Victorian Senator Lidia Thorpe was in Ntaria (Hermannsburg) yesterday for a sit-down with Indigenous Community Television (ICTV) and two Western Arrarnta community members who questioned her in first language on how the Indigenous Voice to Parliament compared to Treaty, whether her opposition was emboldening racist voters, and the practicalities of pursuing Treaty should a No vote succeed.
“We wanted local mob to talk to politicians who are either for or against the referendum and ask them questions about why they should vote Yes or No,” moderator, translator, ICTV reporter and himself a Western Arrarnta man from Ntaria Damien Williams told Crikey.
“It gives people from the bush a chance to speak to politicians in their own language — our language, Western Arrarnta — and have it translated so there’s no room for misinterpretation. For something as big as a referendum on the voice of a lot of these people, ironically, they don’t get the chance to do this in Australia.”
ICTV’s bush Q&A in Ntaria, 125 km west of Alice Springs, was originally designed as a panel discussion between community mob and a mix of Yes and No political and campaign voices, but Williams said that DjabWurrung Gunnai Gunditjmara woman Thorpe was the only one to RSVP with a hard “yes”.
Northern Territory Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and No campaign leader Nyunggai Warren Mundine were uncontactable, Yes23 was a “no”, NT Senator Malarndirri McCarthy gave an interview in ICTV’s Alice Springs headquarters but was not available for a sit-down in community, and MP for Lingiari Marion Scrymgour and Yes campaigner Pat Anderson both RSVP’d maybe.
“I never say no to an invitation from community, that’s how I operate. It’s protocol, it’s respect,” Thorpe told Crikey in an interview on the side of the ICTV Q&A.
In the absence of a full panel, Thorpe sat with Williams and Aboriginal health practitioners Renita Kantawara and Maryanne Malbunka under the shade of a gum tree in the Hermannsburg historic precinct. Both Western Arrarnta women were chosen by ICTV because of their cultural authority in community that came without a public profile.
“In Ntaria, there’s a thing about media always going to the same people to speak and be the voice for the community,” Williams said. “These people meeting with Senator Thorpe, they’re leaders, but not the first person people go to speak to. They’re maybe the second, third or fourth person, so I want to give these mob a chance to be first.”
The 30-minute conversation in Western Arrarnta and English covered the practicalities of a Voice (what it can and can’t do, who it does and doesn’t serve, what issues it will and won’t touch), how it compares with Treaty and truth-telling, what a No victory means for Treaty, and what it would take for Thorpe to support a Yes vote.
In short, while nothing would make the senator say Yes, there were conditions under which she would stop campaigning for No.
“I haven’t actually run a No campaign, I’m only responding to media,” Thorpe told Crikey. “But I can run a No camp. I can come out very strong and I will until [the government] promises or it shows with evidence that it is prepared to implement those recommendations [from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and the Bringing Them Home report] and pass the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”
Thorpe said she’d been in discussions with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for the past few weeks and would happily keep quiet if the government did come to the table.
“It doesn’t have to be all the recommendations at once — they can announce a couple,” Thorpe said. Provided that happened — which she told Crikey was “absolutely possible” before October 14 — “I’ll shut my mouth until the referendum is done.”
After that it would be business as usual pushing Treaty, truth-telling, the rollout of recommendations for Aboriginal deaths in custody and the removal of children, and the protection of sacred sites.
From Western Arrarnta mob, Thorpe was asked whether her stance had emboldened racist voters. She said that while it might empower some, both the Yes and No campaigns were trumpeting racist rhetoric and she’d rather be able to identify a racist than not. While the No camp fell into the former, the senator said the Yes side represented the latter with white people simply wanting to feel good about doing something for Indigenous mob.
She was also asked how a failed Voice would affect Treaty given the outcome could isolate a Yes cohort more inclined to support Treaty and vindicate a No vote less likely to get behind it. She was blunt: a No result would mark October 15 as the day the nation begins a revolution for First Nations peoples.
