Charles III’s visit to Australia

Charles III’s visit to Australia reminds me of the return of Hong Kong to China 27 years ago, when Charles, as Crown Prince, handed Hong Kong back to the Chinese leaders on behalf of the Queen, opening a new page in Hong Kong’s history.

I believe that Charles’s visit to Australia will probably be his last as King, given his age, his health and the demand of the Australian community to become a republic. Last week, I was invited by the Prime Minister’s Office to Canberra on Monday to attend a reception in the Parliament Hall to welcome King Charles, and to see for myself how Australia has welcomed him. The protest ‘performance’ by Aboriginal Senator Lidia Thorpe at the end of the welcome ceremony was right in front of my eyes, and it got me thinking.

Charles’s love affair with Australia, 17 visits in total
Charles III became King of Australia last year, immediately following his accession to the British throne, and it is a misnomer for many Hong Kong newspapers to describe the visit of the King of England to Australia as a visit in his capacity as monarch of a foreign country. Charles arrived in Sydney on Friday evening, rested for a day and then visited the North Sydney Anglican Church for a service on Sunday, and then visited the NSW Parliament in the afternoon, where he presented an hourglass timer to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the founding of the NSW Parliament. The Commonwealth Universities Association (CUA) also announced that Charles had made a personal donation to establish a scholarship to help smaller developing countries face urgent economic, social and environmental challenges.

On Monday Charles attended the Canberra Parliamentary Welcome Reception and a number of charity events. In the afternoon Charles met with two climate scientists and Queen Camilla visited charities. On Tuesday, they met with Australian of the Year 2024 and fellow cancer specialists Professor Georgina Long and Professor Richard Scolyer to discuss cancer research. Later they met with Aboriginal leaders and attended an Australian barbecue. On Wednesday Charles III travelled to Samoa to open the Federal Heads of State Conference. It was not easy for King Charles, who began cancer treatment in February, to stop for nine days to visit Australia. Polls conducted in Australia during the period showed half of Australians were satisfied with the King’s visit, ahead of Prime Minister Albanese and Opposition Leader David Dutton.

This is the second visit by a sitting head of state to Australia since Queen Elizabeth’s visit in 2011. Charles first visited Australia when he was 19 years old and spent six months as a Year 9 student boarding at Geelong Grammar School’s Timbertop campus. This was his 17th visit to Australia (one more than Queen Elizabeth) and his first as King. In 1983 he visited Australia with the then Princess Diana and the newborn Prince William, with Princess Diana adding to Charles’ popularity.

Will he give up the headship soon?
In a sign of the importance Charles III attaches to his relationship with Australia, he took a break from his cancer treatment to visit Australia for five days before travelling to Samoa to preside over the Federal Heads of State Conference. He was met at the airport on Friday evening by Governor Sam Mostyn, Prime Minister Albanese and NSW Premier Chris Minn, but all the Premiers declined to attend the State Welcome Reception on Monday, citing official commitments. I had thought that Australia might be speeding up its transformation into a republic as more immigrants from different countries become Australians, and that Charles’ trip would become a “farewell to Australia” tour. However, the polls conducted during this period show that most Australians do not want to change the status quo, so if Charles’ health improves, perhaps he will have a chance to visit Australia in the future.

Charles has always reiterated that he has no objection to Australia becoming a republic, and that he would be happy to fulfil the wishes of the Australian people. However, some of the organisations pushing for Australia to become a republic have argued that Australia is not really a ‘land without people’ and that it would be disrespectful to the Aboriginal people to have an Englishman as head of state through an election. However, it seems that there is no consensus in the community on whether an Aboriginal leader should be allowed to take up the role of the head of state, and it may not be accepted by the current multi-ethnic society. 1999 Australia held a referendum, only 45% of Australians would support a republican system, and the situation is still similar to that time in the opinion polls released on Tuesday. So it seems unlikely that the monarchy will be abolished any time soon.

