Senator Jacinta Price addressing the National Press Club — 14th September, 2023.

The original can be viewed here:   YouTube      internet-archive-entry

Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price addresses National Press Club

September 14, 2023

0:12

Today is the first time that I have addressed the Press Club as shadow minister for Indigenous Australians.

It's actually the second time I've been given the opportunity to address the National Press Club, and the first was in November of 2016, when I stood alongside Marcia Langdon and Josephine Cashman to address the critical issues of family violence and sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities. Three Aboriginal women speaking with one goal to tackle the scourge of Indigenous family violence.

0:54 [Price told to ignore the acceptance of violence within traditional culture.]

Marcia cautioned me prior to the address. Saying, that I should not draw a link between the high rates of Indigenous community violence and the acceptance of violence within traditional culture. Her suggestion is that there is no correlation – my experience screams otherwise.

So I could not bring myself to expunge a painful truth for the sake of the audience who might not want to hear it. I could not sugar-coat the reality of so many communities because it would be otherwise unpalatable.

I've been told that by speaking out, by amplifying the voices of the victims, and the vulnerable, by bringing attention to the rampant abuse and neglect, that I am repeating the words of the oppressor.

I've been told I'm a sell-out. I've been racially abused, vilified, lampalled [?lampooned], and threatened with violence. And why? Because I want to stop children from being abused. Because I want to stop women and men from being killed.

2:20 [There is no genuine appetite in Canberra to tell or hear the truth.]

The truth is, for all the moral posturing and virtue signaling about truth-telling, there is no genuine appetite in Canberra to tell the truth, or, to hear the truth. This could not be any clearer than in this Government referendum on the voice.

Australians desperately want to the right thing for their fellow Australians, regardless of background. Many who have engaged with this proposal, hoping to find a way to help the indigenous Australians who most need assistance, are left disappointed. They are left with the falsehoods, misleading information, and promises, that can't be kept.

And this ... and should never have been made.

3:20 [The 'voice' proposal is built on lies and is an attempt to fracture our nation.]

The voice is flawed in its foundations. It is built on lies, and an aggressive attempt to fracture our nations founding document and divide the country built upon it.

That division has now seen the 'no' campaign branded as being base racism and sheer stupidity. When in fact, what would be racist is segmenting our nation into 'us' and 'them'.

And you have to say it would also be stupidity to divide a nation when it has been growing ever more cohesive.

To split it along fractures of race rather than try to bring it closer together.

Our most marginalised deserve better than this. They deserve the truth — the unvarnished, untainted and yes, maybe, unpalatable to some people, truth.

4:30 [Voice lie 1: Indigenous Australians do not have a voice.]

The first lie that underpins the voice is that Indigenous Australians do not have a voice. We've been told by the Indigenous minister, for Indigenous Australians, that Indigenous people do not get a say on policies or the decisions being made on our behalf.

I am one of eleven Indigenous voices currently in Parliament, and I will not accept the lie, the rationalisation of many Indigenous voices of the 'yes' campaign who suggest our democratically elected voices are redundant because we belong to political parties.

The patronising suggestion that we cannot focus our efforts on improving the lives of marginalises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Australians, because we are simultaneously responsible for constituents of all backgrounds, is unambiguously wrong and should be rejected resolutely. It is a suggestion that is offensive, not only to me, but my Coalition colleague Senator Karen liddle, but to all representatives that are of Indigenous heritage in federal Parliament.

5:56 [Failure of ATSIC and other 'voices.']

It has been argued by the advocates of the 'Voice' that such a concept has never been undertaken before. I would argue that establishing a taxpayer-funded bureaucracy comprised of indigenous only representation and tasked with simply providing advice, is absolutely something that has been undertaken before.

The failed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, or ATSIC was established to provide formal involvement for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in government processes.

6:34

ATSIC consisted of elected representatives that oversaw the delivery of programs, distribution of grants, loans for small enterprise and larger loans.

The National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, which went into administration, was designed to be a representative voice for Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander people, although some of its former directors and chairs now advocate for a voice in wake of its failure. Noel Pearson once criticised it as a black fella's wailing wall.

7:10

The only difference between the 'Voice' and organizations like these is that we are being asked by a few elites to enshrine it within our constitution, without even knowing its functions or powers.

Unlike the others, if the 'Voice' fails we cannot simply dismantle it. And make no mistake, it is only an elite few who are asking.

7:50 [Voice lie 2: Aboriginals are a harmonogenous group and are asking for a voice.]

The claim that this is an invitation from Indigenous people to the rest of Australia is the second lie, the voice is built upon.

To say this has come from First Nations people, plays into backwards, neocolonial, racial stereotyping, suggesting that all Aboriginal people think the same, feel the same and want for the same things.

Indigenous Australians have a long history of engaging in and contributing to our communities, our country, and our democratic process. And we have done it in different areas, in different fields, with different approaches and different skills.

Despite racial stereotyping that suggests Aboriginal Australians are one homogenous group, we are not. We have participated in public debate throughout our nation's history and we have often disagreed on many political positions.

