
Australia's reckoning with Indigenous people takes one cultural glide forward, two political steps back
Archie Moore, Tracey Moffatt, Warwick Thornton, Deborah Mailman, William Barton, Tony Albert, Judy Watson, David Gulpilil, Christian Thompson, Ivan Sen, Emily Kam Kngwarray, to name just some of the many who have won accolades for their stunning, original work and taken their place at the peaks of cultural power and influence. Winning hearts and changing minds as they went.
Not so long ago this suggested a long overdue reckoning with the First Peoples; a reckoning that the rest of the world was watching in the detached way that those who can be bothered note what is happening elsewhere.
Australia is diffident about cultural diplomacy, reluctant to exercise its soft power (in anything other than sport), as the abandonment of ABC Asia Pacific TV demonstrated – although the ABC has since revamped its international service.
The global celebration of First Nations artists was a powerful way of showing that modern Australia had thrown off its colonial legacy, had grown into a truly mature and reconciled nation and come to terms with the ancient human heritage that makes it truly unique.
Creative Australia put First Nations stories first in its strategic priorities, Dfat's cultural grants emphasised the persuasive power of 65,000 years of unique civilisation, and Australia lobbied hard for Unesco recognition of cultural heritage at Gunditjmara and now Murujuga.
Yet as we approach the second anniversary of the decision by most Australians to reject meaningful recognition of First Peoples, the tension at the heart of this international celebration of the talent, stories and unique ways of seeing, being and doing comes clearly into focus.
Is it simple hypocrisy or the old Australian way – one glide forward, two quick steps back?
There are markers. The silence about discussing the referendum or to even consider national truth-telling. The ratty politics rejecting welcomes to country and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags. The patchy reporting of the coronial findings of institutional racism in the NT Police and the Yoorrook inquiry's findings of historic genocide. The federal court's hand-wringing decision that accepted government policies caused wilful destruction of culture and environment in the Torres Strait Islands but that it was unable to do anything about it.
These recent events suggest that coming to terms with the enduring impact of the past is at best the latter, two quick steps back. At worst, to me, it suggests further signs of what Jeremy Bentham once called an 'incurable flaw'.
All this came to mind as I stood outside Tate Modern waiting in line under an unusually hot summer sun for my bag to be checked. My English friend and I were on our way to the third floor of the vast former turbine to see the Emily Kam Kngwarray exhibition.
'Why is it on now?' he asked. He knows Australia, has spent time in central Australia and understood how the voice referendum hung heavily there.
It's a reasonable question. And there are many answers. Some practical, others freighted with meaning. The director of the Tate told the press it was part of her plan to celebrate older female artists who should be considered great masters (mistresses?). The art press buzzed that this was one of three major exhibitions of Indigenous artists in London this summer – the others from Canada and Peru. Indigeneity is 'a thing'.
The collaboration to celebrate the 'old lady's' work between the Tate, National Gallery of Australia and the women of Alhalker country began not long after the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, declared there would be a referendum to secure meaningful recognition of First Peoples in the Australian constitution. These big retrospective shows are years in the making, especially ones that require the active involvement of local communities as well as major galleries and high-profile owners around the world.
When the extraordinary show first opened in Canberra just months after the vote, there was sadness about what might have been, about how the exhibition might have celebrated a new beginning.
In London two years later, this is a barely acknowledged backdrop.
Those seeing her work for the first time grapple with what it represents, how someone who only started painting in her 70s produced work as fresh and innovative as any major 20th-century artist – but how it grew out of her knowledge, skill and dreaming.
Like all great artists the work is truly hers, grounded in her unique perspective. What comes as a surprise, to those who have only seen her images in books and posters, is their three-dimensional quality. Kngwarray layered paint to evoke stories of such extraordinary depth that they carry a fourth dimension of infinite time, 'everywhen'.
It invites the viewer into a unique way of seeing and being.
Another Australian artist is also celebrated on level 3 of the Tate. Leigh Bowery, who in his short life became a London gay style icon. Both Emily and Leigh speak to a distinctive Australian sensibility and energy. They prove that from an unlikely starting point anything is possible.