The Monarch Who Won the Hearts and Minds of the People
After the British landed in Australia in 1788, the colonies were formed into state governments under the British Empire, with a democratic system of government whereby the King of England became the head of state, and between 1890 and 1900, the Australian states voted in a referendum to form the Commonwealth of Australia, with today’s constitution, no longer colonies but self-governing by the people of those states. It was the choice of the people of each state to become a Commonwealth, and on 1 January 1901 the Commonwealth of Australia was formally established when the King of England, who was also the King of Australia, was voted into office by the British Parliament. For the Australians, it was not the British who conquered this part of Australia by military force and forced the Australians to accept the King of England as their head of state, but the colonisers fought for independence as a self-governing country, but after independence, Australia still maintained its ties with Britain and appointed the King of England as the King of Australia.

Queen Elizabeth was the first sitting monarch to visit Australia in 1954. After the Second World War, Britain pursued a policy of de-colonisation, with British Malaya and Singapore in the vicinity of Australia becoming independent states. Queen Elizabeth visited 57 Australian cities and towns during her 58-day tour. The trip involved 31 flights of over 16,000 kilometres by plane, and many trips by train, car and ship. It is estimated that 75% of the 9 million Australians who met the Queen in person at the time, made the Queen’s visit the only major event of its kind in Australia at that time. The visit made the Queen the Queen of Australians, and it is fair to say that the Queen gave the majority of Australians who had settled in the Commonwealth far from Britain an identity that connected them to British history and tradition. From that time until today, Australians have believed that they were not separate from the Asian nations from which they were so different, living in isolation in the Pacific in a Western society.

Charles’s visit to Australia today is not the same as it was in Elizabeth’s time. But the latest opinion polls show that Australians are not keen to speed up the establishment of a republic, indicating that although Australians have been in closer contact with Asian countries, it is clear that Australia is still reluctant to give up its historical ties with Britain. the establishment of AUKUS, which has become the centre of gravity of Australia’s foreign affairs and defence in recent years, shows that the Australian society is not willing to become a completely independent country from Britain in the near future. In all likelihood, Australia would like to strengthen its co-operative relationship with more ex-British countries. If this were to happen, there would be a market for the King of England to be the King of Australia, at least for a certain period of time.

A Different Concept of Monarch from the Chinese Empire
Due to historical factors, most European heads of state were not direct rulers of the country, but rather symbols of the country. This is a completely different concept from that of the emperors who have always governed China, and it is believed to have started in Britain.

More than 800 years ago, the King of England signed the Magna Carta, handing over the power of governing the country to the aristocracy, and eventually developed the present democratic system. It can be said that the power of the king has long since passed away, and the monarch is no longer, and does not need to be directly responsible for the policies of the country. However, the emperors of the Chinese Empire (i.e. China in history) have always had the supreme power to govern the country. When an emperor failed to govern and the country was in turmoil, there was often a coup d’état or a popular revolt, leading to a change of dynasty and the Chinese would support the new emperor. It can be said that such a system, which advocated the supremacy of power, made the rulers unwilling and unable to give up the power they possessed. Whenever the Chinese nation was invaded by foreigners, the majority of the Chinese people would accept the new emperor’s rule, but in the end, the ruling system composed of scholars assimilated the foreign monarchs and nations. For example, the Manchurian dynasty was still ruled by the Han Chinese ruling class, and the Manchurians were eventually Sinicised to the extent that not many of them know much about Manchu culture today. Another example is that the Mongols refused to be Sinicised, and as a result, when their control over the society was weakened, they were driven back to the north by the Han Chinese, and their life has never been un-Sinicised.

From these different views on kingship, we can understand the situation of Charles III today. Though the kingship is inherited from history, the actual governing power is in the hands of the people, so the kings do not have absolute power and interests. Today, the British Royal Family is an alternative group of people in Britain who can contribute to the improvement of the country’s inequalities, or give hope to the neglected people, and thus provide strength to the stability of the society. Most of the activities of the British royal family are ceremonial and charitable, and the royal family has accumulated a great deal of wealth over the course of its history. Whether or not they continue to be members of the Royal Family is not an important issue for them. Moreover, while royalty is often the centre of public attention, there are some members of the royal family who are unwilling to take on such a role. Prince Harry, for example, who had no right of succession, gave up his position and became an independent celebrity, enjoying his leisure time.

