'You're not my king': [Senator] Lidia Thorpe escorted away after outburst [at Charles III in Parliament House]

Why do some countries still have a monarchy, I dont care if its a figurehead thats a waste of taxes.

The real answer to this question is "habit". The people who drew up the Australian Constitution in the 1890's thought of themselves as British citizens, even though they were literally making plans for a new nation that would be independent of England. In terms of taxes, I don't believe Commonwealth membership costs us much - though I'm not super informed on this point. I could be swayed on the matter.

Even as citizens of the new nation of Australia, that generation of Australians still thought of themselves as British, too. It took a few more generations for us to really think of ourselves as purely and exclusively Australian.

If the constitution were being drafted up today, we'd have a serious conversation about whether we'd be a Constitutional Monarchy or some sort of Republic. But, it's not and we're not.

There are real advantages to being a member of the Commonwealth of nations. I'm not entirely dissatisfied with the status quo. If we ever do split from the Commonwealth, I'd want to look closely at what is proposed to replace it. I would not for example want our government to end up like what our friends in the USA have.
- Permanently Deleted
- While America is certainly a dumpster fire I would argue getting rid of all monarchist influence was one of the few good things it did. Of course over time it went from a progressive country to a regressive country and today a country of reactionaries.
It is historical. We have a reasonably stable political system as does the UK and so our government has evolved through consensus since the restoration of the British monarchy.

Australia slowly but steadily made all the necessary legal changes to become a fully independent sovereign nation but we retained an Australian monarch who follows the same rules of succession as the British monarch. I expect the people who worked to obtain our sovereign independence thought the monarchy would be dealt with next. There was an attempt and it got sunk by a nasty scaremongering campaign. Some of the misinformation still circulates today and it has become part of many people's beliefs.

We need a massive campaign to educate the population so we can achieve the sort of constructive and sensible consensus that are the hallmark of our successful and stable democracy. Unfortunately both social and mainstream media will promote increasingly partisan and divisive misinformation for their own purposes. I am sure many advocates for reform don't want to deal with the hyper-partisan negativity and army of cookers that will arise flying monarchist flags. Perhaps if the monarchy is left alone they will disappear up their own arses and make it easier.
It's more expensive to become a republic at this point. Australia would need a referendum to change the Constitution. The last referendum attempt to become a republic was in 1999 and failed, but cost $66m.

The last referundum in Australia was last year and while the AEC has not fully costed it, I've seen one estimate of it costing $450m.
- I don't care what it costs. The idea that one person has the right to rule over others is offensive whether it is symbolic or not.
- $66m is absolutely nothing in terms of the state.
Because they gave us a shitty choice in the vote.

It should have simply been should Australia become a republic Yes/No. The specifics could be reached later.

Instead it specified a specific type of presidential republic appointed by parliament or simply no.

We're the embarrassment for allowing such atruky repugnant instituiton to continue, to allow such inequality to persisit, not Lidia or Chuck (sucking on the public tit at the expense of many others).

His shitty mum literally oversaw a genocide in Ke lnya and she should have been in jail.

@zero_gravitas He's not my King, either, Senator. Dog forbid anyone should say it out loud in a 'hallowed' space, full of royalist suckups.

Senators are required to make an Oath or Affirmation as follows:

OATH I,....., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, His heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

AFFIRMATION I,....., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, His heirs and successors according to law.

Source: https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/what-is-the-oath-of-office-that-is-taken-by-new-senators-and-members-of-the-house-o-representatives-when-they-are-sworn-in

Regardless of what you think of the monarchy, and whether you think that oath is an outright stupid anachronism, it's still the oath she took. It comes across as plain poor conduct to act that way while acting in her capacity of Senator.
- A coerced oath isn't an oath worth keeping
- I can't believe anyone is seriously advancing this as a point 😆 But I'll give the benefit of the doubt and give it a serious response:
  
  If the 1999 republic referendum had succeeded, the government of the day would have advised the monarch to abolish their rule over Australia. Senator Thorpe is simply doing the same thing, albeit in a different way. Sometimes true ~~friendship~~ allegiance means telling hard truths.
- If I indeed think that oath is, as you said, an outright stupid anachronism, then why should I consider it poor conduct to openly reject the oath?
  
