Australian Senator Lidia Thorpe’s recent heckling of King Charles during his address to the country’s Parliament has reignited discussions about the British monarchy’s role in the ongoing struggles faced by indigenous Australians. Ms Thorpe, a senator of Gunnai, Gunditjmara, and Djab Wurrung heritage, has long been a fierce advocate for indigenous rights and a vocal critic of colonial legacies. Her actions, while controversial, underline a broader sentiment within many indigenous communities that demands acknowledgment and reparative measures for historical injustices.
At the core of Ms Thorpe’s protest is a fundamental rejection of the colonial narrative that the monarchy represents. By asserting that King Charles is “not my king,” she articulates a powerful statement about sovereignty and identity. This sentiment resonates with many indigenous Australians who feel the scars of colonisation are still fresh and profound. The British settlement led to widespread dispossession, cultural dislocation, and ongoing systemic inequalities that are evident in health, education, and social outcomes for First Nations peoples. Ms Thorpe’s calls for a treaty highlight a crucial gap in Australia’s approach to reconciliation.
Unlike other Commonwealth nations that have established treaties with their indigenous populations, Australia has yet to address this fundamental issue, leaving many indigenous Australians feeling marginalised in their own land. The lack of a treaty not only signifies a failure to recognise indigenous rights but also perpetuates a cycle of disempowerment and exclusion. Ms Thorpe’s insistence on this point serves as a reminder that reconciliation must go beyond mere symbolism; it requires tangible commitments to rectify historical wrongs. The recent referendum on a Voice to Parliament, which sought to constitutionally recognise indigenous Australians, further underscores the complexities surrounding these discussions.
Ms Thorpe’s opposition to the Voice reflects a significant faction within indigenous communities that believes such measures could dilute the push for genuine sovereignty. The resounding “no” vote in the referendum illustrates a disconnect between political initiatives and the aspirations of many indigenous Australians. For Ms Thorpe, the Voice represented an assimilationist approach rather than a step toward true self-determination. However, Ms Thorpe’s approach has not garnered unanimous support among indigenous leaders. Some, like Mr Allira Davis, advocate for a conciliatory stance, suggesting that respect for the monarchy can coexist with the push for recognition and treaty. This divergence in perspectives illustrates the diversity of thought within indigenous communities regarding how best to navigate the legacies of colonisation.
Ultimately, Ms Thorpe’s heckling of King Charles serves as a potent symbol of resistance against historical injustices. It calls into question the legitimacy of colonial structures that continue to impact indigenous lives today. While not everyone may agree with her tactics, her message echoes the deep desire for recognition, reparative justice, and a genuine commitment to addressing the ongoing impact of colonisation. Australia stands at a crossroads; it can choose to continue down the path of denial or embrace a future rooted in equity, respect, and recognition for its First Nations peoples