NT Senator Jacinta Price was the breakout star of Australia’s conservative political conference at the weekend where speakers sketched their staunch opposition to a Voice to Parliament.
The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Sydney featured two days of sessions on topics ranging from climate change denialism to Marcus Aurelius, with speakers including former UKIP and Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage, former prime ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott, and former Trump adviser Jason Miller.
The Voice to Parliament was the focus of the weekend with much of the first day dedicated to sessions making the case against it and with many speakers — both Australian and international — sharing their reservations.
This case was spearheaded by Price, the new Country Liberal Party (CLP) senator who said the proposal for a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous advisory body would create “racial separatism”.
She got laughs when talking about a suggestion she made to Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong: “I put it to Wong that maybe we should co-design an Asian Voice to Parliament.”
On a panel with CPAC chairman Warren Mundine and Dr Anthony Dillon, Price argued that it was “privileged” Indigenous Australians who were pushing for a Voice. She implied that critics of the Voice would be labelled racist.
“If you vote ‘no’ you’ll be given a label, and it’s not true,” she said.
Later, Abbott reiterated his opposition to the Voice, saying that his successor, Malcolm Turnbull, was right when he (erroneously) called it a third chamber of Parliament.
Price was given the inaugural Freedom and Hope award, a prize given to someone who “truly represents the positive future that we aspire to”, CPAC Australia founder Andrew Cooper said.
Where is the report on what Senator Price said, Wilson’s analysis and reactions of major stakeholders? Or was the meaty part of Cam Wilson’s report mistakenly not published due to a glitch?
Fair question, Keith.
Sadly, actual informative reporting by Wilson, which can be used by readers to form their own opinions, tends to be thin on the ground. He’s more of an “impressionist” sort of writer.
Cam doesn’t do meat, more tofu.
Couldn’t happen here – “implied that critics of the Voice would be labelled racist.“If you vote ‘no’ you’ll be given a label, and it’s not true,”
Could it?
Between the religious extremists and these CPAC radical types, the Liberal Party seems destined for irrelevancy in the not too distant future. Neither group seems terribly representative of the conservative people I know. Lucky the progressives are now in charge and looking to protect our democratic institutions from this lunacy.
I always smile when people thank an author for reading a book and writing an article about it because it saves them a dirty job. In that vein, I offer Cam a thousand THANK-YOUs for attending this event and reporting on it for us. I hope Crikey paid you triple time – you certainly deserve it and a whole lot more!
Yes to the first paragraph.
But, golly. The second paragraph? The CPAC was so much stupid in one place at the same time, yet CW only managed a few hundred words? A thousand words of hysterical funny never to be and the opportunity for a laugh a line wasted. I hope Crikey gave CW counselling and a copy of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
I would like to find out what Jacinta Price’s views are and how she differs for the proponents of The Voice?
Surely an invited article by her here would be helpful, considering the many out there ones from the house magazine of the Council on Foreign Relations?
Or the flaks in need of an outlet, like Toby Ralph or Sainsbury.
What I’d really like – what would be really useful – would be for Crikey to send Cam (or Amber Schultz, say) on a field trip to NT to interview Price’s voters on the ground. If she could get stewarded access to somewhere like Ngallugunda, the reporting results would I think be even more valuable and interesting.
What a cutting-edge CPAC lineup, eat your heart out, Coachella. On the other hand, the mean part of me suspects Albanese is mainly using the Voice as a look-over-there, to avoid doing anything about our odious King Charles.
Au contraire. People are lukewarm on the republic, whereas there are many passionate supporters of the Voice.
On the face of it, what you say is obviously true. But once again, I say that Albanese should be focused on ditching Charles. If he really wanted to win that argument, he would not even be using the R-word, which is poison to the conservative vote.
It is still my view that, provided the Liberal and Labor leaders first struck a deal, they could win voter support for the humble proposition that the Governor-General not report to the Palace, but rather be appointed by a 2/3 majority of a joint sitting.
How would the appointee be selected?
Sadly there is nothing cutting edge about the article. A great opportunity to expose these far-right fantasists for the delusional fools they are.
I think we can draw our own conclusions.
Um. I heard Albanese speak on the night of 21 May 2022 and he said then that the Uluru statement was something he intended to take action on during their first term in government.
QE2 died on 8 September 2022 and KC3 became king.
…Albanese is mainly using the Voice as a look-over-there… Really?