  On the other hand, I think it's the appropriate conduct for anyone who wants to be a political representative of me, because I am an anti-monarchist. I do want my representatives to falsely affirm the oath, only because if they reject it then they can't represent us in the electoral system. I see no positive meaning in that oath, no honour in upholding it, no hypocrisy in betraying it.
- @Echinoderm I'm just seeing this as anachronistic rhubarb...that is showing signs of being the outrage-of-the-week by the shallow meeja (which includes ABC, BBC, etc.), and the gubment...to distract from their execrable stance on Netenhyahu's atrocities.
  No. This is not false equivalence. It is that the Oaths and Affirmations are hypocrisy.
- Ahaha oh wait you’re serious.
  
  Anyone stupid enough to bind themselves to such a ridiculous oath is showing poor conduct.

Permanently Deleted

Get media coverage, like pretty much everything she does. She doesn't have much power as an independent senator so basically all she can do is try to exist as a cultural figurehead.
- Permanently Deleted
Sometimes following a principal appears useless. Sometimes symbolism can lead to powerful change.

Ghandi's march to the sea to 'make salt', which was an illegal act under British rule, indirectly led to Indian independence. Long bow, I grant you, but the golden thread is there.
didnt she try block mardi gras earlier this year? Its all about her. Shes got a serious case of "trumpness". Also known as "elons disease". Or in the native aussie tongue: "look at moiiiiiiii"
- didnt she try block mardi gras earlier this year?
  
  She was protesting the involvement of police participating in the parade.

Fuck the "king", bloody wanker

King of the 'hoo?

Not saying it was right to do, and with the backlash she’ll get it’s the opposite of productive. But I can understand her anger.

The vote to give indigenous people more say was only like a year ago and didn’t pass. (Aware Lidia Thorpe was against it - however her reasoning seems to be that the Voice was a token effort that would allow the faking of progress, and she wanted more real action.)

Even putting it to the vote was kind of letting mostly non-indigenous people decide whether or not indigenous people were allowed a say in stuff that affects them.

Now this guy representing the invaders comes over here all pompous to discuss his ruling of the country, refuses to acknowledge or speak to her, and kind of rubs all that recent sore spot in. It’s hitting multiple trauma buttons and the ignoring is not very respectful to her. So she blew up on the only platform available.

Personally I don’t really think much of Charlie or care about the royal family. I don’t understand the reverence or really think about them.

I wouldn’t mind being independent of England but would really have to educate myself on potential consequences of that and how the transition would go.

Horrible: the most annoying person you know just did something cool as fuck.

Lidia is losing her attention seeking forced edginess. She needs to smear herself in shit while yelling sexist and racist comments or something. We still don't care.

I don't know why she gets attention for saying the least controversial thing which is mainstream popular opinion in Australia. Except ofcourse the media is controlled by out of touch regressive monarchist elites who want to lump the rest of us in the crazy bin for wanting a modern independent Australia.

Even Chuck understands he is in caretaker mode.

I think the problem is that mainstream Australian culture, and especially our media, is heavily into respectability politics. They hate anything that upsets the status quo. It's the same as when people oppose pro-climate protests. They claim to be supportive of the message, but say things like "this protest makes me disagree with you".
- I think it is more about framing. The leading media frame the discussion in biased and emotive terms that then carries over unquestioning into other media, the pub, workplace and social media. Lidia isn't the only person speaking up for indigenous rights or questioning the monarchy but the others rarely get coverage. Lidia seeks attention and the media uses it for their own purposes and they both get what they want.
  
  The media tells us there is nothing more Australian than disrespect for authority when they are exploiting the ANZAC mythology. What could be more Aussie than a digger not saluting British officers? The media tells us implicitly who can protest and who can't, who is deserving of a voice and who isn't and which authorities can be questioned and which can not.
- protest that doesn't disrupt isn't going to reach anyone.
  
  I was chuffed to hear her on shouting at the twat on BBC.