The incredible contributions that many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people made to our nation – contributing to it, not trying to tear it apart – is one of the greatest strengths and sources of pride for our country.

9:12

One of those great Australians was David Unipon, Australia's Da Vinci, who patented 10 inventions between 1909 and 1944.

Another was senator Neville Bonner who did not believe in dividing our country, but believed in the power of the individual and self-agency leading to opportunity for contribution. It was Bonner's voice that prepared the way for more Aboriginal voices to our Parliament.

It was his vision to see more Aboriginal Australians elected to Federal Parliament, and that vision has been realised.

Bonner's great niece and former Queensland senator, Joanna Lindgren, recently said at a 'no' event in Queensland, that her great uncle never would have supported an amendment to our constitution that divided Australians along the lines of race through a 'voice'.

Ernie Bridge, Albert Namatjira, Eddie Marbo, Vincent Lingiari, M. K. Turner, the list goes on, and includes 19 Federal parliamentarians of indigenous heritage – democratically elected voices. Who have represented all Australians since Bonner's entrance in 1971.

10:43

It includes 49 state and territory parliamentarians of indigenous heritage. 14 of whom have come from my home, the Northern Territory, who followed din the footsteps of Hyacinth Tungutalum, a fellow Country Liberal Party member elected in 1974.

I wish I could spend this entire speech just listing inspiring Aboriginal Australians and their contributions to policy, government, our Australian way of life and so many important issues. But I have to address the third lie that underpins the divisive voice. That is that it is simply an advisory body.

Nowhere in the question that will be put to Australians or in the proposed chapter on which we are voting do the words 'advice', 'advice' or 'advisory' appear. If the Prime Minister truly intended for this body to be a simple advisory body as he, his government, and the advocates of the 'voice' repeatedly tell us, then it would have been stipulated in the proposed chapter.

Instead, proposed chapter 9, section 129, part 1, determines: 'There shall be a body called the Voice.' And part 2 specifies that: 'it shall have the power to make representations to the Parliament and executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.'

You see, words matter. Words proposed for amendment within our nation's constitution matter a lot. And they matter to every single Australian.

12:43

As Chris Merritt, legal affairs expert and vice president of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia explained recently during a 'voice' forum, the difference is significant. Describing the 'voice' as an advisory group understates its significance and gives the misleading impression it would be a benign sounding-board for ideas.

That the 'voice' will produce representations, not advice, suggests its role would be more like a lobby group that acts only in the interests of its clients. Not the interests of the government, the parliament or even the nation.

It is the Prime Minister that has many times, trotted out talking points that he wants us to focus on the question and only the question, but at the same time, the role he insists the 'voice' will have is not in the question.

This point is critical, and it leads to the fourth lie that the 'voice' is built on.

No matter what the government, the advocates and the activists say about what the 'voice' will or won't do, the fact is they don't know.

14:09

They don't know who will be on the 'voice'. They don't know what it'll choose to make representations on. They don't know how a high court will interpret the proposed new chapter.

For all their promises, the third and final part of the proposed chapter specifies that though the parliament shall have the power to make laws, it will be subject to the Constitution. Which means it'll be subject to High Court interpretation. And the amendment is such, that the power to make representations comes before whatever laws the Parliament might pass.

Assertions that the 'voice' will only care about health and education, or anything else that has been claimed, are misleading conjecture. They don't know.

The Government has repeatedly promised equal representation, gender balance and youth representation, but these are not promises the Government can make. The reality is that they don't know what form the 'voice' may make in the future. They don't know.

What we do know is that many of the most senior advocates of the 'voice' have very different views of than that of the Government. They talk about it as the first step towards establishing treaty, reparations, compensation, and a mechanism to punish politicians, presumably this means politicians like me who are not afraid to stand up to them.

16:10

There has been no shortage of false claims that it is the 'no' campaigners who are fear-mongering over the scope of the 'voice', but the reality is that our concerns come from the 'voice' advocates themselves.

For example, we've heard calls for Australia Day to be abolished by referendum working group members. Taylor Reid directly rebuked minister Burney's comment that the 'voice' won't make representations on Australia Day when she said: 'It might be the Australian Government's preference to keep things like Australia Day. But trying to limit the scope of what the people can advocate for to change, is just stupid.'

In front of friendly audiences, where they aren't trying to pull the wool over the eyes of ordinary Australians, the people who are in the room with Anthony Albanese, designing this, make clear what they expect the 'voice' to be.

Militant unionist and key working group member, Thomas Mayo, told the Search Foundation's 'Snapshots of Communists in Australian History' event on the 'Voice' in March of 2021: 'We understand as unionists that you don't make an agreement with the boss without building power first. Without building representative structures any more than a Communist Party or any other political party can function without structure and elected representation

17:52

Australians, including Aboriginal Australians, have every right to be concerned that such radical demands are being made by advocates of the 'Voice'.

