Lidia Thorpe accused of not accepting Indigenous voice facts

Greens senator Lidia Thorpe has been accused of refusing to accept facts about the proposal for an ­Indigenous voice in the Constitution.

Greens senator Lidia Thorpe. Picture: Getty Images

Greens senator Lidia Thorpe has been accused of refusing to accept facts about the proposal for an ­Indigenous voice in the Constitution after a tense exchange in Senate estimates.

Senator Thorpe has previously been highly critical of the Albanese government’s decision to take Australians to a referendum on the voice but has said she would not campaign against it. The push to recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution through a voice to parliament emerged from consultations with Indigenous people around Australia.

Unlike voice critics who consider themselves constitutional conservatives, Senator Thorpe’s past opposition to the Indigenous advisory body was based on a rejection of “the occupying power”.

“First Nations people being sovereign people of these lands for thousands and thousands of generations, they – we – are sovereign people,” Senator Thorpe said in Senate estimates on Monday.

“The question very clearly is: does going into the Constitution through the voice cede the sovereignty of First Nations people in this country?”|

Labor senator Murray Watt, for Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, said: “The answer is no.”

When she said “It doesn’t?”, Senator Watt replied: “No, and departmental officials have twice said to you they wouldn’t characterise it that way and as the representative of the Attorney-General, I can say that it doesn’t.”

Senator Thorpe later told The Australian she appreciated Senator Watt’s frank response but called on Labor to produce proof. “The next step forward is sharing the evidence that led to his ­assertion,” she said.

“Despite having access to constitutional experts, the Department of the Attorney-General has not provided advice to the government with regard to First Nations sovereignty. So I need to know on what basis Minister Watt made that claim, as it’s critical we get this right.”

A fear that recognising Indigenous Australians in the Constitution would strip them of rights is a well-ventilated minority view. In 2012, the expert panel on constitutional recognition reported that only 3 per cent of submissions opposed amending the Constitution to recognise Indigenous people.

Among them was a submission from the Aboriginal tent embassy that read in part: “We believe the government is trying to take our sovereignty in a deceptive manner. Recognition of Aboriginal peoples in the Constitution must not usurp our continuing sovereignty.”

The 2012 report stated that it received legal advice from an eminent constitutional silk who said that constitutional recognition would not cede Aboriginal sovereignty. Only Aboriginal people could cede their sovereignty,” it said.

Professor Megan Davis, the Balnaves Chair in Constitutional Law, told The Australian: “The original claim of crown sovereignty did not take away sovereignty in the eyes of First Nations people nor did the creation of a federal ­Constitution, nor did the 1967 referendum that gave the commonwealth constitutional authority with respect to First Nations ­people.

“A referendum to establish a Voice to Parliament will not impede an unceded, unextinguished sovereignty asserted by First Nations people.”

Uluru Dialogue member Eddie Synot, a constitutional lawyer, said on Twitter on Monday there had been multiple pieces of advice refuting claims that Indigenous sovereignty would be affected by the voice.

“It doesn’t cede sovereignty. If true, Senator Thorpe swearing allegiance to crown and sitting in parliament would’ve. The advice has been provided. Senator Thorpe refuses it for ideological reasons & this is key issue with the Greens equivocation on (the Uluru statement,” he tweeted.