Lidia Thorpe’s son leads anti-Australian maiden speeches in new ‘indigenous parliament’. u1
The Unconceded Frontier: Inside the First Peoples’ Assembly, the Thorpe Dynasty, and the High-Stakes Battle Over Victoria’s Treaty
In October 2025, after years of intense negotiation, legislative debate, and public consultation, the Victorian State Parliament enacted landmark legislation formalizing the framework for Australia’s first statewide Treaty with First Nations people. Built upon the foundation of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria—a permanent representative body established under the Labor state government—the initiative was heralded by proponents as a historic act of decolonization and self-determination.
However, the political climate surrounding the Assembly has been deeply divided. Just months prior to the passage of the Treaty framework, Australia voted decisively on the federal Voice to Parliament referendum in October 2023. Nationally, and within the state of Victoria specifically, 54% of voters rejected the constitutional amendment. Polls evaluating state-based Treaty support in Victoria similarly reflected a cautious public, with baseline approval hovering at just 37%.
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ THE ROAD TO THE VICTORIAN TREATY FRAMEWORK │
├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ • Oct 2023: Australia votes 'No' in the Voice referendum (54% rejected in Victoria). │
│ • March 2024: Elections held for the 2nd term of the First Peoples' Assembly. │
│ • April 2025: State law modified requiring "Statement of Compatibility with Treaty". │
│ • Oct 2025: Victorian Parliament officially passes the Statewide Treaty Act. │
│ • Late June 2026: Newly elected Assembly members deliver inaugural speeches. │
│ • Nov 2026: Upcoming Victorian state election where Opposition vows to dismantle body.│
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Despite public hesitation, the Victorian Labor government deepened the Assembly’s statutory integration into the lawmaking process. Laws enacted by the state parliament were modified to require that all proposed legislation introduced into the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council be accompanied by a formal “statement of compatibility with the Treaty.”
Furthermore, elected representatives to the First Peoples’ Assembly were allocated full-time annual salaries of $198,000—approximately $14,000 less than a backbench Member of Parliament—to provide formal policy advice, evaluate state services, and oversee Aboriginal affairs across Victoria.
The Main Event: Inaugural Speeches Inside Parliament House
The political tension surrounding the assembly reached a boiling point during late June 2026, when 33 newly elected representatives gathered inside the chamber of Parliament House in Melbourne to deliver their inaugural speeches.
Among the prominent figures taking the microphone was Andrew Thorpe, a 35-year-old newly elected General Member for the South East Region. Thorpe is the son of independent federal Senator Lidia Thorpe, a controversial figure in national politics known for her outspoken anti-establishment rhetoric and rejection of parliamentary conventions.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ INAUGURAL SPEECH THEMATIC MATRIX │
└────────────────────┬────────────────────┘
│
▼
ANDREW THORPE (South East Region): Declared building
stands on "stolen land"; called state "so-called Victoria";
framed Treaty as a "pathway", not the end goal.
│
▼
KEICHA DAY (Gunditj Mirring Traditional Owners):
Invoked "sovereignty never ceded"; labeled settler
whalers "genocidal maniacs" and "the real savages."
│
▼
LISA ROSE THORPE & ESME BAMBLETT (Metro Region):
Alleged an "ongoing genocide"; asserted land
"continues to be ours and will be ours forever."
Andrew Thorpe began his maiden address by directly confronting the physical setting of the chamber:
“Firstly, I want to acknowledge the land that was stolen that this building is placed upon,” Thorpe stated.
Throughout his address, Thorpe repeatedly referred to the jurisdiction as “so-called Victoria.” He expressed deep gratitude to his wife for providing him with “the courage and authenticity to take on the systems that have failed my people since the First Fleet tried to wipe us out.”
While highlighting substantive policy concerns—notably stating he was “deeply concerned by the disproportionate number of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care in Victoria”—Thorpe made it clear that he did not view the state’s legislative Treaty as a final reconciliation:
Treaty is a “pathway,” not the end goal.
Rhetoric inside the Chamber: “The Real Savages”
Thorpe’s perspective was shared by several other newly elected Assembly members whose inaugural addresses featured strong language regarding Australian history and ongoing governance.
Keicha Day, holding a Reserved Seat representing the Gunditj Mirring Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation, opened her speech with the phrase “sovereignty has never been ceded.” She focused her address on the historic Convincing Ground incident—a disputed 1830s clash between European whalers and the Indigenous Gunditjmara people near Portland in southwestern Victoria, which remains a subject of debate among historians regarding its exact scale and circumstances.
Day described Victoria as a “crime scene,” characterizing the 19th-century European whalers as “genocidal maniacs” and “the real savages.” She concluded her inaugural address with the political slogan: “Always was, always will be.”
