Petulance or principle on rejecting voice?

Greens’ First Nations advisory group conveners rejecting the voice to parliament referendum might surprise some people.  But the explanation from national convener Dr Tjanara Goreng Goreng is direct enough: the voice will have no power.

That’s exactly what Albanese has been campaigning on.  The voice will be advisory only with no veto power over legislation.

However, any advisory body has soft power to influence and work towards an agenda behind the scenes.  Are first nations people better off with such a body, or digging their heels in to demand something with concrete rights and powers?

Here’s a reality check: the parliament will never support revolutionary change.  It is far too conservative a place for that.  The only way a revolutionary agenda would get any support is if a lynch mob stood outside the doors to string up anyone who didn’t acquiesce, and that just won’t happen.

So, is Lidia Thorpe and her support base just grandstanding?  It looks that way, though you couldn’t rule out a stand on principle.  Indigenous people have been patronized and lied to for so long that drawing a line in the sand about principle might be just that.  A stand on principle.

The question becomes whether you should walk away from something to risk getting nothing at all.  And that’s not a question a whitefella like me can or should answer.