year-old niece for the first time after receiving her facial inchunwa showed Seawright how important it was for her to pick up the banner of tattoo revitalization. 'She ran up to me and she put her hand on my face, just lightly touching it and smiling,' Seawright said. 'It was that little acknowledgement. It's something that's so spiritually moving. We're bringing these back not only for our elders, but we're making these new pathways for our future generations to have that be a common sight. For my niece to just do that simple move, it helped bring it all together. This is who it's for.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
4 days ago
- The Independent
'Sinners' puts 'truth on screen' for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
It's a small part in a big movie, but for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, their scene in " Sinners" is a huge deal. The horror movie blockbuster, starring Michael B. Jordan as a gangster turned vampire slayer, paints a brief but impactful portrait of the tribe using Choctaw actors and cultural experts. For some, it's the first time they've seen the Choctaw way of life accurately portrayed on the big screen. In the scene, a posse of Choctaw, riding on horseback and in an old truck, arrives at a small farmhouse to warn the couple that lives there of coming danger. When the couple refuses their help, a Choctaw man wishes them luck in his native language before riding off. 'I've not seen another movie that has our language, like, spoken correctly,' said Cynthia Massey, a cultural consultant for 'Sinners.' Massey runs the tribe's Chahta Immi Cultural Center alongside Sherrill Nickey and department director Jay Wesley. All three were hired as cultural consultants to ensure a genuine depiction of the tribe in the film. Together, they sifted through archives, researching how their ancestors would have dressed, spoken and acted in the 1930s, when 'Sinners' takes place. 'I was honored and humbled by the fact that they wanted a true representation,' said Wesley, who also acted in the movie. Wesley connected the filmmakers to Choctaw actors and artifacts like the beaded sashes the Choctaw characters wear in the movie. Those sashes are now part of a 'Sinners' display at the cultural center. The movie's introduction also features a short snippet of a Choctaw war chant, performed by Wesley's daughter, Jaeden Wesley, who is a student at the University of California, Los Angeles. While recording, Jaeden Wesley said the filmmakers told her they wanted the Choctaw people to hear their music in the movie. 'We were catering to our own people, even in that short little second,' Jaeden Wesley said. Shining a spotlight on often overlooked cultures and topics, like the Choctaw people, is part of the mission at Proximity Media, which produced 'Sinners.' The company was founded by 'Sinners' director Ryan Coogler, his wife and film producer, Zinzi Coogler, and producer Sev Ohanian. 'It was never a question for us that if we were going to portray the Mississippi Choctaw, we got to have the right people who can tell us, who can tell Ryan, what we're not knowing, what we're not thinking,' Ohanian said. 'It was all because we're trying to serve Ryan's story of like putting truth on screen." Ohanian and his co-founders didn't stop with Choctaw consultants; they enlisted a small army of experts who advised on the confluence of cultures mingling in the Mississippi Delta, where the film is set. The resulting cinematic world was so well received, community organizers penned an open letter, inviting Coogler and his fellow filmmakers to visit the Delta. Last week, the Cooglers, Ohanian and others took up the offer, attending a 'Sinners' screening in Clarksdale, Mississippi. Clarksdale is where the film's events unfold. 'I hope this encourages other filmmakers to find opportunities to be authentic in their storytelling and to look at this rich tapestry of culture that's right here in America,' Ohanian said, noting the film industry has historically misrepresented nonwhite groups. For Wesley and his fellow consultants, the hope is the film will cultivate curiosity in audiences, encourage them to learn more about Choctaw culture and visit the Chahta Immi Cultural Center. 'It's important to be connected to this culture because this was here before the public was here,' Massey said. 'Probably three-quarters of Mississippi was Choctaw land, and now we only have 350,000 acres.' They say Choctaw participation in the film has cultivated a sense of pride among tribe members. Nickey hopes it will encourage a sort of cultural renaissance at a time when she says fewer and fewer Choctaw speak their native language. 'I know for a fact that there are a lot of kids out there that don't even know how to speak our language. They only speak English,' Nickey said. 'I hope they know it's okay to speak our language.'