So let's be very clear. The widespread community support of recognition of indigenous Australians in the Constitution, bears no relation to what the architects of the 'voice' have put forward.

This very obvious point was made by Amanda Vanstone in the Appendix of the 2017 Uluru Council final report. I encourage you to go and read it.

She pointed out that the 'Voice' proposal created a dissonance between what the public believe recognition meant and what has been proposed. She observed, it could be very divisive and damaging to pursue this without properly working through that dissonance.

Well here we are, divided, by a proposal, that its own advocates are very clear is about being separate, not united.

The designers of the 'voice' continue to push the idea that we are different to everyone else despite also being Australian.

19:21

A massive disservice has been done to the Australian people and indeed has contributed to the division created by this debate, when Government talking points are being laundered as facts, despite there being clear agendas stated by the designers of the 'voice' and despite the Government assurances being often flagrantly contradictory and incoherent.

We are seeing that this division is now beginning to play a significant role in the demands now being made by Aboriginal institutions. Institutions such as the Victorian Government's established truth-telling commission Yoorrook.

Make no mistake. Such so-called truth-telling commissions have no desire to tell history in the round. They desire to misrepresent Aboriginal life prior to the arrival of the British as some form of Pascoenian paradise. They want to demonise colonial settlement in its entirety, and nurture a national self-loathing about the foundations of modern Australian achievement.

Following a Royal Commission type process, the truth-telling commission have demands for sweeping changes that would seek to legislate separatism based on racial heritage.

The Commission demands that an indigenous-led watchdog be established with the power to arrest and search Victoria police officers and investigate police complaints and deaths in custody.

21:10

Contrary to the Royal Commission into black deaths in custody making no findings of institutional racism, the truth-telling commission claims racism and the effects of colonisation are to blame for high rates of incarceration. The Commission calls for an entirely separate child protection system that treats Indigenous children differently to other Australians.

This demand is based on claims that systemic racism is the cause for high rates of child removal despite the fact that children of Indigenous heritage are nine times more likely to be the subject of substantiated child protection claims than non-indigenous Victorian children. Nowhere within the truth-telling commission's findings are these statistics highlighted.

During my time working at the Centre for Independent Studies, I published a policy paper titled ' Worlds Apart: remote Indigenous disadvantage in the context of wider Australia.' One of the areas I research was crime and its nature.

We know that a fundamental cause of any person on a pathway to incarceration, for both youth and adults, is exposure to domestic violence, abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, lack of education and incompletion of schooling. When all of these elements are combined, then the likelihood of engagement in criminal behaviour and incarceration is virtually inevitable.

This relates to any person of any background, but the reality is that Aboriginal children are exposed to all of the factors at a greater rate than any other group of Australian children.

Separatism, attributing to causes to racism and colonisation, does little to nothing to address the true causes. We are led by grievance before fact. We overlook the opportunity to execute pragmatic common sense approaches capable of realistic and positive outcomes.

The demands now being made by the truth-telling commission on the Victorian Government give us an insight into the potential conduct and demands the 'voice' might bring.

23:48

No matter what the outcome is on October 14, it is imperative that we examine the failures of our past in order to understand how to do better.

Our nation's rule book belongs to every Australian, and it is not a document to be taken for granted or to be jeopardised for the same of a vibe. To undertake such a significant amendment, the Prime Minister owes the Australian people a clear, concise, realistic demonstration of how his 'voice' will deliver the outcomes that all good Australians want for our marginalised. As yet, he's unable to do that.

Remember, it is the Labor party who have gone down this path of division by hitching recognition, which most Australians support to the 'voice'. The coalition is consistent in supporting recognition but we, rightly, say 'no' to a divisive 'voice'.

If the referendum goes down, that's on Labor, for choosing a divisive and non-consultative path which sets back recognition. What has become abundantly clear is that when racial separatism that designates a class of Australians as an 'other', is prioritised over serving Australians on the basis of need, we experience failure.

An industry has been established that provides opportunity for the already privileged to occupy positions that are supposed to deliver outcomes for our marginalised, based purely on the fact they share a racial heritage. Such positions should carry immense responsibility. But unfortunately, very little has come in the way of accountability.

It is for this very reason, that I, along with my colleague senator Karen liddle, have put motions before the Senate to establish an inquiry into structures that currently exist to deliver the much needed outcomes to our marginalised communities.

26: 26

If the tax-payer is funding these structures, like land councils, native title and similar organizations, but they are not delivering outcomes, then it is incumbent on us as elected members of Parliament to provide a platform for the marginalised to hear from them as to how they are being failed.

So when the Prime Minister says the 'Voice' is the last chance we have to overcome the disparity of marginalised Aboriginal Australians, do not believe him.

Do not believe him when he attempts to undermine the importance of the Aboriginal members of Parliament, who are fighting to effect real change via the democratic structures by which we have been elected.

27:24

Remember, the Prime Minister himself has cited examples where local communities have had input on policies that have worked. This is already happ0ening, and our support for regional and rural consultation is about amplifying that success rather than doubling down on previous failures.

