What is ‘black sovereignty’? The Indigenous movement Lidia Thorpe wants to pursue in parliament

Federal parliament returned on Monday and changes were afoot from the beginning.

Djab Wurrung, Gunnai and Gunditjamara senator for Victoria, Lidia Thorpe, started the new parliamentary year by cutting ties with the Greens party and moving to the crossbench.

“This country has a strong grassroots black sovereign movement, full of staunch and committed warriors, and I want to represent that movement fully in this Parliament,” Senator Thorpe said when making the announcement.

“It has become clear to me that I can’t do that from within the Greens.”

Senator Thorpe got her start in politics through black activism in Melbourne, elected first as the member for Northcote in the Victorian upper house before being elected to the federal senate in 2020.

Since she joined the federal parliament she has been a consistent staunch and vocal supporter of Indigenous rights across a range of issues, including health, justice and sovereignty.

“Now, I will be able to speak freely, on all issues, from a sovereign perspective, without being constrained by portfolios and agreed party positions,” she said on Monday.

“My focus now is to grow and amplify the black sovereign movement in this country, something we have never had since this place was established.

“There is a black sovereign movement out there that no one wants to listen to, so I will be their Voice,” she said.

But the decision has left some wondering what the black sovereignty movement is and how it differs from a Voice to parliament.

What is black sovereignty?

Sovereignty is defined as the ultimate power or authority over a people or territory, which no other person or entity can tell what to do.

Going back to first contact between Indigenous Australians and colonisers in the 18th century, the British crown attempted to extinguish First Nations sovereignty by declaring Australia “terra nullius” and claiming the land for the British crown.

But sovereignty was never ceded by First Nations people, meaning they never consented or agreed to give their country to the invaders, or agreed to live under someone else’s laws.

Before colonisation, First Nations had been self-governing with their own social structures and governance systems. That didn’t disappear when the British arrived.

In the centuries since, black sovereignty has become a political movement and shorthand for self-determination for First Nations people, meaning they are empowered to control their own affairs and practice their own lore as they see fit.

Some of the longest-running advocates for black sovereignty are caretakers of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, set up on the lawns of Old Parliament House half a century ago.

Tent embassy caretaker Murriguel Coe says sovereignty is pretty simple.

“We say that sovereignty is self-determination of ourselves, that we have the right to practise our culture, the right to practise our religion, the right to practise our lore,” Mr Coe said.

“We’re sick of the government making decisions for us.”

There are 11 Indigenous members and senators in the 47th parliament, but Mr Coe thinks their position comes with a compromise.

“If they’ve been sworn in by the Crown, they can’t speak for us on the ground at the grassroots level anymore, because they’ve lost that right by being an agent of the government.” Mr Coe said.

What does the Voice mean for sovereignty?

The Voice to parliament is often raised in discussions about Indigenous sovereignty, and whether one will have any effect on the other.

Senator Thorpe has repeatedly raised sovereignty as a potential issue, meaning she believes the Voice could override existing Indigenous governance systems.

The government and constitutional experts working alongside the Uluru Statement campaign have both given assurances sovereignty would not be impacted by the Voice, but Senator Thorpe is among those seeking more than just verbal guarantees.

She has also campaigned for a treaty between First Nations people and the government to be the priority over the Voice, but the government says a Voice is needed to work on the treaty, which could take years and successive governments to negotiate.

There was tension between Senator Thorpe and her former party colleagues over whether to support the Voice or not.

Senator Thorpe has also called for the government to implement the remaining recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and the Bringing them Home report in exchange for her support for their Voice, however, the responsibility for many of those recommendations lies with the state and territory governments.

The Greens announced on Monday night they will support the Voice but Senator Thorpe says she is yet to make up her mind.

Greens leader Adam Bandt says the party still believes a treaty should come before a Voice, but that this is the best way to progress both.

“The Greens still strongly believe that a Treaty should come first. We have secured commitments from the government that they will proceed with Truth and Treaty as well as Voice, and we will be holding the government to account on this.

“I don’t think a ‘No’ vote will get us closer to Treaty and Truth, but I respect that others in the First Nations community may have a different view on that.

“I will join my fellow Greens MPs in campaigning for ‘Yes’,” Mr Bandt said.