Although Thorpe’s talking points in Ntaria were consistent with her position as a Blak sovereign leader in the city, she said the tone of conversation in community was very different from the usual lines of aggressive interrogation she’s subjected to.
“It didn’t matter what question came out, it was about the respect that was given and the respect that was shown and the country around us,” she said. “So that is very, very different to the environment and the questions I get in most places I go to.
“Except for community — that’s where the real yarns happen.”
Thorpe said it was a privilege to be part of ICTV’s “two-way” conversation in first language and hoped that through the Q&A she’d planted the seed for a community “wish list” for Western Arrarnta mob to take forward in Treaty negotiations: “What do the people of Hermannsburg want? What do they really need? If they had a wish list, what would it be? That’s a conversation that needs to begin.”
She rather be able to identify a racist than not — and while the No camp fell into the former, the Yes camp represented the latter with white people simply wanting to feel good about doing something for Indigenous mob.
Oh. God. What hope is there. Senator for Victoria (yes, you ARE my state representative to federal parliament) ……nope I am speechless *hits head against nearest anything*
a No result would mark October 15 as the day the nation begins a revolution for First Nations peoples.
Yeah this isn’t going to happen
When the No camp cannot tell us why to vote no (without lying), and the Yes camp cannot tell us why to vote yes, Lidia Thorpe is a breath of fresh air. Actual developed thoughts that should have been front and central from the start.
Oops `centre’. Don’t ya hate doing that!
Lidia’s position is very reasonable. Many successive governments from both sides have had plenty of opportunities to pass legislation.
“shows with evidence that it is prepared to implement those recommendations [from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and the Bringing Them Home report] and pass the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”
Why won’t they respond to the reasonable request? It is understandable that Mob do not trust the coloniser, what is going to change?
Senator Thorpe’s position is anything but reasonable. She won’t support the “Yes” vote for the Voice because the Government won’t implement the recommendations of the RCIADIC along other objections. While I absolutely agree that an Australian government should do the things that she’s requesting, that’s not the point. They’re not on offer. Option A is the Voice. There are no options B or C.
If someone offers me a free second-hand Corolla with broken A/C with which to travel to Perth and I refuse because I’d rather they give me a plane ticket, I’m an idiot. Nobody is offering air travel. The deal is to take a free car. It might be a lousy car, but still the reasonable move is to take it. I don’t have to “be thankful” for the “magnanimous” gesture, I don’t have to stop trying to obtain an airline ticket, but a lousy car is still going to move me in the direction of Perth.
The Voice is, and I agree with her there, manifestly inadequate. If it had any killer features it would be easier to sell, but it is as minimal as the ALP can get away with and still wedge the Libs. But it is the deal on offer and when it fails a better one won’t replace it.
And the really stupid part? Don’t so much look at what she is requesting, just reflect on the important part: she is requesting. She isn’t in a position to make demands, neither are the people she is convinced that she represents. One of the reasons for the lack of power is the lack of unity of First Peoples nations. Gee, if only they had some sort of group who they might elect to represent them as a whole, someone that was empowered to talk on their behalf to the government…
The Voice as…sh*tbox Corolla. Spectacular pitch, Ace. Why on earth aren’t punters kicking down your door…
I read your point, and it has some validity. The main issue I have against is the premise that Aboriginal people are always required to receive only crumbs. I think you analogy of the Corolla is spot on. Who in this country drives a Coralla in 2023? Would it, in all reasonableness, make it to Perth? Aboriginal people are not asking for a plane ticket, they are asking for something that is current and reasonable that any other Australian deserves. Don’t forget, the country was stolen, the people were massacred, their children are still stolen the same (in some states more than) Stolen Generation numbers, they are more likely to be incarcerated than attend university.
