Latest news with #JacintaNampijinpaPrice
Irish Times
a day ago
- Business
- Irish Times
‘It's nuclear meltdown': Re-elected Australian leader Albanese powers ahead as opposition tears itself apart
The old saying that you should never interrupt your enemies when they are making a mistake has morphed over the centuries. Having once referred to war, it now finds greater use in the context of politics. But Australia's ruling Labor Party, which won 94 of the parliament's 150 lower house seats in the May 3rd election , cannot help but try to give the opposition Liberal-National coalition a helping hand in the latter's seeming quest to reach rock bottom. 'This is a nuclear meltdown, and the coalition now is nothing more than a smoking ruin,' treasurer Jim Chalmers said of the conservative alliance. The coalition parties, following their worst result of 43 seats (they may win one more on a recount), immediately began an internecine war, with re-elected senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price at the centre of much of it. READ MORE First, she switched her allegiance from the Nationals to the Liberals. Then she backed the wrong horse, Angus Taylor, in his bid to become the new Liberal leader in the expectation that she would become his deputy. When Taylor lost to Sussan Ley, Price declined to stand for deputy. This was a sideshow to the main event, which saw the coalition split for about a week, then get back together just in time for the baubles and higher pay of shadow cabinet positions to be handed out. Price was dumped from the shadow cabinet, which she did not take well. 'There are probably some appointments that have not been predicated on experience or merit,' she said to Sky News. Chalmers said the opposition was 'completely and entirely focused on themselves. They tried to divide the Australian community in the election campaign, and they ended up dividing themselves'. Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese , who was regularly criticised for being too timid over the past three years, is showing signs of a more ambitious policy agenda after being re-elected in a landslide in which the Liberal and Greens leaders lost their seats. Speaking after the recent devastating floods in northern New South Wales (NSW) that left five people dead and about 800 homes uninhabitable, Albanese said: 'The science told us that [extreme weather events] would be more frequent and they would be more intense. And that's precisely what, tragically, is playing out.' Though acknowledging climate change's role in the tragedy seems the least any responsible politician should do, many Liberal-National coalition MPs still regularly say there is no connection, that each new disaster is a 'once-in-a-100-years' occurrence. At the time of the last major flooding in the region in 2022, former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce went even further, saying: 'This is a one-in-3,500-year event.' When catastrophes supposed to happen centuries or millenniums apart are happening every two or three years, it might be time to take climate change seriously. It scarcely matters to sceptics such as Joyce though. The people most likely to be affected by weather disasters are also most likely to vote for politicians unwilling to do anything about it beyond sending help afterwards and offering 'thoughts and prayers'. Not that Labor has a free pass on its own response to the climate emergency, having just extended the life of Australia's largest mainland gas facility until 2070. Amanda McKenzie of Australia's Climate Council said: 'Communities in NSW are starting the clean-up after record-breaking floods. It is shocking that at the same time the Albanese government has approved this massive climate bomb as the first act of this term of government. They've just opened the floodgates on over four billion tonnes of climate pollution.' Albanese may be on safer ground, though, in unequivocally condemning the Israeli government over its war on Gaza . 'Israel's actions are completely unacceptable,' he said. 'It is outrageous that there be a blockade of food and supplies to people who are in need in Gaza.' Albanese met Israeli president Yitzhak Herzog in Rome when they were there for Pope Leo XIV's inauguration mass. 'I made it very clear that Australia finds these actions completely unacceptable and we find Israel's excuses and explanations completely untenable and without credibility,' he said. His forceful language is a marked change given the regular claims from Australia's conservative press and broadcasters that any criticism of Israel's actions is anti-Semitic. Not that the Rupert Murdoch -owned newspapers, websites and Sky News have lessened their attacks on Labor. Their latest target is the proposed changes to how compulsory pension savings (which sees 11.5 per cent of a person's salary going to a superannuation fund most people cannot access until they are at least 60) are taxed. The change will see those with more than $3 million Australian dollars (€1.7 million) in their superannuation savings pay 30 per cent tax on earnings above that figure, rather than 15 per cent as is stands. It will affect just the richest 0.5 per cent of people with such accounts. That hasn't stopped a scare campaign claiming that eventually everyone will have to pay this tax. Albanese's government just has to convince people that if they had $3 million Australian dollars in savings then they probably could afford to pay more tax.
