Wong's Rebuke Backfires as Cash Erupts Over "Welcome to Country" Criticism

Jacinta, Wong, Cash Wrecks Welcome to country Virtue signalling Photo by Blow the Truth

Canberra, ACT – A heated exchange in the Australian Senate has seen Foreign Minister Penny Wong's attempt to chastise Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price over her "Welcome to Country" criticism spectacularly backfire, triggering an explosive intervention from Deputy Liberal Leader Michaelia Cash. The fiery debate also reignited questions about the origins and appropriateness of the term "First Nations" within Australian discourse.

Sources from the Parliament of Australia Senate confirm that tensions flared when Senator Wong reportedly tried to "tell off" Senator Price for her outspoken views regarding the traditional "Welcome to Country" ceremonies. Senator Price has been a vocal critic, questioning their efficacy and sincerity in modern political contexts.

However, rather than defusing the situation, Wong's intervention appears to have ignited the fury of Senator Michaelia Cash. Witnesses describe Senator Cash "erupting" in defense of Price, reportedly decrying the interaction as "virtue signalling" – a term often used to dismiss actions perceived as primarily aimed at demonstrating one's good character rather than genuine commitment.

Adding another layer to the already contentious discussion, Senator Price's criticism extended to the very terminology used to describe Indigenous Australians. She reportedly asserted that "'First Nations' isn't even an Australian term. It's been adopted from Canada." This claim, made within the parliamentary setting, has sparked further debate about the evolution of language surrounding Indigenous identity in Australia.

The incident underscores the deeply divided opinions within Australian politics regarding Indigenous recognition, traditional ceremonies, and the language used to discuss these sensitive issues.

---

Is Jacinta Nampijinpa Price right about "First Nations" not being an Australian term?

Yes, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is largely correct in her assertion that the term "First Nations" was adopted from Canada and is not historically an Australian term for Indigenous peoples.

While terms like "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples" or more recently "Indigenous Australians" have been the predominant and historically accurate collective terms in Australia, "First Nations" has seen increasing usage in recent years.

Here's a breakdown:

• Canadian Origin: The term "First Nations" originated in Canada to refer to the various Indigenous peoples there (excluding Inuit and Métis, though sometimes used broadly to include them). It gained prominence in Canada from the 1970s onwards as a term of self-identification and a move away from colonial labels.

• Adoption in Australia: Its adoption in Australia is a more recent phenomenon. While it is now used by some Indigenous individuals and organizations, and increasingly by government bodies and media, it is not a traditional or historically established collective term within Australia itself. Its growing use often reflects a desire for a term that emphasizes sovereignty, prior occupancy, and a collective identity, similar to its use in Canada.

• Australian Context: In Australia, the preferred and most accurate terms have traditionally been specific language groups (e.g., Arrernte, Wiradjuri, Yolngu), or broader collective terms like "Aboriginal people," "Torres Strait Islander people," or "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples."

So, while the term "First Nations" is now used in Australia, Senator Price is accurate in pointing out that its origin lies elsewhere and it was not an indigenous Australian term that developed organically within Australian historical or cultural contexts. Its increasing use represents an evolving linguistic landscape in the discussion of Indigenous identity in Australia.