Lidia Thorpe, an Indigenous person who was elected to the Australian senate as a member of the Green party, added the word ‘colonizing’ before the words ‘Queen Elizabeth II’ while taking the oath of office. The presiding officer stopped her and said that she should only read the words on the card, which she then did, while making clear with her intonation and facial expressions that she found it offensive.
Thorpe turned to speak to a Labor senator behind her who appeared to voice further criticism, before repeating the oath as printed.
Another senator was heard to say “none of us like it”.
…The assistant minister for the republic, Matt Thistlethwaite, last week told Nine newspapers that swearing allegiance to the Queen was “archaic and ridiculous”.
“It does not represent the Australia we live in and it’s further evidence of why we need to begin discussing becoming a republic with our own head of state,” he said. “We are no longer British.”
I was surprised that such an oath was still being administered. Apparently “under the Australian constitution all senators and MPs must swear an allegiance to the Queen and her heirs and successors before sitting in parliament.”
This should be embarrassing to the people of a sovereign nation to swear an oath of allegiance to a foreign queen and even to her heirs and successors. Does that include Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s good buddy Andrew as well? That alone should cause anyone to gag over the words.
Furthermore, it is not clear what an oath of allegiance to the queen means. Does it mean they must follow her orders? If the queen were to tell all the Australian legislators to vote in a particular way on some issue, must they do so? If not, what’s the point?
Maybe Thorpe’s action will raise enough awareness if how ridiculous this oath is and they will move to change it.
That’s the same in Canada.
But they don’t swear allegiance to a foreign queen, they do so to the Queen of Australia. This means all MPs and senators are swearing to a figurehead position created by the constitution of Australia. With this arrangement Australia gets full sovereignty, despite the appearance of being under British rule.
Holms @#2,
Ok, even if we grant that, I am not sure what taking an oath of allegiance to a person implies. Does it mean you have to follow that person’s orders?
Like Canada and New Zealand, Australia is a constitutional monarchy, and the Queen is their monarch. Didn’t you know that?
Of course, the people of those countries can change that whenever they like.
As I said, it’s same here in Canada and it doesn’t sit well with a lot of people including members of parliament. But to change that would require constitutional amendments and when you start talking about changing the constitution, that opens it up to a whole lot potential demands from many different groups on many different fronts. Which is not something the current government is willing to tackle (not that I can see any future one doing so either without some major changes in the political landscape).
They shipped you to Australia as though you were human garbage. You owe their queen nothing. Less than nothing. Why do people voluntarily subjugate themselves?
Marcus @6: Do you think most Australians are descended from transported convicts? I think it’s about 20%.
It’s just a formula one says; means nothing other than being a requirement for whatever job. Simple.
I mean, I had to swear allegiance to the Queen when I got my Australian citizenship (which I needed for a government job).
Nothing embarrassing about it.
This is why I can never stand for public office in NZ, for I could never swear such an oath.
But a few things that people writing on the subject often don’t know or understand; The monarch of New Zealand (and I presume Canada and Australia) is NOT the monarch of the UK. The ‘relationship’ is not one that involves England (or any other country of the United Kingdom). The individual monarchies of each country are each separate monarchies that just happen to held by the same family.
It is possible for them diverge -- about thirty/forty years ago it was quite possible NZ’s would because our laws allowed for the crown to pass to the first born and not just the first male heir, thus if some mortal accident or event had killed Charles (perhaps crashing a helicopter when he flew them), Anne would have become our monarch and not Andrew (in a period spanning about ten years, or until William was born).
A little while ago our then PM tried to get up a referendum on changing our flag which went nowhere (to speak of) because without a reason there was just no point (and no excellent alternative suggested) but when we do, it probably ought be on sundering our arrangement with the Windors, and the change be; Removing the Union (top left quadrant) flag from our blue field and southern cross. As is the most offensive thing about our situation to me is that our flag is a UK ensign.
#3 Mano
No, it is taken to mean loyalty to Australia generally. The queen and governor general only have such power as the constitution gives them.
Should add, for the curious, the UK has since changed their laws as well so that it’s first born and not just male heir as well that inherits their crown.
New Zealand Members of Parliament also swear an oath to Queen Elizabeth II, though really it is her role as “The Crown”, a disembodied abstraction whose powers, such as they are, are embodied by the Governor General (currently an indigenous woman).
I used to be a republican (small r), but now I’m not so sure.
a) the Queen doesn’t actually do anything, not even visit anymore.
b) I know this is different in Australia and Canada, but the indigenous people (Maori) made a treaty with “The Crown” by which they ceded government (kawanatanga) but not sovereignty (Rangitiratanga), so if there is no longer a monarch, the deal is off.
c) if we became a republic, who knows what might happen? We might end up with f**king Christopher Luxon as President for life
And also; it’s pretty precious of a nation to think a conscious oath given by an adult is something to sneer at when they routinely force children to mouth an oath without any choice in the matter -- but then I guess, from all evidence -- no requirement to honour it.
Marcus, the Brits may have thought they were taking out the garbage, but actually they did those people and their descendants a huge favour. The real garbage was, and is, still at home.
The British Royal family has a bleak future, thanks to parasites like Charles and Andrew being more visible in all their human shabbiness.
.
Other European royal houses have cut down on ostentatious displays of wealth and mainly go around “opening” new bridges, hospitals and the like, plus advocating charities.
Much of this must be incredibly boring.
.
As they have no real power, they serve as lightning rods to the human instinct to show deference to the clan chieftain/boss/king and other robber barons. Modern royals cannot march into Poland no matter how much you cheer.
.
Thatcher had a lot of power, but she had to compete with the queen for public adoration. A mild form of monarchy thus partially de-fangs demagogues.