New European
6 days ago
- New European
Trump's war against the law
The earliest source is the newspaper editor and publisher Horace Greeley's book The American Conflict (1865), which reports Old Hickory's alleged declaration on the basis of a former congressman's recollection. According to Jackson's best biographer, Jon Meacham, the claim was 'historically questionable but philosophically true'. As far as historians can tell, President Andrew Jackson never uttered the threat to the chief justice that is still so frequently attributed to him. In 1832, after the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Cherokee nation in Worcester v Georgia, Jackson supposedly said: 'John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.' What Jackson did say to his longtime associate, John Coffee, was: 'The decision of the Supreme Court has felt still-born, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate'. All of which matters because the spirit of Jackson is now routinely invoked by the MAGA movement as Donald Trump wages a fast-escalating war with the courts. As far back as 2021, JD Vance said that his advice to his future boss would be to fire all civil servants: 'And when the courts – because you will get taken to court – and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say: 'The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.'' More recently, on February 9, the vice president posted on X: 'Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power'. In a podcast released on May 21, he warmed to his theme in conversation with Ross Douthat of the New York Times. 'I know this is inflammatory, but I think you are seeing an effort by the courts to quite literally overturn the will of the American people'. Chief justice John Roberts, Vance continued, was failing in his supervision of the judiciary: 'You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for. That's where we are right now.' The Democratic Party is in a state of aphasic shock, paralysed by the electoral disaster of November 5. Both houses of Congress are controlled by the Republicans, who, with a tiny number of exceptions, are craven in their obedience to Trump. That leaves journalists, a great many of whom continue, valiantly, to speak truth to power; but do so in the face of increasing intimidation and, in some cases, knowing that their proprietors have business exposure outside the media sector that makes them fearful of Trump. So – in practice – the line that stands between the republic and authoritarianism is judicial. At the time of writing, there have been 251 legal challenges to this administration, whose actions have been halted in at least 181 cases. Time and again, Trump and his senior officials have found themselves obstructed by judges from all over the country whose orders have nationwide force. As the solicitor general, D John Sauer, has complained, this means that the government has 'to win everywhere, while the plaintiffs can win anywhere'. Last Wednesday, the US Court of International Trade ruled against the president's tariff regime, finding that 'the Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises' and that 'any interpretation of IEEPA [the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act] that delegates unlimited tariff authority [to the president] is unconstitutional.' Helpfully reposting photos of the three trade court judges, Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, claimed on May 29 that 'We are living under a judicial tyranny'. A federal appeals court last week granted a suspension of the order, meaning that, for now, Trump can pursue his deranged tariff strategy, pending further legal action. On Truth Social, he posted that he hoped 'the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY.' But will it? On Friday, the highest court in the land gave the administration interim approval to revoke a Biden-era humanitarian programme to grant temporary residency to more than 500,000 migrants facing political turmoil or warfare. This 'humanitarian parole' system is intended to help people from countries like Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba and Haiti. On May 19, the supreme court also gave emergency approval to the government to lift the separate 'Temporary Protected Status' from nearly 350,000 Venezuelan migrants. The case is still subject to appeal. But immigration officials may now proceed with mass deportation – perhaps to the Salvadoran gulag. Yet the president and his allies remain furious with the general response of the judiciary to MAGA's egregious 'remigration' plan. On April 7, the supreme court ruled that the government must give 'constitutionally adequate notice' to individuals before their removal under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act; 12 days later, it intervened again, this time in the middle of the night, to block deportations of Venezuelans from Texas under the same antiquated legislation. The court has also ruled that the administration must 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the 29-year-old migrant who had been living in Maryland for 13 years, sent back to El Salvador after what the government has admitted was an 'administrative error'. In this case, as in many others, Trump and his team have opted for what the US legal scholars Leah Litman and Daniel Deacon refer to aptly as 'legalistic noncompliance': quibbling over what 'facilitate' means precisely, resorting to pedantry and slow-walking action mandated by the courts. With characteristic indifference to the responsibilities of his office – not to mention the oath that he took – the president himself has become an expert in non-expertise, claiming to have insufficient legal knowledge to offer an opinion on even the most basic juristic questions. Asked on NBC's Meet the Press on May 4 whether citizens and non-citizens alike deserved due process, Trump said, 'I don't know. I'm not, I'm not a lawyer.' Pressed by Kristen Welker on the substance of the Fifth Amendment which refers to the rights of the 'person', the president replied: 'It might say that – but if you're talking about that, then we'd have to have a million or two million or three million trials.' In an interview with the Atlantic to mark the first 100 days of his second presidency, Trump insisted that he would abide by any supreme court ruling – but went on to complain that 'we have some judges that are very, very