Charles III knows what he’s doing
For me, still in Hong Kong, a visit from the British Royal Family means holidays, celebrations and good news. When the Queen comes to Hong Kong, she’s bound to be on holiday, and part-time workers are always hoping that the Queen Mother (Hong Kong people’s nickname for Queen Elizabeth) will come to Hong Kong more often. The royal family’s visits to Hong Kong are often to preside over the launching of large-scale construction or projects, and are a sign of Hong Kong’s prosperity, stability and development. Charles visited Hong Kong five times in his capacity as Crown Prince. Initially, it was thought that the Queen was too old for the Crown Prince to take over the throne, but the Queen’s longevity made Hong Kong people realise that he would not have the opportunity to preside over the handover as King in 1997.

But Charles did manage to get the British out of Hong Kong in style. Charles III left Hong Kong’s Queen’s Pier (which no longer exists today) on the HMS Britannia with the British flag lowered, signalling that the British had come and gone by ship. I believe that most people in Hong Kong at that time, as well as the rest of the world, were amazed that the British had turned this barren harbour into the richest metropolis in the world. Looking at the prosperity of Hong Kong, the quality of life of the people of Hong Kong at that time, who would say that the colonial government was a tyranny that exploited the people?

Charles summed it up as the contribution of the British in Hong Kong, and today, 27 years later, many Hong Kong people around the world would agree and still miss it. Charles’s ‘farewell to Australia’ is a low-key visit to a country where many have rejected him as king, despite the difficulties of fighting cancer, and where he insists on his duty as ‘King of Australia’ (many Hong Kong media have misrepresented his visit to Australia as the ‘King of England’). Charles III’s early public statement that he would let the Australian people decide whether to become a republic or not shows that Charles III realised that the era of the king as the head of state was over. By making the change known to the Australians, the hardliners, who had been in favour of retaining the royal system, had no reason to hold out any longer. But the Australians were in no hurry to change, and Charles did not have to accelerate the pace. Australia’s transformation into a republic has become a consensus that the Australian community needs to seek on its own, and this attitude shows Charles’s ability to know what to do and what to do not, as well as his political wisdom.

A Nation Grows
The attitude of the Australians towards the royal family also shows that a country has to grow. In the beginning, Australia was just a new continent discovered by the British, similar to the Americas. These two lands were too far away from Britain and not on the Asian trade routes to be of much trade value to the British Empire. India, Hong Kong, Singapore and some parts of Africa were different, they played the role of entrepot and supply port in the East-West trade, and as these places were already governed by established sovereign governments, the British had to become sovereigns through war as conquerors. However, the British did not colonise these colonies in large numbers. While the administration of these colonies brought benefits to Britain in terms of global trade and the plundering of the resources of these lands, at the same time, the administration of these colonies also brought great problems and costs to the British Empire. After the First World War, Britain’s power declined so rapidly that after the Second World War, Britain adopted a policy of decolonisation, allowing these colonies to become independent. To this day, many of these countries still maintain a good co-operative relationship with Britain and are part of the Commonwealth.

The situation in America and Australia was different. The opening up of America was driven by religious idealists who were dissatisfied with the British social system and soon formed self-governments in opposition to Britain. As a result, the United States of America was founded on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean with western democratic institutions but without the historical baggage of Britain, and with a strong belief in individual freedom, human rights and the rule of law, and has become the most powerful country in the world in the last few decades. Australia, on the other hand, because of its more remote location, only had settlers from the lower social classes and gold miners who pursued a free life, and up to 70 or 80 years ago, it was still a small country with a population that supplied Britain with wool, beef and dairy products for trade. Nevertheless, the lives of these oppressed people, who sought freedom and equality, were greatly improved by the richness of the land. The colonists quickly established self-government, honoured British traditions, and because the neighbouring countries were all undemocratic in Asia, Australian society was keen to maintain its close relationship with Britain until the Second World War, and naturally, the British king became the king of Australia.

Queen Elizabeth’s charisma, coupled with the White Australia policy that prevailed in Australian society for more than 50 years, has kept Australians from changing the present system of having the King of England as the head of state. However, over the past 30 years, Australia has absorbed a large number of immigrants from all over the world, and this generation of Australians is now a global citizenry with a global outlook, but still retains the old values of freedom, equality and tolerance of different perspectives. Australians are able to build co-operative relationships with different countries and ethnic groups around the world, and because of this, Australian society is capable of making institutional changes.