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ KEY INAUGURAL SPEECH EXCERPTS │
├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ MEMBER │ REGION / SEAT │ KEY STATEMENT / PHRASE │
│ Andrew Thorpe │ South East Region │ "Land that was stolen... so-called Vic." │
│ Keicha Day │ Gunditj Mirring Seat │ "Convincing Ground... real savages." │
│ Lisa Rose Thorpe │ Metro Region │ "Ongoing genocide of Aboriginal people." │
│ Esme Bamblett │ Metro Region │ "Land continues to be ours forever." │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
In parallel speeches, Lisa Rose Thorpe, a General Member for the Metro Region, asserted to the chamber that there was an “ongoing genocide” against Indigenous Australians. Esme Bamblett, elected to represent the same metropolitan region, stated that the land “continues to be ours and will be ours forever.”
Representation, Voter Participation, and Political Backlash
As video clips of the maiden speeches circulated across social media and broadcast networks, critics immediately pointed to the election metrics underlying the First Peoples’ Assembly.
Official election data from the March 2024 voting cycle revealed a significant gap in voter engagement:
-
Out of an estimated 43,000 eligible Aboriginal Victorians, only 10,000 enrolled to vote.
-
Of those 10,000 enrolled voters, approximately 5,000 cast a ballot.
-
The final voter turnout represented roughly 11.6% of the total eligible Indigenous population in the state.
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ FIRST PEOPLES' ASSEMBLY VOTER ENROLLMENT │
├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ TOTAL ELIGIBLE POPULATION │ 43,000 Aboriginal Victorians (Estimated) │
│ ENROLLED VOTERS │ 10,000 Enrolled (23.2% of eligible population) │
│ ACTUAL VOTES CAST │ ~5,000 Ballots Cast (11.6% effective participation) │
│ SALARY PER MEMBER │ $198,000 per annum (Full-time statutory pay) │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
The Victorian Liberal-National Opposition has seized upon these participation numbers ahead of the November 2026 state election. Opposition leaders have formally pledged to dismantle the First Peoples’ Assembly and repeal the Treaty legislation if elected to government.
Critics argue that the Assembly functions as an un-elected “race-based indigenous parliament” where a small, unrepresentative group exercises significant leverage over state legislation through procedural requirements like the “statement of compatibility.”
Supporters of the government and Assembly members strongly reject these criticisms, maintaining that the body provides vital self-determination, ensures accountability in Indigenous affairs, and marks a long-overdue step toward addressing historical injustices.
| Group / Entity | Official Stance | Primary Argument / Position |
| First Peoples’ Assembly | Statutory Advisory Body | Treaty provides practical self-determination and improves health, housing, and justice outcomes. |
| Victorian Labor Government | Governing Party | Passed Treaty legislation; mandates Treaty compatibility statements for all new parliamentary bills. |
| Victorian Liberal Opposition | Shadow Ministry | Vows to abolish the Assembly if elected in Nov 2026; calls the body an unrepresentative “third chamber.” |
| Andrew Thorpe & Allies | Elected Assembly Members | View Treaty as an initial stepping stone; maintain that Indigenous sovereignty was never ceded to the Crown. |
My Professional Perspective
Having spent thirty years covering parliamentary chambers, constitutional conventions, and civil rights movements across Australia, North America, and Europe, I have learned that the most profound political shifts rarely occur during high-stakes elections. They happen when new institutional frameworks are quietly built inside existing systems. What transpired inside Parliament House in Melbourne was not merely a series of provocative maiden speeches—it was a glimpse into a fundamental conflict over the nature of the Australian state.
1. The Disconnect Between Institutional Power and Voter Mandate
To understand why these inaugural speeches sparked such an intense reaction, one must examine the contrast between the Assembly’s legislative influence and its underlying voter participation rates.
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ THE PARTICIPATION PARADOX IN VICTORIAN POLICY │
├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ INSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY DEMOCRATIC ENGAGEMENT REALITY │
│ • Statutory $198,000 full-time salaries. • 88.4% of eligible voters did not vote. │
│ • Mandated "Statement of Compatibility". • 11.6% effective voter participation. │
│ • Direct consultation with State Cabinet. • 54% of Victorians voted 'No' on Voice. │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
When a statutory body is granted $198,000 annual salaries for its members and given procedural oversight over state legislation, its democratic legitimacy relies heavily on broad public participation.
When 88.4% of eligible Aboriginal Victorians choose not to cast a ballot in the election of that body, a serious administrative question arises:
-
Does the Assembly represent a unified voice for Indigenous Victorians, or does it primarily reflect an active, highly vocal political vanguard?
This low turnout creates a political vulnerability. By operating with an effective voter participation rate of roughly 11.6%, Assembly members who use maximalist language—such as calling Victoria a “crime scene” or asserting that Treaty is merely a stepping stone—risk alienating the broader Victorian public while providing political momentum to opponents seeking to dismantle the body entirely.
2. The Mechanics of the “Statement of Compatibility”
One of the most consequential yet least understood aspects of the Victorian Treaty process is the statutory requirement for a “statement of compatibility with the Treaty” on all future state legislation.