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
‘Treaty of Versailles': angry Liberal MPs warn makeup of Coalition shadow ministry will make new enemies
A rump of Liberal MPs are fuming over the makeup of the new shadow ministry, warning the perceived rewarding of supporters and sidelining of factional rivals was a 'Treaty of Versailles'-type peace deal that would cause long-term unrest. One Liberal MP said the appointments would 'create enemies', setting up an early challenge for new leader Sussan Ley as she attempts to rebuild the party. After striking a deal with the Nationals to reunite the Coalition, Ley is facing an internal backlash after dumping senior figures in favour of a new breed of MPs in a major reshaping of the Peter Dutton-era frontbench. Liberal sources said the makeup of the frontbench could be viewed as a mix of moderates and people who were 'very close' to Ley – such as Alex Hawke – and the 'flag bearers' for the party's right wing, who needed to be retained in senior roles to preserve a degree of factional balance. This group included Angus Taylor, James Paterson, Andrew Hastie and Michaelia Cash. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email While the most high-profile demotion, Jane Hume, is from the party's moderate flank, arguably the biggest losers were the conservatives. Sarah Henderson was relegated to the backbench while Jacinta Nampijinpa Price was demoted to the outer shadow ministry. Claire Chandler will also sit on the backbench after being forced out of shadow cabinet. Price claimed some of the appointments were not based on 'merit' as she expressed disappointment with her demotion on Sky News. A group of younger conservative MPs, including Henry Pike, Cameron Caldwell and Garth Hamilton, were all overlooked as Ley handed junior portfolios to moderates such as Maria Kovacic, Dave Sharma and Gisele Kapterian, subject to her winning Bradfield. Other ambitious backbenchers such as Aaron Violi and Simon Kennedy also missed out. Veteran rightwinger Tony Pasin – a key backroom player in Taylor's failed leadership tilt – was demoted as expected. Moderates Tim Wilson, Andrew Bragg and Angie Bell were among the biggest winners after promotions to shadow cabinet. The reaction to the shadow ministry presents an immediate test for Ley as she tries to rebuild from the 3 May election disaster. One conservative MP said the shadow ministry was more 'Treaty of Versailles than Marshall Plan' – a historical reference used to suggest the appointments would cause ongoing angst. The Treaty of Versailles was the peace deal between Germany and the allies that followed the first world war. The harsh conditions imposed on Germany were considered to have laid the foundations for the second world war. The Marshall Plan was the US-led initiative to help rebuild Europe after the second world war. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Asked for their view on the shadow ministry, another MP who missed out on a senior role referenced former Liberal prime minister's Tony Abbott's old saying about reshuffles. 'The Abbott truism that reshuffles create enemies will live out this term,' they said. In a blitz of morning television and radio on Thursday, Ley defended her frontbench choices and decision to promote more moderate voices. Ley called Price 'a real talent' and said she had 'a new, expanded role' in a critical area. 'I'm excited by the role Jacinta will play in that, and I've had a great chat with her about that role and as part of my team, she's excited to go forward with it,' she told 4BC radio. Ley on Radio National dodged several questions about Price's claims that 'merit' was not rewarded in the reshuffle, repeatedly declining to address her claims directly. 'She is part of that team. She's an incredible Australian in terms of her ability to connect. But I'm very proud of my team,' Ley said in response. Senator James Paterson, the new shadow finance minister, conceded on Radio National that while merit was the most important issue in a frontbench reshuffle, 'I'd be lying if I said merit is the only consideration' – calling it a 'political process' where leaders had to balance geographical, gender and party room factors. 'I'm disappointed on behalf of Sarah [Henderson], in particular, who did a great job in her portfolio and is a valued colleague as well, and Jacinta, understandably, would have preferred to be in shadow cabinet. We would all like to be in shadow cabinet,' he said. Asked about future unity in the Coalition party room, Paterson said ideas would have to be 'robustly tested' inside the party. Arguably the biggest internal fight for the Coalition this term will be over whether to dump or retain the net zero by 2050 target. In his latest intervention in the debate, the Nationals senator, Matt Canavan, published a bizarre anime-style video with the tagline 'dark Nats rise' and promising to 'defeat net zero'. Accompanied by a song with some lyrics in Japanese, the translation on screen includes lines like 'our nation needs a hero to defeat the net zero' and 'We rise, we fight, dark Nats burning through the night', with animation of men destroying wind turbines and solar panels.
