Speculation that Lidia Thorpe would part ways with the Greens had been around for several weeks – long enough to look like it would remain speculation. But on the first parliamentary sitting day of 2023, Thorpe ended the chatter abruptly by ejecting from the Greens and shifting to the crossbench.
People with long memories might feel a sense of deja vu. Back in February 2017, there was another headline-grabbing political defection to mark the opening of the parliamentary year. Cory Bernardi broke ranks with the Liberal party to form his own conservative movement after many weeks of speculation about his intentions.
It’s entirely possible the story of Lidia Thorpe will end much the same way. A fizz at the opening of a new parliamentary year that flames out to a phfut. While that trajectory looks most likely, I wouldn’t sprint to that conclusion reflexively. This parting is consequential on a few fronts. Let’s consider them in turn.
We can begin with some implications for the voice to parliament campaign. The Albanese government has been watching Thorpe’s campaigning around the sovereignty point closely and with a degree of concern.
Thorpe’s grassroots activity has been considered dangerous on a few fronts. The first is that standard referendum trap – the possibility the whole voice debate gets hijacked by salient points of detail that prompt soft yes supporters to reconsider their position.
As the prime minister says constantly, the coming voice referendum is about two things: recognition of First Nations people in the constitution and consultation on policy that affects Indigenous peoples.
Anthony Albanese wants to keep the debate right there: recognition and consultation. End of story. Campaign strategists will tell you if the debate becomes about point three, four and five, you are losing. You might have noticed the government moved very quickly last week to get some eminent legal voices out there hosing down Thorpe’s sovereignty point. You don’t do this if there’s no risk to manage.
Now, I said a few fronts. The second risk to manage is whether Thorpe’s “grassroots black sovereign movement” (as she put it on Monday) catches fire with some of the young Australian progressives who currently support the voice in droves because they want to be good allies.
Thorpe’s position doesn’t align with the Indigenous leaders who have championed the voice, but it’s not friendless. It has support among some Indigenous people at the community level and that can filter through community activism more generally. Opinion polls tell us a supermajority of young Australians currently support the voice. It’s critically important for a yes vote that they go on doing that because the data tells us enthusiasm about the voice wanes with age.
Thorpe’s gritty implacability as an activist and her propensity to raise the middle digit at convention (like sticking with the political party that got you elected to the Senate) are attractive qualities for uncompromising young idealists who suspect all boomer or gen X-infested institutions are cooked.
Thorpe does present as a compelling figure for this cohort. This point carries us to the next line of analysis: what is the impact of Thorpe’s defection on the Greens?
It is clear that Adam Bandt wanted to keep Thorpe in the tent. The first reason for wanting her to stay put is obvious: no party leader ever wants to lose a number in a parliamentary chamber, particularly when their party exercises the balance of power. Bandt told journalists on Monday he put to Thorpe that she could remain the Greens’ First Nations spokesperson and proposed that he take responsibility for the voice while respecting her right to take a different position to the party on that issue.
This is a big concession. Obviously, this wasn’t enough. Thorpe wants to build her own political movement.
And that leads us to the second reason why Bandt tried to keep Thorpe inside the Greens tent. What party leader wants one of their former colleagues building another political movement that speaks to a shared activist base, even if the whole adventure looks sisyphean? I’ll tell you: no political leader.
Bandt won’t want to lose Greens activists and supporters who like the cut of Thorpe’s uncompromising jib. A political party that began life as a protest movement maintains deep philosophical roots in the permanent campaign. This is not a sledge; it’s a nod to competing theories of change. A sizeable chunk of the Greens base would prefer rolling activism to the compromises that accompany exercising power. This point carries us right to the nub of this parliament.
Bandt is a fierce champion of Greens values. His success telegraphing values has put more Greens in the parliament. But if we look at his record during the past six months, Bandt is enough of a materialist to want to make change when he can, even if the change doesn’t move the dial quite as much as he wants.
Thorpe defection or no Thorpe defection, hitting the political sweet spot between aspiration and achievement was always going to be tricky for the Greens leader because Bandt has to answer to his base and its spectrum of views. His full-tilt effort to keep Thorpe in the tent suggests he’s fully aware that she speaks to elements of the party’s activist base and he does not want to see leakage.
Now, the polling tells us Bandt doesn’t have a problem.
A strong majority of Greens supporters back the voice. While Bandt’s on very solid ground, the Thorpe defection does however refresh that running internal dialogue: when do you compromise and when do you refuse to compromise? Different people will have different answers to those questions because it’s never a perfect science.
So that’s the Greens. Having located an answer to Thorpe’s sovereignty critique, the government will respond to Monday’s events by doubling down on the innate good sense of this reform. Thorpe’s defection provides renewed opportunity for Albanese to pitch to the political centre.
We saw the prime minister rehearse a provisional message on Australia Day in response to the anti-voice sentiment at this year’s Invasion Day marches. He predicted radicals will oppose the voice or argue that reforms are proceeding in the wrong order and this noise shows why nobody has anything to fear from this change.
What’s the adage? Never waste a good crisis.