It can also be said that Australia has grown to become a democratic, free and lawful nation in the Asia-Pacific region, one that demands mutual respect and tolerance, and that resists the threat of force and oppression. In the face of the reorganisation of the world order, Australia will play an important role in the region, and perhaps it is a good symbol for a change in the system of national leadership.

Who will be the head of state?
If Australia ever becomes a republic, how will she elect her head of state? Australia’s most powerful Governor-General has always been an elected head of government, nominated by the Prime Minister and appointed by the King of Australia. Most of them are respected members of the community, come from a wide range of backgrounds, and are seen as representatives of fairness and justice. Most of these nominees are knowledgeable people, but if we recognise that Australia did not start out as an uninhabited land, but was inhabited by Aboriginal people for more than 60,000 years, does it mean that the Australian community should consider an Aboriginal leader to be the head of state?

No Aboriginal person has ever been appointed as the Governor-General of Australia. Douglas Nicholls was appointed Governor-General of South Australia in 1976, the first Aboriginal person to hold such a position. Mr Le Van Hieu, an immigrant from Vietnam, also served as Governor-General, but they were appointed by the King and had no real power.

But if the head of Australia is elected by the people on a one-man-one-vote basis, how much power should he have? Is it possible to elect an Aboriginal head of state? Or should the Aborigines be the head of state of Australia? It seems to be very difficult for the Australian community to reach a consensus on these issues.

As I attended Charles III’s welcome reception in Parliament on Monday, I observed a number of things of interest.

You’re not my king, you’ve committed genocide
Before the King got off the bus and arrived at Parliament House, there was an Aboriginal welcome, a sign of respect for Aboriginal people, and a parade of Australian soldiers. I saw Charles III stop to talk to the soldiers, some of whom were obviously not white. On entering the parliamentary chamber, the sign language interpreter, sitting on the far left hand side of the room, conveyed a very clear message. I don’t think many people in the room would have needed a sign language interpreter, but rather a way to express to the Deaf people of the country that they too are part of this country and can be seen on the TV news. Before the start, Auntie Violet Sheridan gave the Aboriginal welcome to the King, and then the Prime Minister’s speech, which showed that the Australian government recognises that this land belongs to the Aboriginal people.

The Prime Minister’s and King’s speeches also mentioned how Queen Elizabeth won the hearts of all Australians on her first visit to Australia as King. The Prime Minister also praised King Charles for his many visits and interest in Australia’s development and charitable work during his years as Crown Prince. Prime Minister Albanese recognised the positive role Charles has played in Australia’s development and growth to date. Charles spoke about his first time living in Australia and how the Aboriginal culture has had a huge impact on his life over the past 58 years. He also expressed his concern about the recent fires and natural disasters that have occurred in Australia in recent years, and was pleased that Australia has grown to become such an influential country in the world.

It could have been a perfect farewell visit. The guests did not come as kings to a land of exiled convicts, the hosts did not bow and scrape as vassals, and we all parted in a courteous manner, with the Prime Minister saying that Australia would continue to play an active and important role in future federal meetings of states. It could be said that this visit was the perfect prelude to Australia’s entry into a republic. However, immediately after the speeches, Aboriginal Senator Lidia Thorpe rushed forward and shouted, ‘You are an exterminator’ and ‘You are not my king’. Her action absolutely disrupted the harmony of the whole welcoming ceremony, and all the participants shook their heads and sighed. Bringing politics into the ceremony was not recognised and supported by the participants and Australians. Lidia was later criticised by many Aboriginal leaders for insulting the king she claimed to be loyal to, losing her integrity and bringing shame to the Aboriginal people.

Aboriginal people are being ignored?
Are Lidia’s demands reasonable? Firstly, Lidia wants to get back the bones of the Aborigines. Many Aboriginal skeletons were brought to Britain during the colonial era, and some museums have returned them to Aboriginal communities in the past.Lidia’s request is reasonable, but should it have been made at the King’s welcoming party, or is there a better way?

Secondly, Lidia says the King is responsible for the genocide of the Aborigines, which is a difficult question to answer. When the British first landed in Australia, not many people would have thought that the Aborigines were living in a highly civilised society at that time. Since the Australian continent had been isolated from the world for tens of thousands of years, when the known civilised society developed into the Industrial Revolution, the British encountered the Aborigines and regarded them as undeveloped and did not regard the land as inhabited. However, inhabited land can also become colonies of other countries through wars. It is not uncommon for the original inhabitants to die in large numbers after the invasion of a new nation.

