What was claimed
Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price wrote a letter about the proposed Indigenous Voice that pushed sovereign citizen theories.
Our verdict
False. Senator Price was not involved in the creation of the letter.
An image circulating online appears to show a letter written by Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price warning voters a Voice to Parliament will end home ownership in Australia.
This is false. The Country Liberal Party politician, who is a leading advocate of the No vote campaign, did not write the letter.
Claims the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice will result in rescinding real estate rights are also false.
The document is a collection of sovereign citizen conspiracy theories, with warnings they will come true if the Voice is established following a referendum later this year.
The letter is headed: “What happens if Australia gets Yes to the referendum”.
“The United Nations have mandated ownership of the Australian land, but this can’t be passed as the Aboriginal people are still the owners of the land because the land was never sold,” it states.
“Native title will mean ALL home owners will no longer own their homes and instead ‘rent’ the land they own, and all business owners now need to ‘rent’ their business.
“This also means that Aboriginal people have ceded their sovereignty and the land will no longer be theirs, it will be signed over to the Australian corporation.”
It goes on to say the government is operating under a “fictional authority” with all courts, laws and police being “null and void”.
The end of the letter purports it was written by “Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price” and lists a number of supposed sources to seek more information.
Photographs of the letter are spreading widely on social media, as seen here, here, here, here, here, and here.
One post (screenshot here) includes the caption: “This is extremely important if you want to keep owning your property. Please read before you vote in the referendum. It’s by Australian Aboriginal Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price.”
The earliest example AAP FactCheck could find was this post (screenshot here) from August 17 2023.
A representative for Senator Price told AAP FactCheck she had no connection to the letter.
“Senator Nampijinpa Price was not involved in creating this document and has only been made aware of it circulating on social media as a result of your inquiry,” the representative said.
AAP FactCheck previously addressed claims the United Nations has mandated ownership of Australian housing, property, farms and businesses.
The UN is an intergovernmental organisation of which Australia is a member nation.
However, its function and authority are clearly set out and it does not possess the powers to control ownership of Australian land.
Claims the Voice would remove home ownership and force homeowners to “rent the land they own” are also false.
Dr Leon Terrill, a property law and native title expert at UNSW Sydney, said the proposed constitutional amendment won’t change native title law or land rights.
“It is a completely separate issue to native title,” Dr Terrill previously told AAP FactCheck.
The letter reflects theories of the sovereign citizen movement, with references to the “functional authority” of the government and illegitimate laws.
It is not the first time sovereign citizen theories have been linked to the Voice, example here.
The verdict
The claim Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price wrote a letter warning about dire consequences for property owners if the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is established is false.
A representative for the senator told AAP FactCheck the County Liberal Party politician was not involved in the creation of the document.
False — The claim is inaccurate.
AAP FactCheck is an accredited member of the International Fact-Checking Network. To keep up with our latest fact checks, follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Jacinta Price may not have written the article in question, however it does sound like something she and her fellow travellers might say. Whilst I’m sure that Price herself would reject the contents of the article , her comments regarding welcome to country, false claims about the power of a constitutional Voice and the like, make it plausible for conspiracists to link her to such ideas.
She would have little to complain about in my book, as she has decided to side with these people in the Voice campaign and thus loose control over the content. Further examples would be the comments of Gary Johns and the racist humour that emanated from the CPAC conference. I doubt that she has much credibility in any Indigenous community in the country. Literally the price you pay for whom you associate with.
“Funnily” enough, even if the No vote “wins”, I doubt that it will end well for Price and Mundine as they will always be associated with this sort of stuff and will have to spend their time rejecting things they will be alleged to have said. Again, Fair enough in my book.
The Yes case could have a campaign, “Thinking of voting ‘no’? This is the company you’ll be keeping…” and showing some ridiculous stuff like this.
Price has no credibility in any Aboriginal community and very little among whites. This is why dhe had to get into parliament via the senate. The conservative forces recognised her value as a conservative indigenous woman with no moral compass and decided they needed her. She could never win a lower house seat because she is on the nose but the NT reliably always elect one Labor and one conservative senator. So she was given the #1 conservative senate ballot spot. She is there because she is toxic.
She can be described by a term I first came across when working with the Muirhead Royal Commission in the late ’80s, a coconut – black on the outside, white on the inside.
So, who might have written it? Perhaps fellow commentors can Advance some ideas?
Maybe she didn’t write it, but does she disagree with any of the content?
Jeez, do we need improved civics education in Australia.
Add it to the list. Schools are blamed for everything else. While the real problem is that it IS taught, it’s just that NO ONE LISTENS!
My apologies, I meant no disrespect to teachers, nor those who develop curricula. I wonder to what degree that deficit in attention owes to the very limited political participation (outside of big money) our “democracy” permits..?