I write “partially” because the tories still managed to fuck up Britain good.
enkidu @14: If there’s anything history has taught us, it’s that any country is quite capable of creating its own garbage. Australia is no exception.
Rob Grigjanis:
In Australia, we tried, and failed, in 1999. Changes to the constitution need an overall majority, and a majority in a majority of the original states. The republican referendum failed on both: it failed to get an overall majority and it failed to get a majority in any state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Australian_republic_referendum
prl, yes, I was around at the time.
Thing is, (a) Lizzie is not long for this world, and a shitload of monarchist sentiment is dependent on her as monarch, and (b) next time, proponents won’t want the circumstance when their vote is split amongst those who want an elected head of state and those who want one appointed.
Referenda do not have a good success rate in Oz; clearly, we’re rather conservative.
[but we did allow gay marriage, FWTW]
John Morales:
That’s no longer the case. The pledge for Australian citizenship now makes no mention of the monarch:
There is also a variant that mentions god.
https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/citizenship/ceremony/what-is-the-pledge
The oath/affirmation for parliamentarians is in the constitution, and is difficult to change. The 1999 referendum on the republic changed the parliamentarians’ oath/affirmation. The proposed affirmation (the oath mentions god) was:
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004B00491 (Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999)
John Morales:
Good luck with that (and I mean it sincerely). I’m in favour of a republic, but I don’t like the model being proposed by the Australian Republican Movement.
That didn’t require a change to the constitution (there was a non-binding plebiscite to advise parliament). Nor would it require one to rescind it, though I don’t think that’s likely to happen.
Probably because the authors of the constitution could only think of one possible meaning, “marriage” is left undefined in the clause of the constitution that empowers the commonwealth to make laws regarding it.
prl,
I know. But it’s no different to any other oath; it’s just a formula one has to say.
Don’t have to mean it, just have to articulate it.
Um, that was the point of the featured video, was it not?
(I mean, could it be clearer she did not mean it?)
I suppose it’s technically as binding as swearing allegiance to a flag and the republic for which it stands, but requiring an Indigenous Australian to swear allegiance to any Monarch as a condition of assuming an elected office seems anti-democratic and archaic.
Mano, Elizabeth II is the Australian Head of State.
The governor general, the Queen’s representative, appoints the prime minister.
Infamously, the governor general once dismissed a sitting prime minister and appointed the leader of the opposition as caretaker prime minister until an election could be called:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis
No. He’s like 9th in line of succession. It just means if the Queen dies while they’re still serving their oath remains to the monarch.
[prl, I feel I should note I do appreciate your input. By every indication I can make out, you are better informed than I.]
Lol, no. The absolute power of the monarchy ended long before Australia was founded. The Queen has to accept the will of the people she ostensibly governs. Including if Australia were to declare itself a republic.
Non o fhtese sc-called ‘leaders’ (The Queen, Presidents, Chairmen, whoever) are leaders in any useful sense of the word. They do not lead in the sense that leaders of old led. These did not send others to figght their battle, but led their troops into batle and fell on their swords in a true allegiance to their populace and countries, not a symbolical one which they are only there for what they can get (money, power, glory, manipulation, isolation). Although someone, of course, might want to make a case for the Queen’s gestures during WWII and Princes William and Harry, but I am sure that they were well protected from dangerous front-line action.
When Biden’s nanny puts him to bed at might, along with his cup of hot chocolate she might want also to whisper these immortal words of H.G. Wellls into his ear:
“A time will come when a politician who has wilfully made war and promoted international dissension will be as sure of the dock and much surer of the noose than a private homicide. It is not reasonable that those who gamble with men’s lives should not stake their own.”
Im not sure what cocoa and Biden have do with Australia, but it has been many decades since anyone rode into battle with swords. Himars seem to be extremely popular in the modern military.
Biden is just another example of a ‘leader’ who does not lead.
Rupert, you did read the post, no?
It seems… um, not normal, that when you hear “Really? Australians still take an oath of allegiance to the queen?” you immediately think of Biden.
How do you know that I immediately think of Biden? Are you a mind reader?
Some minds are easier to read than others; your very first comment (i.e. the immediate one) was about Biden.
Nevermind the issue of native people having to swear allegiance to the Queen, right?
Perhaps you should see the immediate analogy, that would be the indigenes of the current territory of the USA having to swear their own oaths to, um, their conquerors.
(Just saying)
Actually the first people I thought were (in order of quotes): leaders’ (The Queen, Presidents, Chairmen, whoever).
Or the Redskins (Native Americans) having to swear allegiance fo their conquerers?
Rupert, … “or”?
Yes, them. I could have hardly been more specific.
The indigenes of the current territory of the USA.
The original inhabitants.
The First Peoples.
(Or, as you refer to them, “the Redskins”)
Do the former colonies not have the option to make a solemn affirmation of appropriate conduct instead of swearing an oath to the parasites? In the UK itself we have had that option since 1978.
Pledging allegiance to Queen would be one thing, but to *the* Queen?? No, thank you.
If the oath of allegiance to the queen is considered to be purely pro forma and not binding in any way, as many of these comments say, then it seems quite pointless, just like taking an oath to a flag. Taking an oath to uphold the constitution is at least something that has some meaning. If someone violates the constitution, then there can be repercussions.
cartomancer @39: If you’re referring to the Oaths Act of 1978, I thought that was about being able to replace references to God with a solemn affirmation, not removing allegiance to the Queen.
Mano @41: Yes, many things humans do seem quite pointless. Lots of source material!
The swearing in is a pledge to act in the best interests of the nation; the wording of the oath is from yesteryear but has not been taken as a pledge to obey the monarch directly since… some time before Australia existed as a modern nation.