We don't need a 'voice' to Canberra, we need accountability. It is incumbent upon us as members of Parliament to determine what actions are required in order to fix the current structures and apply greater accountability.

It is not for us to initiate a mechanism for a transfer of constitutional power to an entity controlled by a handful of individuals, then relegating an entire group of Australians based on racial heritage to this entity.

My hope is that after October 14, after defeating this voice of division, we can bring accountability to existing structures and we can get away from assuming inner-city activists speak for all Aboriginals and back to focusing on the real issues: education, employment, economic participation, and safety from violence and sexual assault.

Two years ago I filmed a documentary to give a voice to the voiceless and the vulnerable, to the women, children and men who have suffered in silence. To those who have survived horrific violence at the hands of those closest to them. Those who have been murdered to those closest to them. And those alleged to have been murdered but whose deaths have never been properly investigated or brought any justice.

It highlighted the people who have not previously been heard because the cause of their pain has not been colonisation or racism. The cause of their pain has been much closer to home.

30:00

These are the voices that will not be represented within the new Canberra 'voice'. The Canberra 'voice' would not have a purpose if the lives of the most marginalised were dramatically improved. The Aboriginal industry would come to a screaming halt if the gap between our most marginalised and everyone else, including privileged Aboriginal people disappeared.

We need to be listening to people like Sharon Long. The cousin of a young indigenous girl who died hours after being sexually assaulted in a remote community. And her beautiful nieces and sisters that she cares for that are all here today. recently they made their way to Canberra to be heard, while minister Burney, Prime Minister Albinese and in fact the entire Labor Government, Teals, the senator David Pocock, have been happily travelling the country to do events with leading activist 'yes' campaigners.

They couldn't find the time for them. 31:25 They listen to the Qantas sponsored leaders of the activist industry but not to an ordinary Aboriginal woman, actually on the ground, living the disadvantage they claim they care about.

Sharon not only takes care or her siblings and nieces, but has recently brought her elderly grandmother from Bulla in the Northern Territory, to her home in North Queensland. Because her house in community was made unlivable when a male family member tried to set fire to his girlfriend in the room next to her nana's bedroom.

Despite Sharon's calls to the Northern Land Council, and other organizations to intervene and provide support for her grandmother, her cries have fallen on deaf ears.

It is why Sharon has little faith in the multi-million dollar organizations responsible for representing the needs of the vulnerable. Why would a 'voice' be any better? Especially when its advocates hold nothing by contempt for those of us who question it and who challenge its intentions.

32:54

The 'voice' will become yet another battleground for many Aboriginal voices to disagree, fall out, and create division.

The division must be rejected, and certainly must not be enshrined within our Constitution.

I want to thank my husband Colin for standing with me against division. I want to thank my parents for their support. Who are here today.

Thank you to the Aboriginal women who have travelled here today.

And thank you to everyone around the country who have joined us in this fight against those who want to divide our nation.

On October 14 we must say no to the voice of division.

Thank you.

[applause]

34:31

Moderator: Thanks very much senator. Thanks for your speech. We've got more than 15 questions, so we'll try and move things along as quickly as we can. I hope everyone can keep their questions short and sharp and we can move through them all.

I'll start with a question about something that's meant to be at the foundation of this entire debate about the voice because it's meant to be about closing the Gap. It's meant to be about fixing indigenous disadvantage

Now there's a scenario where I guess in your ideal world you'll defeat the voice. You'll also be part of a coalition government in the future. So what is it that you would do differently now to fix that indigenous disadvantage on things like health and education.

Price: Well I wouldn't assume that we are all disadvantaged for no other reason but because of our racial heritage. I would focus our efforts where our marginalized exists and prioritize our most marginalized and as I've pointed out in my previous work at the center for independent studies not all indigenous Australians are marginalized. The further you move away from a capital city the more marginalized Australians become. So that includes the growing middle class of indigenous Australians or those of indigenous Heritage in our Capital Cities and other places and um and our most marginalized in remote communities and those are the individuals whose first language is usually not English. Who don't have access to Services, the same sort of Education as those in our Capital Cities and certainly those who live close to traditional way of life where things like cultural payback exists in their day-to-day lives. Where it is thought that, you know, any premature death or illness is caused through sorcery and somebody must be held responsible for that and a form of payback is provided. So therefore violence is accepted.

They're some of our most marginalized. But I would also, as I have set out to do with my colleague Karen Liddle, understand, I want to understand. It is my responsibility as an elected parliamentarian to put the questions to the the current structures, the organizations, the statutory authorities that receive federal funding to improve the lives of our most marginalized. They are responsible as well. This is why we need an inquiry to understand where that money is being spent. Understand where it's actually providing outcomes and support those efforts further; where it's being misused and hold to account those who are misusing those funds. We need to understand all of this.

It's been acknowledged by the government. It's been acknowledged by many that there have been many failures but there's no appetite to fix the current structures that exist only to add to it with this voice. But that's what I would be aiming for with my Coalition colleagues.