tough. I believe you could have a 100% case – in other words, a case that's not losable – and you will lose violently. Some of these judges are really unfair.' His language was less restrained in a special Memorial Day post on Truth Social in which he attacked 'JUDGES WHO ARE ON A MISSION TO KEEP MURDERERS, DRUG DEALERS, RAPISTS, GANG MEMBERS, AND RELEASED PRISONERS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD, IN OUR COUNTRY SO THEY CAN ROB, MURDER AND RAPE AGAIN – ALL PROTECTED BY THESE USA HATING JUDGES WHO SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY'. Which shows that this is a temperamental as well as a constitutional clash. Trump demands instant gratification; the courts exist to deliberate. This incompatibility is now becoming perilous for the republic. Miller, meanwhile, has said that the administration is 'actively looking' at suspending habeas corpus for migrants – the individual's fundamental legal right to challenge his or her detention. In this context, it is worth noting that Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, revealed in a senate committee hearing on May 20 that she completely misunderstood this most basic legal doctrine, defining it as 'a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country.' Even more revealing was what Miller went on to say: 'Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.' In other words, the government will abide by judges' decisions – as long as they do what the administration wants. Suggested Reading Why do they hate us so much? Jay Elwes In Federalist No 78 (1788), Alexander Hamilton, writing as 'Publius', expressed fears that have rarely seemed more pertinent. The judiciary, he said, was by far the weakest of the three supposedly co-equal branches of government (the other two being the executive and the legislature); having 'no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment'. What were once abstract issues for constitutionalists to debate in the lecture hall are now all too practical and menacing. To start with, Mike Johnson, the House speaker, threatened in March to use the congressional 'power of funding' to 'eliminate an entire district court'. Founded in 2019, the Article III Project (A3P) mobilises thousands of phone calls, emails and social media messages to members of Congress to back Trump against the judiciary and is supporting bills introduced by senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and representative Darrell Issa of California to stop federal district judges from issuing nationwide court orders. More alarming is the surge in outright intimidation of the judiciary. Since Trump's return, unexplained pizza deliveries have been made to federal judges and their families – a way of telling them that their enemies know where they live. Deplorably, many have been made under the name of Daniel Anderl, the son of a federal judge who was murdered in 2020 while protecting his parents from a furious litigant. Judges considered hostile to Trump have also been 'swatted', where a hoax call is made to summon a SWAT team to a particular address – in the hope that heavily armed police officers, following procedure, will inadvertently traumatise whoever is at the location in question. On April 25, Hannah Dugan, a Wisconsin circuit court judge, was arrested and has now been indicted for allegedly assisting an undocumented immigrant in evading arrest. On Friday, 138 former judges filed a legal argument warning that Dugan's indictment 'threatens to undermine centuries of precedent on judicial immunity, crucial for an effective judiciary.' Pam Bondi, the attorney general, takes a different view. 'The [judges] are deranged is all I can think of,' she said on the day of Dugan's arrest. I think some of these judges think that they are beyond and above the law. They are not, and we are sending a very strong message today. If you are harbouring a fugitive, we will come after you and we will prosecute you. We will find you.' Most shocking of all are the formal discussions among senior judges, revealed by the Wall Street Journal, about forming their own armed security force. At present, the Supreme Court is protected by a special police service which it also oversees; other courts, in contrast, deploy US marshals. Notionally, these officers have a statutory duty to follow the judiciary's instructions. In practice, they work for the Department of Justice, and therefore for Bondi. What, in practice, would happen if the Trump administration flagrantly defied the Supreme Court? Thanks to the court's own landmark ruling last July, the president himself enjoys immunity; he could also pardon officials accused of criminal contempt. Another option is civil contempt, which seeks to enforce future compliance (the person in contempt of this kind is said to 'hold the keys to his own cell'). The advantage here is that the courts can deputise other agencies to enforce their rulings. But which agencies, precisely? Which, in this climate of fear, would be willing to risk retribution from MAGA? Chief Justice Roberts is an 'institutionalist' which means that his highest allegiance is to the preservation of the system that protects the constitution. In the words of his biographer Joan Biskupic, 'he elevated the institutional integrity of the Court above all'. And, to be fair to Roberts, he wrote in his most recent end-of-year report: 'Within the past few years… elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the spectre of open disregard for federal court rulings'. When Trump posted in March that a judge frustrating his deportation plan 'should be IMPEACHED!', the chief justice issued a direct rebuke, declaring that this was 'not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.' Yet it is precisely this value-system that may deter Roberts from a direct confrontation with the president. For the institutionalist, the prospect of the Supreme Court appearing impotent before an autocratic president is intolerable. Paradoxically, because such a defeat would shatter his worldview, he will postpone the moment of reckoning as long as he possibly can. But he cannot do so indefinitely. High Noon is approaching, and only one of the gunfighters – president or Supreme Court – can prevail. The outcome of that contest depends on a question of global consequence: whether the US remains, as it has long been, a nation of laws; or becomes something altogether more dangerous.