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ THE LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURAL COMPARISON │
├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ HUMAN RIGHTS COMPATIBILITY MODEL TREATY COMPATIBILITY MODEL │
│ • Introduced via Victorian Charter of Rights. • Introduced via Statewide Treaty Act. │
│ • Ensures bills align with civil liberties. • Requires assessment of Treaty impact. │
│ • Non-binding on Parliamentary supremacy. • Creates potential procedural bottlenecks│
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
In Westminster parliamentary systems, introducing compatibility statements creates a subtle shift in how laws are drafted:
-
Pre-Legislative Vetting: Before a bill reaches the floor of Parliament, government departments must consult with the First Peoples’ Assembly to evaluate whether the proposed law aligns with Treaty commitments.
-
Procedural Leverage: While a compatibility statement does not technically grant a legal veto over Parliament—which retains sovereign lawmaking power—it creates significant political leverage. A negative compatibility assessment from the Assembly can delay legislation, fuel public opposition, and complicate a government’s policy agenda.
-
Bureaucratic Expansion: It embeds a specialized oversight mechanism across every government portfolio, from transport and housing to criminal justice and natural resource management.
Opponents view this requirement as creating an un-elected “third chamber” of parliament. Proponents, however, argue that it simply mirrors existing human rights compatibility checks, ensuring that state policies consider Indigenous interests during the drafting process.
3. The Thorpe Political Dynasty: Sovereignty vs. Governance
The emergence of Andrew Thorpe within the First Peoples’ Assembly highlights an important dynamic within modern Indigenous activism: the rise of a distinct political dynasty spanning federal and state jurisdictions.
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ THE DUAL PHASES OF INDIGENOUS ADVOCACY │
├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ RADICAL SOVEREIGNTY MODEL (Lidia/Andrew Thorpe) INSTITUTIONAL REFORM MODEL (Labor/Co-Chairs)│
│ • Rejects the legitimacy of the Crown/State. • Works within statutory frameworks. │
│ • Views Treaty as a stepping stone to autonomy. • Views Treaty as a tool for practical outcomes.│
│ • Uses disruptive language inside chambers. • Focuses on service delivery & reform. │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
There is an important strategic difference between the platform of Senator Lidia Thorpe at the federal level and the official mandate of the First Peoples’ Assembly:
-
The Official Treaty Mandate: Promoted by the Victorian Labor government and Assembly co-chairs, this model frames Treaty as a practical mechanism for closing the gap in health, education, and housing while recognizing historical truths within the Australian constitutional framework.
-
The Radical Sovereignty Model: Articulated by Andrew Thorpe and his allies, this perspective views the Victorian state as “so-called,” rejects the legitimacy of the post-colonial legal order, and regards Treaty not as a final peace settlement, but as an initial stepping stone toward full political autonomy.
By using his inaugural address to declare that the building sits on “stolen land” and asserting that Treaty is merely a “pathway,” Andrew Thorpe brought the radical sovereignty perspective directly into the statutory body. This highlights an underlying tension: can an assembly funded by the state government satisfy members who fundamentally question the state’s right to govern?
4. Critical Unanswered Investigative Questions
As Victoria approaches its November 2026 state election, several critical questions remain unaddressed:
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ CRITICAL UNANSWERED INVESTIGATIVE QUESTIONS │
├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 1. THE LEGAL STATUS OF COMPATIBILITY STATEMENTS │
│ How will state courts interpret a bill passed by Parliament accompanied by a │
│ formal "Statement of Incompatibility" from the First Peoples' Assembly? │
│ │
│ 2. DISSOLUTION AND REPEAL MECHANICS │
│ If the Liberal Party wins the November election, what specific legal steps are │
│ required to repeal the Statewide Treaty Act and defund the Assembly? │
│ │
│ 3. ELECTORAL PARTICIPATION REFORMS │
│ Will the Assembly implement structural reforms to improve voter turnout beyond │
│ 11.6% in future election cycles to strengthen its democratic mandate? │
│ │
│ 4. FINANCIAL AUDITING AND ACCOUNTABILITY │
│ How will the $198,000 annual member salaries and associated operational budgets │
│ be audited and evaluated against tangible service delivery metrics? │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Conclusion
The inaugural speeches delivered inside Parliament House in Melbourne represent a pivotal moment in Australia’s ongoing debate over history, identity, and governance.
For proponents, the First Peoples’ Assembly and the broader Treaty process offer an essential path toward self-determination, truth-telling, and addressing long-standing social inequalities. For critics, the combination of high statutory salaries, low voter participation rates, and uncompromising rhetoric reinforces fears of institutional division and unrepresentative decision-making.
As Victorians prepare to go to the polls in November 2026, they face a fundamental choice. The outcome will determine not only the future of the First Peoples’ Assembly, but whether Victoria’s Treaty model becomes a template for the nation or a warning sign of the political challenges inherent in reshaping modern democratic governance.
A Question for Reflection
How can modern democratic systems successfully integrate historic First Nations self-determination frameworks while maintaining broad public confidence, equal voter representation, and constitutional cohesion?
