Latest news with #VoicetoParliament
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
Ted O'Brien and Tim Wilson win big in shadow cabinet reshuffle, Jane Hume and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price lose out
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has unveiled her new shadow cabinet with a bold reshuffle that elevates key allies and sidelines former political heavyweights. The frontbench announcement comes after a bruising leadership transition, a temporary Nationals walkout, and growing pressure to refresh the Coalition's policy agenda. 'I'm not going to reflect on the qualities of individuals with respect to the qualities of other individuals,' Ms Ley told reporters when asked about some of her decisions. 'I don't think that's a fair question… I know that we have harnessed the talent that we need in this shadow ministry going forward, but there is a role for every single person.' Sky News has broken down the biggest winners and losers in the newly revamped frontbench. Winners Deputy leader Ted O'Brien has emerged as one of the biggest winners, promoted to shadow treasurer from shadow energy minister. The move was largely expected given the Liberal Party tradition that the deputy leader chooses their own portfolio. Former home affairs minister James Paterson has joined the opposition's economic team, supporting Mr O'Brien as the new shadow finance minister. Despite being close to the political fallout of the Coalition's recent election loss, Mr Paterson negotiated his way into one of the more powerful roles on the frontbench. Senator Andrew Bragg was rewarded with a new economic brief, taking on productivity and deregulation, as well as housing. Tim Wilson, who was re-elected to parliament as the Member for Goldstein, has returned to the frontbench as shadow minister for industrial relations, employment and small business. Alex Hawke, a long-time factional ally of Ms Ley, also returns from the wilderness as manager of opposition business and shadow minister for industry and innovation. Another notable return to the frontbench was new shadow attorney general Julian Leeser, who quit the frontbench in the last term over the Voice to Parliament referendum. Losers Former shadow finance minister Jane Hume, a prominent media performer, was among the most shocking omissions from Ms Ley's new frontbench. Ms Ley declined to clarify whether Ms Hume had rejected a more junior role, but a source has said that she was dumped. The omission has been seen as a casualty of her public support for tightening public service work-from-home rules during the election campaign. Sarah Henderson, the former shadow education minister, was also cut, with sources confirming it was not a voluntary departure. Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price may have avoided total exclusion, but she was demoted from cabinet to outer ministry after defecting from the Nationals. Ms Price was removed as shadow minister for indigenous affairs and government efficiency, and handed the shadow defence industry portfolio. The reshuffle has resulted in fewer women in shadow cabinet—six, down from seven—a curious outcome for the party's first female opposition leader. Former National Party leaders Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack were also left out of the new frontbench, following their public criticism of Mr Littleproud's leadership. The reshuffle follows the Nationals' decision to rejoin the Coalition after temporarily walking out over policy disputes. Following the split, the Liberal Party agreed to four key policy demands from the Nationals, and the Nationals agreed to cabinet solidarity. After a Nationals partyroom meeting on Wednesday morning, Ms Ley and Mr Littleproud officially reached the new agreement.
Sky News AU
3 days ago
- Politics
- Sky News AU
Pauline Hanson tells re-formed Coalition to 'start working together' on 'good' policies and 'conservative values' if it wants to beat Labor Party next federal election
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has advised the Coalition to start thinking about the Australian people after it re-formed on Tuesday following a temporary split. The Nationals walked away from the decades-long alliance with the Liberals last week in disagreement over four policies it wanted to remain after the election loss. The Liberals eventually agreed to keep nuclear power, the Regional Australia Future Fund, break-up powers targeting supermarkets and better mobile coverage in the bush. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and Nationals leader David Littleproud on Tuesday confirmed they had reached an agreement following a partyroom meeting. Speaking to Sky News, Senator Hanson said it was likely the Coalition remains together given there has been backlash from conservative voters over the disharmony. She then took a swipe at the opposition, claiming there was a lack of "pushback" on Labor over Medicare, immigration and cost of living during the election campaign. "I thought it was a very poor election by the Coalition, government - both sides - and they parked Barnaby Joyce and Jacinta Price on the sidelines. They never had them out there pushing policies," she told host Danica Di Giorgio on The Kenny Report. "I don't think their policies were good enough for the people to vote for them." Senator Hanson highlighted Labor were returned for a second term with just under 35 per cent of the primary vote, while the Liberals registered just over 20 per cent. The firebrand politician then offered some direct advice to the Coalition, saying the parties must start working together to win back voters ahead of the 2028 election. "It's not about them. They've now gone back, get some decent policies going, put your case forward before the people," Senator Hanson said. "I believe if they put good policies out there, go back to their core, conservative values, I think they do have a chance to get rid of Albanese at the next election." The Coalition on Tuesday also confirmed its shadow cabinet , with the big takeaways being senior figures Jane Hume and Barnaby Joyce excluded from the frontbench. Deputy Liberal leader Ted O'Brien is shadow treasurer, James Paterson takes on finance, Angus Taylor moves to defence, and Michaelia Cash is on foreign affairs. Jacinta Nampijinpa Price - who defected from the Nationals to the Liberals prior to the Coalition's split - was demoted and given shadow defence industry and personnel. Asked if Senator Price's party switch was a "waste of time", Senator Hanson said she suspects the defector is looking for a lower house seat at the next election. Senator Price gained support and notoriety from Australians in the lead-up to the Voice to Parliament vote as she strongly voiced her opposition to an advisory body. However, Senator Hanson said it was not just Senator Price who did not support it and flagged the Northern Territory politician must do more to "prove her worth" to voters. "She has only been in parliament for three years. What is her credentials? Aboriginal Affairs. I thought they should have kept her there," she said. "She knows her stuff, she should have been there, not to put her in defence. She's got to get some stripes up and she has to prove her worth to the Australian people." Senator Hanson also believes Ms Ley will be replaced before the next federal poll. She was also hesitant about Mr Littleproud's leadership, saying there are "rumblings still going on" and "disquiet within" the Nationals, but suggested he could be safe if he focused and kept "pushing for the rural and regional areas". "I hope they actually get their act together because I do not want to see the Albanese Labor government, Greens government, in there for another two terms," she said. "Hopefully if we can all work together, the conservative side of politics, and get rid of the Albanese government, because they're destroying this country. "I'm just gobsmacked. The number of people out there who actually voted for the Labor government this last election, they're in for a lot of hurt and pain. "I warn the Australian people now - it's only just the start of it."