Moderator: Okay, and we'll try to keep moving. So thank you and so the next question is from Karen Barlow.

Questioner: Karen Barlow from the Canberra times. Senator, thank you very much for being here. I'm seeking Clarity and I refer back to your first speech where you said that you've had more than your fill of being symbolically recognized. Do you support as a principle, constitutional recognition of indigenous people whether it's a second referendum or not on the principle. Do you support constitutional recognition.

Price: I've certainly stated it publicly and quite often that I support recognition of indigenous Australians. I just simply can't support this proposal where this unknown voice entity is attached to recognition and I support the idea of being using common sense approaches toward improving the lives of our most marginalized.

Moderator: Next question is from David Spears.

Questioner: Thank you Senator, and just further to that question and comment, we've heard Peter Dutton pledge to have a second referendum should this one fail. We've heard your leader Dave Littleproud say he pledges his leadership to restart the process on constitutional recognition. As you said in today's speech, words matter. What sort of recognition would be acceptable to you, would avoid the separation in the Constitution that you're clearly concerned about.

Price: Thank you for that David, and what I think hasn't happened throughout this current process is the labor government haven't held uh, constitutional conventions to understand from the Australian people what recognition might look like. That would provide a majority of Australian support toward recognition. And so it is our understanding as the Coalition, we've had a long held commitment to recognition but we would want to absolutely follow the appropriate processes to ensure that those conversations have taken place right across our country, involving everybody. That's what needs to be done and hasn't happened.

Moderator: Our next question is John Paul Janke.

Questioner: John Paul Janke, from The Point on NITV and SBS. Senator thank you for your speech today. uh Senator our invitation uh to you to come on the point is still open and we'd love to have you on the show in our last remaining shows up until October 14th. uh As we heard the leading the opposition Peter Dutton has suggested a second referendum should this one fail if he's elected as PM in 2025, and as you mentioned proposing symbolic recognition. In your speech you said the Constitution belongs to all Australians. So if such a referendum was held, would you see it as an opportunity to also remove the references of race in our constitution, namely section 51-26 which allows the Commonwealth Parliament, as you know, to make laws in respect to the people of any race for whom It deems necessary.

Price: Thank you for your question. uh Again, that would come down to what the conversations, the conversations that need to take place amongst the Australian people, um, indigenous, non-indigenous, constitutional conventions that need to take place to understand what direction ... uh whether it would be about removing that particular chapter also, but as I said, I would be wanting to make sure that the Australian people were all in favor of the direction that we would take in that way.

Moderator: Next question is from Paul Se****.

Questioner: Thanks, thanks Senator, um I just wanted to ask you about the lobby group Advance with which you're Associated. You've clearly outlined a whole series of arguments today that are not based in racial prejudice, but some of the key members of Advance including Gary Johns and David Adler have copped severe criticism wrestling for some of their comments accusing indigenous people of blackface, saying that indigenous people need to conduct blood tests to receive welfare payments. Advance was also responsible for the cartoon the Channel 9 needed to apologize for. Do you feel comfortable being associated with these people on your campaign, and really, you condemn them? And separately, some of your Nationals colleagues believe that you could one day lead the party. I know there's an issue in the chamber you're in but would you be open to it?

Price: So, let's start with, let's start with uh your first question. What I can say is that from the moment this referendum was launched by our prime minister our nation has been divided. We have seen ugliness on display from right across the board. I know myself, Warren Mundine, have been the subject of horrible racial vilification, right up until my phone number, my personal phone number, was shared on Twitter yesterday and I was absolutely bombarded with the most revolting messages, voicemail messages that you could think of. I'm no stranger to horrible, horrible abuse, and what I will say is that prime minister needs to take responsibility for the division that we're now confronted with. He chose to take this path to divide our nation, to not undergo the appropriate processes to involve the Australian people in constitutional conventions and to bring everybody along for the ride and I condemn all kinds of horrible behavior that has come out as a result of this.

Questioner: Does that mean that you condemn what Gary John said. I mean talking about blood tests for instance?

Price: So, I don't agree with blood tests. I certainly don't agree with blood tests. What I do believe in is that perhaps if we served Australians on the basis of need as opposed to race we wouldn't see those individuals claiming to be indigenous, that we know is a problem for the indigenous community and there's a wonderful academic in the room here today who's written about that, Suzanne Ingram, about the fact there are many box tickers out there that are taking away opportunity from our most needy. Those are the important issues and they absolutely need to be dealt with. But if we actually chose to serve Australians on the basis of need and not race, those opportunists would disappear quick smart.

[applause]

And just on that second point quickly, I know you asked. Firstly I'm very grateful for my leaders and their leadership in backing, certainly backing me in all the way to stand in opposition to the voice. That our National's party room came out early to say no to a divided country, and I would suggest that it's Albanese's leadership that's on the line here going forward.

Moderator: Thank you, a very diplomatic answer with the National's leader, David Littleproud and the deputy leader Bridget McKenzie in the room.

