Senator Lidia Thorpe has sparked significant political controversy following her recent public outburst directed at King Charles III during his visit to Australia. While the King's presence typically elicits formal decorum, Thorpe's passionate protest raised questions about her fitness to serve as a senator.
During the royal reception at Parliament House on October 21, Thorpe defiantly called out, "You are not our king! You are not sovereign!" as she demanded rights and reparations for Indigenous Australians. "You committed genocide against our people. Give us our land back. Give us what you stole from us – our bones, our skulls, our babies, our people. You destroyed our land. We want treaty!" These fiery declarations quickly caught the attention of both media and political leaders, igniting debates around her role and obligations as an elected official.
When questioned about her actions, Thorpe maintained her position, stating she wanted to convey a message to the King, which she felt was effectively communicated. "My people are happy because my people have been protesting for decades for this very issue. Now it's up to the King of England to respond," she asserted. This defiance has led to widespread discussions about whether she should remain within the Senate.
To complicate matters, Thorpe recently confirmed she swore her oath of allegiance to the late Queen Elizabeth II’s "hairs" rather than her "heirs" when taking office. This phrase has raised eyebrows among political leaders, including Coalition Senate leader Simon Birmingham, who deem it problematic for her standing within parliament. Birmingham stated, "Taking the oath or affirmation is one of the few requirements placed upon a senator following their election. Senator Thorpe’s actions and admission undermine this important process." Such remarks have prompted the Coalition to seek legal opinions on the consequences of Thorpe's statements.
It was also noted by various cabinet members, including Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek and Foreign Minister Penny Wong, who both called for self-reflection from Thorpe concerning her behavior and views on parliament. Plibersek questioned why Thorpe would stay within the institution if she perceives it as fundamentally flawed, hinting at the larger philosophical debate on the post-colonial relationship between Indigenous Australians and the Australian government.
Legal experts have chimed in on the topic as well, with constitutional lawyer Anne Twomey arguing any challenge to Thorpe's eligibility is unlikely to succeed. Twomey pointed out the legal requirements surrounding the oath were met due to her having signed the official affirmation document. "It’s different from disqualification," Twomey explained. “If she made an oath to a foreign power, there would be grounds for concern, but she hasn't done so."
Facing pressure from both sides of the aisle, the interplay between political allegiance and personal conviction remains central to the discussion surrounding Thorpe's future. There are calls for the Senate to carry out some form of inquiry to assess her eligibility based on her recent disavowal of fidelity to the Crown. Such scrutiny has fed existing sentiments about accountability and representation within government, particularly from constituents who feel their interests may not be being adequately served.
Despite the political turmoil, Thorpe remains steadfast. "I've got another three and a half years, and I'm here to get justice for my people and to bring this nation together," she has said defiantly, hoping to balance her role within the Senate with her commitment to advocating for Indigenous rights and facing the challenges posed by the prevailing governmental structures. The fallout from her confrontational approach poses complex questions for the future of both her position and the broader discussions around Indigenous sovereignty and reparatory justice within Australia.
The stakes are high as these developments could lead to significant legal and political ramifications. With the next Senate session looming, the opposition’s planned censure motion and potential legal challenges may soon reveal the extent of this situation's impact on the Australian political climate. Amid the chaos, Thorpe's supporters continue to rally around her, viewing her actions as necessary for holding power accountable and addressing historical injustices against Indigenous communities.
Thorpe’s remarks and actions are certainly polarizing, but they reflect deep-seated frustrations shared among many Indigenous Australians and spotlight the persistent issues of land rights, reparations, and the call for treaties. The broader conversation initiated by Thorpe—whether one views her behavior as demagoguery or as social justice advocacy—encapsulates the struggle for equal representation and recognition of Indigenous rights within Australian politics.