In fact, under such circumstances, the British did not carry out genocide against the indigenous people to a large extent. This was not because the British were not aggressive, it was believed that it was only because of the vastness of Australia and the distance between Australia and Britain that the British did not colonise on a large scale. After the conflict between the British colonisation and the Aborigines, the Aborigines settled in the more remote inland of Australia. It was not until the discovery of gold mines in Australia in the 60s and 70s that more Britons emigrated to Australia, and Lidia’s assertion that Charles or the King of England carried out genocide in Australia is clearly not true.

The British colonial government set up loyalist governments in each state, recognising the King as the head of state was their choice, and there is no law in each state that says that Aborigines must be citizens of each state. However, there were Aboriginal Protection Officers in each state to protect the rights of the Aborigines in case of conflicts between the Aborigines and the citizens of the state, so that the Aborigines could be treated fairly in the society. You can say that the colonialists stole the land by claiming that it had no owner, but this is the view of the post-World War II world on respecting national sovereignty. During the colonial era, when it was a common belief in the world that military might was the key to determining who belonged to a territory, it was considered progressive for the colonisers to ignore the rights of the aborigines instead of exterminating them.

Perhaps the officials who dealt with the Aborigines at that time did not know how to do the job well, but at least the Australian society did not completely ignore the Aborigines.Lidia can say that the British colonialists initially ignored the cultural heritage of the Aborigines, or they did not respect the rights of the Aborigines, but it is far-fetched to think that they had occupied the Aborigines’ land. At that time, the Aborigines did not have a life style of settling on a piece of land for a long period of time. It can also be said that they were not a people who settled in a fixed place, but a people who travelled around a certain place for a long period of time. The Aboriginal people also did not have any concept of property rights (settlement) or who owns a certain piece of land, and naturally, there was no such thing as encroachment.

A Free, Democratic and Rule of Law Australia
When the state and federal governments of Australia were formed, Aborigines were not initially included in national statistics. The intention was that Aborigines would be denied the responsibility of state protection, and that they would not be taxed or provided with welfare benefits by the state and federal governments, not that the state or federal governments would not recognise their existence and right to exist. The fact that Aboriginal people could only live on land that no one else owned or used was not a big problem, as there was plenty of land in Australia in the first place. The Aborigines had the right to deny that they were nationals of either the British Empire or the Commonwealth of Australia, but in doing so, they also denied the responsibility of Australia as a nation to protect them. Senator Lidia Thorpe’s behaviour is therefore clearly contradictory.

As Aborigines, Lidia has the right to deny the existence of the Commonwealth of Australia because the Aborigines did not become Australian citizens in 1900 when they voted in a referendum to accept the Commonwealth’s constitution. They became part of the Commonwealth of Australia in a referendum in the 67th century, when the original colonisers and their descendants were accepted into the Commonwealth of Australia. Since then they have enjoyed the privileges, benefits and Aboriginal land rights of living in Australia, and Lidia was born after the constitutional changes that made all Aboriginal people Australians, and naturally, a subject of Charles III of Australia. Since her birth, she has enjoyed the welfare and education provided by the Australian government, and has become part of the Australian government by running for election, being elected, and swearing allegiance to the Australian government. However, Australians enjoy freedom of speech, and simply stating publicly that you are not a subject of Charles III is not treason or sedition, nor is it a criminal offence, as long as you do not take any specific action. She is a democratically elected member of Parliament, and the Parliament does not have the power to remove her from office.

Lidia’s behaviour demonstrates that Australians today enjoy a great deal of freedom, and that they use this freedom ‘unreasonably’ to promote their own political ideas without fear of being suppressed by the government. This is all because Australian society practises democracy and the rule of law, and allows its citizens to enjoy freedom. Whether they are descendants of the original British colonisation, Aboriginal people, or people who have immigrated from outside the UK and settled in this country, they all enjoy these rights, and this is the most valuable change that some of us, the first generation of immigrants to settle in this country, have experienced.

King Charles has gone, but his visit to Australia has made Australians think again about who they are and how Australia should go forward. How should Australia go forward? I’m sure it will be discussed amongst Australians for some time to come.