Sky News AU
7 days ago
- Business
- Sky News AU
Coalition deal expected in 'coming couple of days' after Liberals concede to Nationals' four policy demands
A new Coalition agreement between the Liberal and National parties is expected within days, following disagreement over policy and shadow cabinet solidarity. Despite internal dissent and rumours of a leadership coup, the Coalition will likely reassemble before the return of parliament in July. Final details of the agreement are expected to be confirmed this week, including the allocation of shadow cabinet roles and formalisation of the joint policy platform. Nationals' leader David Littleproud told Sky News Sunday Agenda those negotiations were now simply 'mechanics and machinery'. 'I'm expecting that Sussan (Ley) and I can get to that arrangement in the coming couple of days,' he said. 'We'll work through that together in a constructive way.' The reconciliation comes after Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and the Liberal Party agreed to back the Nationals' core policy priorities. 'I received the written response… that the Liberal Party is prepared to accept the four policy areas that were the reason we couldn't sign up to that Coalition agreement,' Mr Littleproud said. 'They were important to us… and we made great progress in the last term of parliament. I wanted to make sure that they remained, and we couldn't get that guarantee until now.' The Nationals' policy demands included lifting the moratorium on nuclear energy, supermarket divestiture powers and the $20 billion regional future fund. Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg told Sky News that those proposals were 'highly desirable' after he privately expressed concerns about the lack of shadow cabinet process. 'I think what's most important here is that we maintain fidelity to our core principles, which is that, we don't determine the detail of policy today,' he said. The Liberal Party has since agreed 'in principle' to the policies but will resolve the details of each policy at a later time. Conversely, the Liberal Party were unwilling to compromise on the issue of shadow cabinet solidarity. Much of the commentary around the rift focused on concerns that Nationals shadow ministers would not publicly support cabinet decisions that they personally disagreed with. 'We're not asking that we can just run off on every cabinet decision. That was never the intent,' Mr Littleproud said. 'This is a red herring to say (the split) was on cabinet solidarity. It was on those four policy areas. We've been very clear, very consistent from the very start.' He acknowledged past friction over issues like the Voice to Parliament referendum, where the Nationals declared their 'no' position before the Liberals had finalised theirs.
West Australian
22-05-2025
- Politics
- West Australian
Emma Garlett: As Reconciliation Week nears, I'm optimistic for our future
National Reconciliation Week is approaching and we have plenty of work ahead of us. Many of us are still hurting from the failed Voice to Parliament referendum. But the theme of this year's Reconciliation Week, Bridging Now to Next, is an acknowledgement that now is the time to embrace new opportunities, while also recognising the unbreakable connection between events of the past, and our present and future. Labor's re-election offers Anthony Albanese another chance to follow through on his so far-unfulfilled commitment to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. Last term, Albanese followed through with his promise to take the Voice to a referendum. It failed. But the Voice is only one part of the Uluru Statement, The other pillars — truth and treaty — can still be achieved. The defeat of the Voice was a blow. But, I like to take a glass-half full approach. Forty per cent of Australians voted Yes. And many of those who voted No do support reconciliation, but had reservations about how a Voice would operate. There is still plenty of support for improving the lives of First Nations Australians. You wouldn't have known it during the election however. Indigenous affairs were completely off the radar. With Labor back in power with a resounding majority, it's up to Albanese to put it back at the heart of his Government. There's plenty for WA to do too. We're not generally known as the most progressive State, but I see reason for hope in Roger Cook and his Government's support of the Wadjemup (Rottnest Island) truth-telling project. WA should be a leader, not a laggard. We could do this by amending our State Constitution to include an enabling power for affirmative action for First Nations peoples — not just an acknowledgement in the preamble but in the body of the document itself. Next year is Albany's bicentenary, before Perth reaches the milestone in 2029. Let's put First Nations people front and centre of these events to tell the history and our stories. We could even have a statutory Voice to Parliament, as has been done in South Australia. Change is generational. And the next generation, which has received education in schools about Aboriginal history, is in a great position. And with many of us who are already in the workforce receiving cultural awareness training in our jobs, the rest of us are making progress too. Education is key to eradicating ignorance. It helps us recognise the negative stereotypes and unconscious bias that has become entrenched in our society for generations. We need to be able to see these things to fight against them. We have a long way to go. The events that darkened this year's Anzac Day commemorations, when a small few interrupted Welcome to Country ceremonies, is evidence of that. We are so privileged to live in Australia, a nation with a rich Indigenous history, home to more than 250 language groups, each with their own unique culture and stories. Let's embrace that gift and work towards a reconciled Australia. Emma Garlett is a legal academic and Nyiyaparli-Yamatji-Nyungar woman