Moderator: Our next question is from Rhiannon Down.

Questioner: Rhiannon Fown from the Australian. Thank you for your speech. You've said a 'no' vote at the referendum will mean governments will take greater accountability on outcomes for indigenous people, but how do you create this accountability under, under the existing structures? How is this different to what is being tried now? And can I confirm, do you support a second referendum? Will you campaign for it as the indigenous spokeswoman?

Price: Thank you. So to your first question. We have all the mechanisms in place to apply accountability. Prime minister Albanese is not applying those mechanisms. It's why myself and Senator Karen Liddle have have asked the Senate to support our motion to hold an inquiry into land councils, statutory authorities, native title, uh, Aboriginal organizations, who are funded to represent the views of Aboriginal Australians.

I want to acknowledge the Venus [unintelligible] who's in the audience who was quite upset at the beginning of this Press Club. I know why she's upset. because she has fought all her life to be heard by representatives of these organizations and has been ignored and disrespected as a traditional owner in her own right. That is what myself, my colleague Karen Liddle want. We want to apply accountability to these organizations who are responsible for the lives of our most marginalized and we have all the mechanisms to do that within our democratically elected structure that currently exists. And it is an absolute lie to suggest that we can't use what we have already to do that.

Moderator: Next question is from Tom McElroy

Questioner: Our, and on your referendum question?

Price: Yeah Obviously, again it comes down to uh, the processes that we'd need to follow, um, in the first place. Iif Australians are happy to do that and that is what uh, we find within the processes, then that is what I would support.

Moderator:Do you think that second referendum could be done in the, in the first term of a coalition government.

Price: I can't answer that question at this stage and I'm far more concerned with knocking over this referendum before anything else.

Moderator: Next question is from Tom McElroy

Questioner: Thanks for taking our questions, senator, Tom McElroy from the FInancial Review. You said that the voice risks undermining the authority of MPs in Parliament, including the many indigenous MPs who were present and who you listed. Wouldn't local and Regional voices present the same phantom risk to state parliaments, to local governments, where you've served to the National Parliament. What's the rationale for local and Regional voices if a national voice undermines the fundamental right of Parliament.

Price: Well we're talking about constitutional enshrining an unknown entity at this stage that we know that activists have suggested would be weaponized to punish parliamentarians such as myself. So that is um, that objective is there for those that want to occupy positions of power on this voice. Now what we want to do, as a coalition, is amplify people in regional and remote communities. You know, what I probably wouldn't even use the word voice, but that's what we would seek to do. It's what I've been actively doing. It's why I've got um, you know, unknown members of our community in the room with me today, who have been trying to be heard by those in power, who are not being heard and I would suggest that we in fact need ears in Canberra not a voice, and we need to be listening to the regions. That's what we need to be doing because that's where the most marginalized exists.

48:46

Questioner: Thank you Senator. uh You have criticized the voice because of the division you say it would create and the idea of preferential treatment for one group. At the same time you've accepted the shadow indigenous Australians portfolio. So what is your key policy for indigenous Australians and should the portfolio and the shadow portfolio exist?

Price: That's a really good question because I think I've said publicly that ultimately the voice is a contradictory in itself, because it's supposed to be about Closing the Gap, but if you constitutionally enshrine it, that's suggesting the Gap will exist in perpetuity. And that is not what we want. The same can be said for the portfolio that I hold. I would hope to see that one day in our country we wouldn't require such a portfolio because if we don't have that portfolio it means that everybody is taking advantage of the same opportunities that our country has to offer. So it shouldn't exist.

Questioner: Why should it exist now under that thinking, if you don't want to see a separation between the two?

Why should it exist now? Because well, it, it does exist. It, it, it, it already exists. It's what I've been given the responsibility to be part of and I think it is incumbent upon me, certainly me, and my colleagues, which is what we're doing, is to use such a position because, let's not forget it is a position of power, to hold to account those that we are responsible for within this portfolio. So there are over three thousand Aboriginal organizations and many of whom the responsibility of this portfolio go under. So therefore, if you are responsible for such a portfolio you should be holding to account those under you that are supposed to be delivering the outcomes. Because government might hold the purse strings but it's everybody's responsibility going forward, and that's the accountability that I don't believe has been applied effectively enough previously.

Moderator: Our next, our next question is from Olivia Casey.

Questioner: Olivia Casey from Sky News. Thank you very much for your speech. Last week an alliance of child protection agencies called for the establishment of a national independent commissioner for the protection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. They say that such a role is necessary to address critically high levels of disadvantage. It's something the government is considering. Do you agree that such a role could make a difference?