Mercury
3 days ago
- Business
- Mercury
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price dumped from shadow cabinet
Don't miss out on the headlines from News. Followed categories will be added to My News. Northern Territory Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has been dumped from the shadow cabinet as the Coalition reunites after its brief but remarkable split. The Liberal and National leaders unveiled the shadow ministry on Wednesday after striking a new Coalition agreement following their break-up last week. Ms Price – who abandoned the Nationals for the Liberals in a failed run for deputy leadership – has been pushed to the outer shadow ministry and will be the spokeswoman for defence personnel. Her former position as Shadow Indigenous Australians Minister was handed to South Australia Senator Kerrynne Liddle, who was promoted to the shadow cabinet. Meanwhile Ms Price's short-lived government efficiency role – which was criticised in the election campaign for echoing the Trump administration – has been scrapped altogether. Liberal leader Sussan Ley said she had spoken to Ms Price about the new appointment. 'She's excited to take it up. There is no more important area than safety, national security and defence and you will see a great profiling of defence under Angus Taylor as we go forward in this term,'' she said. The highest profile victim of the reshuffle was the architect of the work from home policy Senator Jane Hume, who has been relegated to the backbench. Senate leader Michaelia Cash will take on foreign affairs, Deputy Liberal leader Ted O'Brien was named treasury spokesman, and leadership contender Angus Taylor was shifted from Shadow Treasurer to Defence. Julian Leeser returned to shadow cabinet as opposition attorney general, after quitting Peter Dutton's frontbench over his support for the Indigenous voice referendum. Former Nationals leaders Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack were demoted from the frontbench, as were Sarah Henderson and Claire Chandler. There are now fewer women in shadow cabinet than under Peter Dutton – eight out of 27. Originally published as Jacinta Nampijinpa Price dumped from shadow cabinet as Coalition reunites
The Advertiser
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Advertiser
One prominent voice does not speak for all
The recent leadership reshuffle within the Liberal Party reignited public interest in Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, with some commentators framing her as the voice of Aboriginal people in Australia. This framing reflects a broader misunderstanding that continues to shape public discourse in this country - the idea that any one individual can represent the views of an entire people. As an Aboriginal educator, I often engage with students and broader audiences on this very issue, because it reveals a deeper flaw in how many Australians learn about and understand Aboriginal perspectives. It creates an oversimplified narrative, one that finds its way into media reporting, classroom content, and public debate, ultimately reinforcing a narrow and misleading view of Indigenous identity and leadership. It is a problem that became especially clear during the Voice to Parliament referendum. For many Australians, the vocal opposition of a few prominent Indigenous figures was enough to cast doubt on the proposal itself. Some said, if even they do not support it, why should I? But this reveals a fundamental failure to grasp how representation works, and how leadership is determined in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. In our system of government, elected representatives serve their constituents in an electorate or specific state or territory. They do not represent the cultural or identity group they happen to belong to. Senator Price was elected by voters in the Northern Territory, not by Aboriginal people across the country. Similarly, a woman MP does not speak for all women, and a politician of a particular faith does not speak for all who share that faith. Yet when it comes to Indigenous people, there is a tendency to reduce a vast and diverse group of peoples to a single "Indigenous leader", or to elevate one dissenting perspective as though it reflects a wider consensus. MORE OPINION: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are as plural and varied as any other in the country. Views differ by region, by generation, by experience. And like any other Australians, First Nations people are entitled to hold and to express diverse views. What made the Voice proposal so significant was that it emerged not from Canberra, but from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities themselves. It was built on years of consultation, and ultimately supported by the vast majority of Indigenous peoples. The referendum result, however, did not reflect that support, not because Indigenous people were divided, but because non-Indigenous Australia was. Still, the myth of the singular "Indigenous leader" persists. And it raises a critical question: who decides who gets to be called an Indigenous leader? Too often, the answer seems to lie in media commentary or political circles, not within communities themselves. In Aboriginal culture, leadership is relational. It is earned through service, trust, and cultural responsibility. It is not self-appointed, nor conferred by television appearances or political titles. This is not to say that individual Aboriginal people should not express their views. They should, and they will continue to. But people should resist the temptation to treat one person's perspective as the definitive stance of an entire people. Doing so not only misrepresents Indigenous peoples across Australia, it erases the diversity of thought that exists within and between our communities. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are not a homogenous group, their views are complex, their communities distinct, and their leadership structures rooted in traditions far older than the nation-state. We must also recognise that disagreement does not invalidate a cause, particularly when the weight of evidence shows overwhelming support within the very communities that would be affected. There will never be a single leader that speaks for all Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples, nor should there be. That is precisely why the Voice was needed, to reflect and respect the diversity of Indigenous perspectives and to ensure they are heard where decisions are made. Clearly, the Voice is not what the rest of Australia supported so, in the meantime, we have to find other ways to ensure Indigenous peoples are appropriately consulted on policy and law that impacts them. Naturally, there will be some voices who are heard, and faces seen, more than others. But let us not confuse visibility with representation, or identity with mandate. One prominent voice does not speak for all. The recent leadership reshuffle within the Liberal Party reignited public interest in Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, with some commentators framing her as the voice of Aboriginal people in Australia. This framing reflects a broader misunderstanding that continues to shape public discourse in this country - the idea that any one individual can represent the views of an entire people. As an Aboriginal educator, I often engage with students and broader audiences on this very issue, because it reveals a deeper flaw in how many Australians learn about and understand Aboriginal perspectives. It creates an oversimplified narrative, one that finds its way into media reporting, classroom content, and public debate, ultimately reinforcing a narrow and misleading view of Indigenous identity and leadership. It is a problem that became especially clear during the Voice to Parliament referendum. For many Australians, the vocal opposition of a few prominent Indigenous figures was enough to cast doubt on the proposal itself. Some said, if even they do not support it, why should I? But this reveals a fundamental failure to grasp how representation works, and how leadership is determined in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. In our system of government, elected representatives serve their constituents in an electorate or specific state or territory. They do not represent the cultural or identity group they happen to belong to. Senator Price was elected by voters in the Northern Territory, not by Aboriginal people across the country. Similarly, a woman MP does not speak for all women, and a politician of a particular faith does not speak for all who share that faith. Yet when it comes to Indigenous people, there is a tendency to reduce a vast and diverse group of peoples to a single "Indigenous leader", or to elevate one dissenting perspective as though it reflects a wider consensus. MORE OPINION: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are as plural and varied as any other in the country. Views differ by region, by generation, by experience. And like any other Australians, First Nations people are entitled to hold and to express diverse views. What made the Voice proposal so significant was that it emerged not from Canberra, but from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities themselves. It was built on years of consultation, and ultimately supported by the vast majority of Indigenous peoples. The referendum result, however, did not reflect that support, not because Indigenous people were divided, but because non-Indigenous Australia was. Still, the myth of the singular "Indigenous leader" persists. And it raises a critical question: who decides who gets to be called an Indigenous leader? Too often, the answer seems to lie in media commentary or political circles, not within communities themselves. In Aboriginal culture, leadership is relational. It is earned through service, trust, and cultural responsibility. It is not self-appointed, nor conferred by television appearances or political titles. This is not to say that individual Aboriginal people should not express their views. They should, and they will continue to. But people should resist the temptation to treat one person's perspective as the definitive stance of an entire people. Doing so not only misrepresents Indigenous peoples across Australia, it erases the diversity of thought that exists within and between our communities. