A Thorpedo Threatens to Derail Labor’s Voice Plans

Commentary Politics is often colourful. Not only do the various political parties have identifying colours—blue, red, green, and yellow—but the political discourse can also provide a kaleidoscope with the language spoken and the positions taken by the various players. And what a position was taken by extreme left-wing activist Senator Lidia Thorpe when she resigned from the Greens. Resigning from Australia’s most extreme left-wing parliamentary party because it isn’t extreme enough suggests a rich vein of extremism coming the Senate’s way over the next few years. Her amalgam of Black and Green politics appears to have fractured, leaving Senator Thorpe on the cross—read upset—crossbench in the Australian Senate. From waving her defiant and divisive clenched fist whenever cameras are around, to making the ugliest of interjections to a fellow female senator about her morals, to calling Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II (immediately after her passing) a “coloniser,” and also failing to declare a relationship with a bikie while serving on the parliamentary law enforcement committee. This is a snapshot of what will continue to be in store for Australian politics. Senator for Victoria Lidia Thorpe (R) during the Invasion Day rally in Melbourne, Australia, on Jan. 26, 2023. (AAP Image/Diego Fedele) The impact of the move by Senator Thorpe will be seen over the next few years. I predict that her chance of re-election is minimal, but in the meantime, her voting in the Senate may play a major role in the government’s agenda. Previously as a member of the Greens Party, she provided a reliable vote for the government in a fractured Australian Senate where Labor, Greens, and two other senators could deliver the needed majority for the passage of legislation. Now the government will need to snare an extra vote. Time will tell if the newly minted independent senator follows along with her former party on legislation where it matters, or takes to abstaining or protest voting to make her often quite irrational political points. The harnessing of senators’ votes can often be tedious, defying logic or rationale, let alone principle. And if that isn’t sufficiently complex, a promise of support can easily be “reconsidered” in light of “new information.” One can be forgiven for pondering whether the “new information” is the realisation that something more or other can be extracted from the government in exchange for the vote. The Impact of That Single Senate Vote In the long-term, the Thorpe defection will evolve with its consequences of less stability and certainty for the government’s legislative agenda. The senator’s approach seems to be based on the premise that somehow one of the most multicultural, democratic, and freedom-loving countries of the world with an envious lifestyle has an illegitimate government and taking the taxpayers’ dollar and all the privileges of being a senator do not seem to faze the consciousness. How will the senator deal with an illegitimate government in an illegitimate parliament? The tortured logic and justifications will be worth a seat in the public gallery of the Senate. For the government, the dilemma becomes how can it claim to be a sensible middle-of-the-road government when dealing with such a political participant. Relying on such a vote could be reputationally devastating and damaging over the long term. The Australian Senate chamber at Parliament House in Canberra, Australia, on Sept. 8, 2022. (AAP Image/Mick Tsikas) In the short-term, the senator has sent a Thorpedo through the government’s proposed, ill-considered Voice constitutional amendment. Straight-faced and with sincerity aplenty, the government is asserting to the Australian people that the Indigenous people of the country need a separate voice in the parliament. In fact, it is another or second voice, potentially making them more equal to other Australians, which is a surefire way to breed resentment. But that aside, we have a substantial number of members of Parliament identifying as Indigenous too. In the Senate, there is more Indigenous representation on a percentage basis than in the population as a whole. Therefore, the need for a separate voice in those circumstances is difficult to justify. However, what is telling is that amongst the Indigenous Senators, there are those who oppose The Voice because it offends the principles of equity and unity, those who support it as a step to reconciliation, and now a senator who thinks it doesn’t go far enough. Even on the voice, there are three distinct separate schools of thought amongst elected Indigenous representatives that not only make for an upcoming colourful public debate but have torpedoed the paternalistic assertion that there is such a thing as a single Indigenous voice. The idea we might actually celebrate the diversity of opinion within the Indigenous communities has floundered, but it is there for all to see and even more so thanks to the Tho