Price: Well I have concern with that, because once again it's asking for separatism. When, when Peter Dutton came to Alice Springs and spoke to members of my community, very concerned foster parents of Aboriginal children, spoke to children themselves, who are in those positions. He came to the conclusion that we needed a Royal Commission into the sexual abuse of Aboriginal children. The leading National body, Snape, that is the advocacy group for Aboriginal children, downplayed the claims of high rates of sexual abuse of Aboriginal children. What concerns me about calling for a commissioner like this is that we are setting up yet another expensive position. Who will be, who will occupy this position. Will it be another ideologue or will it be somebody who is actually prepared to look at the reality of the circumstances that indigenous children are currently faced with. Because a lot of indigenous policy, its starting point, comes from ideology as opposed to fact and reality, and what's going on on the ground. So I'd be hesitant until we held a Royal Commission into the sexual abuse of Aboriginal children as to whether we should establish such position going forward.

Moderator: The next question is from Ben Westcott.

Questioner: Hello. Ben Westcott from Bloomberg. Thank you so much for your speech today Senator. um You spoke about accountability in your speech. um Now whether or not the voice passes the Albanese government will one day be held to account for how it uh has performed on indigenous rights. um But looking back over the past 10 years the record of the previous coalition government hasn't been fantastic on indigenous rights. There's um four out of 18 closing the Gap targets are on track. There's a 10-year life expectancy Gap. $300 weekly income gap. Lots of, you know, you can go on and I'm sure you know these statistics. Obviously why what would be different under another coalition government and you know why, should the Australian public one day, trust you to close that Gap.

Price: Sure, well I think again this goes back to the fact that what we have wanted is more Aboriginal representation in Parliament across the board we are now over represented, being four percent of Parliament and only three percent of the population. We are bringing something new that hasn't been done before. I know that certainly among some of the organizations that sit before us at Senate estimates have never had to contend with a number of Aboriginal Senators, female senators, sitting before them and asking them hard questions. This is the first time accountability has occurred, and there is a reason for that, because much of, as I've mentioned, a lot of Aboriginal policy has come from ideology. Many leaders have been too scared to actually apply accountability for being called racist. We have this accusation which has stifled debate. Which has stifled common sense approaches to tackling the issues that confront our most marginalized and we are treating Aboriginal people differently. And we treat no other group of Australians in this manner. If I've got anything to do with it we'll actually start treating Aboriginal people like Australian citizens. That's what I can guarantee going forward. I'll be treating Australians equally and suggesting we prioritize our most marginalized no matter who they are.

54:50

Moderator: The next question is from Katina Curtis.

Questioner: Thanks Senator. Katina Curtis from the West Australian. Just picking up what you said just before. We are now over represented in Parliament and the comments in your speech about, you know, that your voices are being heard, Do you see it as part of your job as a senator for the Northern Territory to consult with and represent the views of people from Western New South Wales or Northern Queensland?

Price: Well I think as my role as the shadow Minister for indigenous Australians certainly it is my responsibility to ensure that I am hearing the views of many around the country, and I mean, I am a federal representative and so I obviously am accountable to all Australians as well.

56:00 [Colonization has had a positive impact on indigenous Australians.]

Moderator: And the next question is from Josh Butler.

Questioner: Senator. Josh Butler from the Guardian. Thank you for your speech. In your speech you claim some indigenous organizations, quote, 'want to demonize colonial settlement.' Can I ask you please do you believe the history of colonization continues to have an impact on some indigenous Australians?

Price: No. Very. I'll be honest with you. No, I don't think so. Positive impact absolutely. I mean now we've got running water; we've got readily available food; I mean everything that my grandfather had when he was growing up, because he first saw white fellas in his early adolescence, we now have. Otherwise he would have had to live off the land, provide for his family, and all of those measures which Aboriginal Australians, many of us, have the same opportunities as all other Australians in this country, and we certainly have probably one of the greatest systems around the world, in terms of the democratic structure in comparison to other countries. It is why migrants come to flock to Australia to call Australia home, because the opportunity that exists for all Australians. But if we keep telling Aboriginal people that they are victims, we are effectively removing their agency, and then provide, giving them the expectation, that someone else is responsible for their lives. That is the worst possible thing you can do to any human being, is tell them that they are a victim without agency, and that's what I refuse to do.

[applause]

Questioner: So you don't believe that there's any negative ongoing impacts of colonization on indigenous Australians today. Just, just to confirm.

Price: No, there's no ongoing negative impacts of colonization.

What I will say, which I have suggested obviously within my speech, is that particularly for my family in remote communities, again who live very close to traditional culture, who experience the highest rates of violence in the country: family violence, interpersonal violence. They experience that not because of the effects of colonization but because uh, it's expected that young girls are, it's expected that young girls are married off to older husbands in arranged marriages. uh Women, we haven't had a feminist movement for Aboriginal women because we've been expected to toe the line when it's come to Aboriginal activism for the rights of our race. But the rights as women have been second place. uh And I have the lived experience. My mother has the lived experience, as someone who was subject to traditional custom and expected to become a second wife in an arranged marriage. There are still people living this way in this country and yet those who have held the narrative because they have had an education and access to media, ignore the plight of those in communities, and this can't continue, to go on. Thank you.

58:50

Moderator:We're moving into an area that goes well beyond the voice but it is you know I, I have talked to indigenous people and I'm sure others have to who talk about generations of trauma among indigenous Australians as a result of colonization, whether that means that colonization continues now, this is probably a separate question but would you accept that there have been generations of trauma as a result of that history.