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are not a homogenous group, their views are complex, their communities distinct, and their leadership structures rooted in traditions far older than the nation-state. We must also recognise that disagreement does not invalidate a cause, particularly when the weight of evidence shows overwhelming support within the very communities that would be affected. There will never be a single leader that speaks for all Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples, nor should there be. That is precisely why the Voice was needed, to reflect and respect the diversity of Indigenous perspectives and to ensure they are heard where decisions are made. Clearly, the Voice is not what the rest of Australia supported so, in the meantime, we have to find other ways to ensure Indigenous peoples are appropriately consulted on policy and law that impacts them. Naturally, there will be some voices who are heard, and faces seen, more than others. But let us not confuse visibility with representation, or identity with mandate. One prominent voice does not speak for all. The recent leadership reshuffle within the Liberal Party reignited public interest in Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, with some commentators framing her as the voice of Aboriginal people in Australia. This framing reflects a broader misunderstanding that continues to shape public discourse in this country - the idea that any one individual can represent the views of an entire people. As an Aboriginal educator, I often engage with students and broader audiences on this very issue, because it reveals a deeper flaw in how many Australians learn about and understand Aboriginal perspectives. It creates an oversimplified narrative, one that finds its way into media reporting, classroom content, and public debate, ultimately reinforcing a narrow and misleading view of Indigenous identity and leadership. It is a problem that became especially clear during the Voice to Parliament referendum. For many Australians, the vocal opposition of a few prominent Indigenous figures was enough to cast doubt on the proposal itself. Some said, if even they do not support it, why should I? But this reveals a fundamental failure to grasp how representation works, and how leadership is determined in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. In our system of government, elected representatives serve their constituents in an electorate or specific state or territory. They do not represent the cultural or identity group they happen to belong to. Senator Price was elected by voters in the Northern Territory, not by Aboriginal people across the country. Similarly, a woman MP does not speak for all women, and a politician of a particular faith does not speak for all who share that faith. Yet when it comes to Indigenous people, there is a tendency to reduce a vast and diverse group of peoples to a single "Indigenous leader", or to elevate one dissenting perspective as though it reflects a wider consensus. MORE OPINION: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are as plural and varied as any other in the country. Views differ by region, by generation, by experience. And like any other Australians, First Nations people are entitled to hold and to express diverse views. What made the Voice proposal so significant was that it emerged not from Canberra, but from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities themselves. It was built on years of consultation, and ultimately supported by the vast majority of Indigenous peoples. The referendum result, however, did not reflect that support, not because Indigenous people were divided, but because non-Indigenous Australia was. Still, the myth of the singular "Indigenous leader" persists. And it raises a critical question: who decides who gets to be called an Indigenous leader? Too often, the answer seems to lie in media commentary or political circles, not within communities themselves. In Aboriginal culture, leadership is relational. It is earned through service, trust, and cultural responsibility. It is not self-appointed, nor conferred by television appearances or political titles. This is not to say that individual Aboriginal people should not express their views. They should, and they will continue to. But people should resist the temptation to treat one person's perspective as the definitive stance of an entire people. Doing so not only misrepresents Indigenous peoples across Australia, it erases the diversity of thought that exists within and between our communities. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are not a homogenous group, their views are complex, their communities distinct, and their leadership structures rooted in traditions far older than the nation-state. We must also recognise that disagreement does not invalidate a cause, particularly when the weight of evidence shows overwhelming support within the very communities that would be affected. There will never be a single leader that speaks for all Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples, nor should there be. That is precisely why the Voice was needed, to reflect and respect the diversity of Indigenous perspectives and to ensure they are heard where decisions are made. Clearly, the Voice is not what the rest of Australia supported so, in the meantime, we have to find other ways to ensure Indigenous peoples are appropriately consulted on policy and law that impacts them. Naturally, there will be some voices who are heard, and faces seen, more than others. But let us not confuse visibility with representation, or