Price - the only sane voice in the Voice to Parliament debate?

If there’s one thing Australians can be sure of about the Voice to Parliament– is just how polarising and politically charged the debate has become.

Amid all the garbled voices garbled echoing in the debate, one voice has echoed gracefully above all the others - Senator Jacinta Price has emerged as that standout figure.

Senator Price’s measured approach has shown what other voices have lacked – an ability to articulate a mature position of rationality without the abrasive emotion and disparaging or personal attacks others have been prepared to engage in if the alternative position is adopted.

Diverging from the mainstream narrative advocating for the Voice to Parliament, Price has offered counterarguments that deserve serious consideration.

Her reasoning why Australians should vote ‘No’, has drawn attacks of abuse because she’s adopted a position as an Indigenous Australian counter to what the likes of Marcia Langton, Noel Pearson, Tom Calma and other would have you believe she is expected to say.

Price is no fool, nor is she one to just fall into line because the expectation of being Indigenous comes with doing as what the ‘elites’ want.

It’s understandable the stakes are high for both sides given what’s involved – instead of engaging in productive dialogue, attacking and sidestepping the substance of Price’s arguments, indicates the position she offers has left those advocating for the ‘Yes’ vote, incapable of challenging or dismantling her arguments.

Senator Price’s concerns about the proposal for a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous Voice should be heeded for reasons that articulate why voting ‘No’ should be adopted, as opposed to the ‘Yes’ camp, who remain unable to articulate the benefit of voting ‘Yes’, what it offers and what it means to all Australians.

Unlike Price, advocates for the Voice have consistently failed to allay the concerns of Australians legitimately worried about what lies ahead for Australia post October 14.

One of Price’s main arguments is the Voice wouldn’t necessarily be representative of the diverse Indigenous communities across Australia.

“Indigenous Australians,” Price argues, “are far from a homogenous group, and there's a legitimate concern a singular Voice could disproportionately amplify certain views or interests over others.”

“If only a few voices dominate this institution, a large section of Indigenous Australia may find themselves unrepresented, an outcome contrary to the purported aims of the initiative.”

Senator Price has consistently urged Australians to consider practical ways to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians.

In Price’s view, the Voice risks being symbolic rather than actionable.

She says, “While the symbolism of such a voice is powerful, it could draw attention and resources away from initiatives that directly tackle the substantial, pressing issues facing Indigenous communities—like health, education, and employment opportunities.”

Like any significant change to governance structures, there’s always the effect of unintended consequences.

And according to Price, a constitutionally enshrined Voice could create division rather than unity among Australians.

“As it stands, Indigenous affairs are everyone's responsibility; however, isolating them as a distinct set of issues to be managed by a separate body could perpetuate a sense of 'otherness,' rather than encouraging cohesion and mutual understanding.”

What is disturbing are the attacks launched by the pro-Voice camp on Price – rather than tackle her arguments, she’s been accused of betraying her Indigenous heritage—a narrative that both divisive and counterproductive.

The personal attacks avoid engaging with the substance of her concerns and deprive Australians of a balanced debate.

Price who’s lived the reality of being Aboriginal in contemporary Australia, her perspectives not just relevant; they’re crucial.

She draws from a well of personal and community experiences that are just as valid as those advocating for the Voice.

Discrediting her views dilute the richness and complexity of the debate.

The Voice has implications for all Australians—Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike— which makes it critical all perspectives are considered.

No matter where people stand on the Voice, it’s possible to be pro-Indigenous rights and be critical of methods proposed to advance those rights.

Vigorous debate should be encouraged, not stifled. The issues raised by Price aren’t trivial. They’re thought-provoking considerations which encourage people to critically evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed reforms.

The attacks on Price are unjustified and counterproductive to the debate.

Her arguments offer an indispensable lens to use to scrutinise the Voice initiative. Rather than marginalise her - Australians should listen.

With what’s at stake and proposed, Price isn’t just another voice, she may well be the only sane one.