I am not saying the result her position takes is correct, I am saying that it is understandable, and with that, her request is reasonable. Don’t forget this whole debate for non-Aboriginal people is academic; either way, it does not affect their lives. If the No vote wins, the status quo remains the same for Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people actually have little (perhaps none being just 3%) bearing on the result. The responsibility for this passing or failing lies entirely with non-Aborignal Australia. Getting on here and punching down on a proud and active Aboriginal woman is business as usual. What she says or does not say is just an excuse for many to keep people in their place and the status quo of lack of recognition.
It’s a Corolla to Bourke, a new Landcruiser from Bourke to Alice, then a business class flight to Perth.
Everyone who speaks against the voice white-ants it. A first nations Senator against it? Well, that’s her personal opinion and it is a disaster for her people. The main point of the voice is that it is agreed to by the majority. United they stand, divided they fall. Lidia Thorpe is one of the – much publicised – divisive agents. Does she think none of the Uluru signatories has not also had a lifetime of disappointment and frustration with the lack of government action on her causes? Does she really believe that having a voice in the constitution will set her cause back? I certainly understand her feelings (I believe) but I cannot understand why she feels she can undermine all the thousands behind the request for the Voice, and the many more of them who hope for a Yes vote to win. The No vote will not remove the white boot from her neck, or anyone else’s.
What seriously pisses me off about “Senator” Thorpe is that she doesn’t represent the electorate that voted her into Canberra.
I think her continued presence in Parliament is as invalid as her theatrics tiresome.
In consequence, I trust she stands no chance of re-election…
Says more about Greens selection process IMO. One is entitled to feel had.
The only issue with your very good analogy is th comment that the Voice is th minimum the ALP could get away with. that is wrong – it was the request of the First Nations People, and it was stupid Dutton who chose to make it a partisan issue. If he had shown some grace and supported the Aboriginal request he would hav. made a hero of himself. As it is he has secured an unelectable position.
Senator Thorpe is being unreasonable for not rolling over so that the ALP can “wedge the Libs”? Ungrateful for not accepting what’s offered? Stubborn perhaps, but unreasonable..?Regardless of her position, how’s that wedging going..? How was it not obvious to Albanese that the Libs, especially under Dud, would honour the legacy of their hero, Howard (who abolished ATSIC) and promote the No vote? What’s worse, stubborn or disingenuous?
Howard was able to abolish ATSIC having been delivered LOTS of help from Latham. Not to mention Geoff Clark’s contribution to Howard’s cause. Power can be addictive and I am wondering about all possible drivers for the No case.
One of the points of my (admittedly poor) analogy was that gratitude is not required. Nor is it deserved in this case. My main point was that the Voice is what is on offer. A treaty is not on offer. I’m not saying that an offer of Treaty is unreasonable, just pointing out that in this version of Reality it isn’t happening and telling her people to vote No in protest is not helpful to them.
There are times when voting down a “we’re putting this tokenistic legislation up for a vote so that we can brush our hands of the issue and pretend that we’ve solved it” initiative is the right thing to do. This isn’t one of those times. Creating a framework for First Nations people to elect their own representatives who have Constitution-level status is the beginning of a process. The ALP may well think that it would be “Mission Accomplished” but I can’t see this proposed Voice sitting back being obediently silent.
You’re right, and one might say that Thorpe and the Blak Sovereign movement’s advocacy for No muddies the waters. Except that the water was already muddy because the constitution is such a compromised document. The process by which we arrived at this vote is so convoluted (ATSIC abolished, symbolic preamble proposed, rejected, question of ‘meaningful recognition’..) I will be voting Yes because that’s what’s on offer. But when changing the constitution is such an ordeal and there is so much about it that needs changing, and the No vote is so easy to mobilise, wasted political capital is mostly what I see.
Thanks for this. A welcome change from the opinions of the white ‘knowledge class’ in their inner city enclaves who think they know better. Why won’t Albanese agree to implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and the Bringing them Home Report, and sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People? Concrete action rather than an advisory body which has no power and can be disregarded. .
More articles from First Nations’ perspectives please. They have a voice – many voices – but haven’t been listened to.