The Guardian
7 days ago
- The Guardian
Anthony Albanese shrugs off Dorinda Cox's sharp criticism of Labor before party switch
Anthony Albanese has brushed off Dorinda Cox's recent strong criticism of the Labor government – of which she is now a member – claiming the senator made the shock party switch because the Greens had 'lost their way' and could not effect social change. Despite Cox's claims in recent weeks that Labor was 'held ransom' by coal and gas companies and had 'spectacularly failed' by approving the North West Shelf gas project, Albanese welcomed the former Green to the government party room. Cox has also criticised Labor for having 'dropped [Indigenous] people like a hot potato'. But Albanese said that Cox had, 'over a period of time, come to the view that the Greens political party are not capable of achieving the change that she wants to see in public life'. 'That's not surprising, given that the Greens have lost their way,' the prime minister said. At a press conference in Perth, Albanese downplayed comparisons between Cox and Fatima Payman, the former Labor senator who was strongly criticised by government members for quitting the party to sit on the crossbench. Cox's defection from the Greens to Labor stunned her former colleagues on Monday. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email She gave the new Greens leader, Larissa Waters, just 90 minutes notice of her move. It came just weeks after Cox was unsuccessful in winning a leadership position in the Greens' caucus ballot, but it's understood there had been quiet discussions between Cox and Labor members for many months. Waters told the ABC that there was 'no animosity' towards Cox. She and Cox had a 'very calm and measured conversation about it. And I did genuinely wish her all the best.' But Waters also noted Labor's approval of the North West Shelf project, which Cox and other Greens had spoken strongly against. 'What with Labor having decided just this last week to approve an absolute carbon bomb off the coast of WA, which would not only have massive climate impacts but which would have huge impacts on ancient rock art, those values are not consistent with Greens values. We have opposed that. But Senator Cox has made her decision that party is the better fit for her,' Waters said. 'It's disappointing for us to lose a Greens senator. But Dorinda has said her values lie there, and you need to be true to yourself, don't you?' Waters denied the Greens had any issue with Indigenous representatives, with Cox's switch coming after Lidia Thorpe's defection to the crossbench in 2023. Cox had campaigned strongly for the Indigenous voice referendum, while Thorpe quit the party in part over the Greens' backing of the referendum. Cox, a Western Australian senator and Yamatji Noongar woman, was the Greens spokesperson for resources, trade, tourism, First Nations and northern Australia issues. She has been a strong voice on issues related to the justice system, fossil fuels and environmental damage, domestic violence, Closing the Gap, and calling for a federal truth and justice commission in the wake of the voice referendum. She had released several press statements scathing of Labor's record on fossil fuel and First Nations issues in recent months, including a statement on 12 May claiming the government was 'being held for ransom' by coal and gas companies, and is 'not committed to transitioning towards renewables'. Cox last week put her name to a Greens joint statement – alongside Waters, Sarah Hanson-Young and Peter Whish-Wilson – claiming that 'the new environment minister has spectacularly failed his first test in the job, after approving the climate-wrecking North West Shelf dirty gas extension to 2070'. Cox declined to comment on the gas project at her press conference with Albanese on Monday. Asked about Cox's prior comments, Albanese on Tuesday shrugged off the criticisms. 'Dorinda Cox understands that being a member of the Labor party means that she will support positions that are made by the Labor party,' he said. 'If you're serious about social change in Australia, the Labor party is where you should be.' The Nine newspapers reported last year that at least 20 staff had left Cox's office since she entered the Senate, with some levelling workplace complaints. At the time, Cox said she took responsibility for 'any shortcomings' in her office and apologised for any distress that may have caused, but said there has been 'significant missing context' in the reports of bullying allegations within her office. Albanese said on Monday that Labor had 'examined everything that had been considered in the past' and it was felt that the 'issues were dealt with appropriately'. On Tuesday, Albanese re-stated that the issues had been 'dealt with' by parliamentary workplace processes. Asked about Payman, who several Labor members suggested should hand back her seat to the government after switching to the crossbench, Albanese said Cox would come up for election at the next poll. 'Fatima Payman, of course, could have put herself before the people of Western Australia on May 3. She chose not to. Dorinda Cox's term is up at the end of this term, and she will have to – if she is pre-selected through ALP processes – put herself forward for election then,' he said.