Price: Well, I guess that would mean that those of us whose ancestors were dispossessed to their own country, and brought here in chanins as convicts are also suffering from intergenerational trauma. So I should be doubly suffering from intergenerational trauma.

[applause]

Moderator: Next question is from Amanda Copp.

Questioner: Thank you Senator. My name is Amanda Copp. I'm from the Community Radio Network and National Radio News. Just back on The Voice campaign. Both the 'yes' and the 'no' campaigns want to see the lives of indigenous Australians improved. Obviously the conclusions about how to do that are vastly different. If the 'no' vote succeeds on referendum day, will the lives of indigenous Australians be better on the day after the referendum?

Price: Well, that's um, I guess given that um the Prime Minister has ignored our most marginalized. No, because he could be working to fix the situation for many indigenous Australians at the minute but he's fully focused on, telling Australians to vote vote 'Yes' for this referendum, I'll give an example. Of course there's the Yipirinya school in Alice Springs where our most marginalized children of our community who are often on the streets late at night suffer, and they have put forward a proposal to the, to Minister Bernie, about the need for accommodation for staff and students. If that accommodation was built already their lives would already be improved. So you could say that by October 14 there'd be some improvement for some people but when people like that are ignored uh, you know, there are members in this in this group here today of Aboriginal women who have been trying to be heard by the labor government but are being used as political footballs and ignored. But if they were listened to, right now, instead of pushing for a voice. If the government grew ears we might have some kind of improvement. But October 14, when this goes down, I mean, I've been working hard now, I'll continue to work along with my Coalition colleagues to make sure that we will bring about the changes that are required and start from a position of reality.

1:01:30

Moderator: Okay and the next question from Catherine Wong.

Questioner: Thanks for your time Senator. Kat Wong from AAP. So activist Claire G Coleman has pointed out something kind of strange with the referendum. She's pointed out that the referendum requires obviously a double majority: a national majority and a majority of at least four states. But of course your home, the Northern Territory, doesn't count as a state, which means the 8,000 First Nations people living in the Northern Territory, who make up about a third of the state's population and about 10 of all of Australia's indigenous population, are partially disenfranchised. You constantly advocate for First Nations people from the bush and for them to have their voices heard, so how do you feel about the fact that their vote is partially erased?

Price: Well, they've been exploited again for the purpose of somebody else's agenda. This is what I've seen over and over again. It's come from the Uluru statement from the heart, uh, which by the way, the the word Uluru, I know, if I'm speaking to Anangu elders, that they are unhappy that the, the, the landmark and the name has been exploited for the purpose of a PR campaign for a referendum. Their voices aren't being heard. And it isn't that just ironic, that their voices aren't heard although, the 'yes' campaign have exploited their Landmark for the purposes of this referendum.

This is what has continued to occur, as I said, because the powerful who have had an education and access to Media, have control of the narrative of indigenous policy without letting those in remote communities really have a voice. And while they claim that this is about them it's not about them. There are those proponents of the Voice who have had years at the table. These failures are their responsibility. Also they now seek for a transfer of power through our constitution so that they can never be dismantled. But it is incumbent upon every single one of us not to just fly in a group of 'yes' campaigners to celebrate six years since the signing of the Uluru statement from the heart and ignore the locals. And we're the only locals that are in attendance, are just the paid dancers, they need to actually listening to people on the ground, which is certainly what I've been doing, which certainly what Senator Karen Liddle, she provided a video for the media of traditional owners of senior law men, Anangu men who said the Uluru is sent from the heart, that canvas, is a troublemaker. It's dividing our nation. Those 250 signatories, some of them don't even know what they were signing. They don't represent all of indigenous Australia. Like we wouldn't get a group of white Australians together to determine policy for white Australia and then say that this little group represents all of white Australia. We don't do that to any other racial group in this country. We've got to stop doing it to Aboriginal people.

Moderator: We've moved very well through all the questions but we've got one final question which is from Dana Morse.

Questioner: Thanks minister. Dana Morse from the ABC. Just a quick one. Do you agree with regional and local voices being legislated as put forward by the opposition later Peter Dutton?

Price: So at this stage, there are certainly conversations taking place. There are conversations that need to be had within our party rooms, within Shadow cabinet, to determine what it might look like to amplify and support regional and remote communities, particularly indigenous people in those communities going forward. And I am absolutely going to be front and center with those discussions and those determinations going forward. I look forward to that.

Moderator: Thank you very much for your speech, but before I ask the audience to thank you, I want to thank you on behalf of the club for being here. We got through all of those questions, which is no small feat in a crowded agenda. We'd like to present you with this membership card because you're welcome back to the National Press Club at any time.

Price: That's my second one.

Moderator: Well you're doubly welcome back. Thank you. So thank you again. Please join me in thanking Senator Nampijinpa Price.

[Applause]

 

*     *     *     *     *     *