identity with mandate. One prominent voice does not speak for all. The recent leadership reshuffle within the Liberal Party reignited public interest in Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, with some commentators framing her as the voice of Aboriginal people in Australia. This framing reflects a broader misunderstanding that continues to shape public discourse in this country - the idea that any one individual can represent the views of an entire people. As an Aboriginal educator, I often engage with students and broader audiences on this very issue, because it reveals a deeper flaw in how many Australians learn about and understand Aboriginal perspectives. It creates an oversimplified narrative, one that finds its way into media reporting, classroom content, and public debate, ultimately reinforcing a narrow and misleading view of Indigenous identity and leadership. It is a problem that became especially clear during the Voice to Parliament referendum. For many Australians, the vocal opposition of a few prominent Indigenous figures was enough to cast doubt on the proposal itself. Some said, if even they do not support it, why should I? But this reveals a fundamental failure to grasp how representation works, and how leadership is determined in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. In our system of government, elected representatives serve their constituents in an electorate or specific state or territory. They do not represent the cultural or identity group they happen to belong to. Senator Price was elected by voters in the Northern Territory, not by Aboriginal people across the country. Similarly, a woman MP does not speak for all women, and a politician of a particular faith does not speak for all who share that faith. Yet when it comes to Indigenous people, there is a tendency to reduce a vast and diverse group of peoples to a single "Indigenous leader", or to elevate one dissenting perspective as though it reflects a wider consensus. MORE OPINION: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are as plural and varied as any other in the country. Views differ by region, by generation, by experience. And like any other Australians, First Nations people are entitled to hold and to express diverse views. What made the Voice proposal so significant was that it emerged not from Canberra, but from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities themselves. It was built on years of consultation, and ultimately supported by the vast majority of Indigenous peoples. The referendum result, however, did not reflect that support, not because Indigenous people were divided, but because non-Indigenous Australia was. Still, the myth of the singular "Indigenous leader" persists. And it raises a critical question: who decides who gets to be called an Indigenous leader? Too often, the answer seems to lie in media commentary or political circles, not within communities themselves. In Aboriginal culture, leadership is relational. It is earned through service, trust, and cultural responsibility. It is not self-appointed, nor conferred by television appearances or political titles. This is not to say that individual Aboriginal people should not express their views. They should, and they will continue to. But people should resist the temptation to treat one person's perspective as the definitive stance of an entire people. Doing so not only misrepresents Indigenous peoples across Australia, it erases the diversity of thought that exists within and between our communities. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are not a homogenous group, their views are complex, their communities distinct, and their leadership structures rooted in traditions far older than the nation-state. We must also recognise that disagreement does not invalidate a cause, particularly when the weight of evidence shows overwhelming support within the very communities that would be affected. There will never be a single leader that speaks for all Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples, nor should there be. That is precisely why the Voice was needed, to reflect and respect the diversity of Indigenous perspectives and to ensure they are heard where decisions are made. Clearly, the Voice is not what the rest of Australia supported so, in the meantime, we have to find other ways to ensure Indigenous peoples are appropriately consulted on policy and law that impacts them. Naturally, there will be some voices who are heard, and faces seen, more than others. But let us not confuse visibility with representation, or identity with mandate. One prominent voice does not speak for all.
Sky News AU
3 days ago
- Business
- Sky News AU
‘I have no regrets': Jacinta Price wants to ‘benefit' Australians through new position
Shadow Minister for Defence Industry Jacinta Nampijinpa Price says she has 'no regrets' in terms of switching from the National Party to the Liberal Party following her demotion from the shadow cabinet. 'I'm ultimately all about ensuring that we're in the strongest position to take the fight up to Labor for the benefit of the Australian people,' Ms Price told Sky News host Peta Credlin. 'I don't matter in the grand scheme of things … it's about the Australian people. 'I am absolutely going to be dedicated to ensuring that we support defence personnel.'