Answering my friend's question, I said I wished the curators had projected The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, where flamboyant gay culture meets the outback, on the wall between the two iconoclastic Australians, to help viewers literally join the dots between the two exhibitions.
Culture is complicated, cultural diplomacy can take time, but culture might still lead politics.
Julianne Schultz an emeritus professor at Griffith University and the author of The Idea of Australia
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
8 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Australia's 'biggest brown-noser' politician named on protest sculpture - as Albanese government signs AUKUS deal with the UK
A provocative piece of street art has taken aim at federal Defence Minister Richard Marles, labelling him 'Australia's biggest brown–noser'. The crude installation, spotted outside his Geelong electorate office on Saturday, featured a large sculpted nose smeared with what appeared to be fake faeces. There was also a pile of 'faeces' resting on a sign which said: 'This memorial erected by The New Radicals in honour of Australia's biggest brown-noser Richard Marles.' It was chained to a nearby post in the city's CBD before disappearing by 5pm, and images of the artwork were shared on social media by the activist group. Australians praised the artwork as 'incredible', with one user on X quipping: 'The drips on the ground are what makes it.' The New Radicals have previously claimed responsibility for similar stunts in the same location, including a mock submarine called 'HMAS Richard'. The submarine are understood to have been a reference to those promised to Australia in the AUKUS trilateral defence agreement between Australia, the UK and the United States. Meanwhile, the latest piece of art coincided with Marles' formal signing of a historic bilateral security pact with the UK on Saturday. The deal, dubbed the 'Geelong Treaty', was signed in the city to represent a 50-year co-operation arrangement between the two allies under the AUKUS banner. Marles described the agreement as a transformational moment for the nation's defence and industry: 'In doing this, AUKUS will see 20,000 jobs in Australia.' 'It will see, in building submarines in this country, the biggest industrial endeavour in our nation's history, bigger even than the Snowy Hydro scheme. 'In military terms, what it will deliver is the biggest leap in Australia's military capability, really, since the formation of the navy back in 1913.' The announcement followed the annual AUKMIN talks in Sydney, with Marles and UK Defence Secretary John Healey celebrating the deal with a beer at a Geelong brewery. It came just days after the Albanese Government transferred a further $800million to the United States under the AUKUS program, despite the agreement being under a review ordered by US President Donald Trump. 'There is a schedule of payments to be made, we have an agreement with the United States as well as with the United Kingdom,' Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told ABC's Afternoon Briefing on Wednesday. 'It is about increasing their industrial capacity, and as part of that, we have Australians on the ground, learning the skills so that when it comes to the SSN–AUKUS—the submarines being built here in Australia, we have those skills.' The AUKUS deal includes Australia acquiring eight nuclear–powered submarines expected to cost between $268billion and $368billion over the next three decades. Despite internal unrest, with several local Labor branches voting to oppose the deal over the previous months across the country, the government has remained firm in its support for AUKUS. The timing of the expected conclusion of the US review into AUKUS remains unclear. It is being led by Elbridge Colby, who has publicly expressed scepticism about the pact and warned it could leave American sailors exposed and under-resourced. Daily Mail Australia has contacted Marles' office for comment on the artwork.


Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Major update on Aussie state's bid to BAN Welcome to Country ceremonies and Aboriginal flags
Members of the Liberals in Western Australia have voted to support the scaling back of Welcome to Country ceremonies. Delegates at the state council, the WA branch of the party, backed the motion for fewer ceremonies during a closed-door meeting in Canning, southeastern Perth, on Saturday. It was introduced alongside a proposal to remove the Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander flags from behind the Prime Minister at press conferences. Both motions reportedly passed without the need for a formal vote, with one attendee describing the support as 'overwhelming'. Attendees also reignited internal divisions between state and federal Coalition members by voting to abandon the commitment to reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Canning federal MP Andrew Hastie, who represents one of only four Liberal-held seats in WA, said the vote was intended to send a 'clear signal' to Australians. 'We stand for something, we are willing to fight for our values and convictions,' he told The Australian, doubling down on the stance on carbon emissions. 'Energy underlies everything in the economy, energy security is national security.' 'If we're not getting cheap, reliable, affordable power then we're not going to be competitive as a nation,' he said. The policy shift has exposed a widening rift between state and federal branches of the party, with ongoing internal debate in the opposition over whether net-zero targets should be dumped. One senior Liberal source criticised the WA division's stance as out of touch with the rest of the country on the issue. 'It is evident that WA Liberals refuse to listen to modern Australia,' they told Daily Mail Australia on Saturday. But Mr Hastie has rejected claims, saying: 'Well I got the biggest swing in WA, 5.5 per cent, pretty sure I got a strong endorsement.' He also argued that attacking Labor's climate credentials could be a winning strategy. 'We export a lot of our coal and gas to India and China, both their emissions are growing... and yet we deny coal and gas to the Australian people,' he said. Nationals Party Senator Matt Canavan took to social media to welcome the move by sharing an applause emoji. The WA Liberals were nearly wiped out during the state election in 2021, reduced to just two seats in the lower house. They improved their position slightly in 2024, winning seven seats, but Labor continues to dominate with 46. The motions by WA Liberals follow a renewed national debate on Welcome to Country ceremonies, reignited by One Nation leader Pauline Hanson. On the first sitting day of Parliament earlier this week, Hanson and her colleagues turned their backs during the ceremony, which drew widespread attention. Defending the action, Senator Hanson claimed the practice had lost its meaning and become 'divisive' and 'increasingly forced.' 'We took this stand because we're listening to Australians, hardworking, decent people who are sick of being lectured to in their own country,' she said. A Welcome to Country is a traditional Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander ceremony in which the local custodians formally welcome visitors to their ancestral lands. While widely seen as a gesture of respect, its growing presence in official settings has become a flashpoint in Australia's culture wars.


Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Nuclear submarines are to conventional ones as machine-guns are to muskets
So, we and the Australians have reaffirmed our commitment to the Aukus pact, the central element of which is that Australia will get a force of nuclear powered but conventionally armed submarines. Down the road, the plan is that there will be a jointly developed Australian-British submarine class, which will follow on from the current British Astute class boats. But Britain must first – with very great urgency – finish building the Astutes and then get cracking on our replacement nuclear deterrent submarines. Our current Trident subs are now so old, and their support infrastructure so messed up, that getting the next one ready to take over from the one setting out on patrol can take six months – putting an intolerable burden on our submariners. We don't have the industrial base or the funding to build two classes of submarine at once, so the Brit-Aussie subs will have to wait, probably for quite a long time. Thus, under the Aukus plan, the first few boats for Australia will be US made Virginia class subs. Unfortunately that part of the plan was always a little problematic, as the US industrial base is also creaking. The US Navy has the money to buy two new attack submarines a year, which assuming a 30-year lifespan would sustain a fleet of 60. But US yards have only managed to produce an average of 1.2 Virginia s per year in recent times: the American attack-boat fleet is shrinking, and is now down to 53. While this seems like a huge number to a former Royal Navy man like me, and I would suggest that the USN can easily spare a few hulls for the land Down Under, to Americans the prospect of having a measly 50 attack boats in service – or even fewer – is a horrifying one. Now President Trump has launched a review of the Aukus deal, which could see the US pull out. That might torpedo the whole plan, as Australia cannot afford to wait decades to get some new submarines. Before the Aukus plan was announced, it had been thought that the Aussies might buy conventionally-powered boats from France, and the Aukus plan has never lacked for opponents in the US, the UK, Australia – and France, of course. But there are a few things that enemies of Aukus might consider. The first is the absolutely enormous difference between conventionally-powered and nuclear-powered submarines. They are both called 'submarines' but that is hugely misleading. It's a bit like saying that a musket and a machine-gun are both firearms. The standard form of conventional sub has diesel-electric propulsion. It's essentially a somewhat modernised version of the German U-boats of World War Two (and One). Diesel engines need air to run, so when the boat is submerged it has to use electric motors fed by a bank of batteries. It cannot move fast like this except very briefly, nor can it go very far even at a crawl. It has to put up a 'snort' air-intake mast at regular intervals for long periods of time to recharge its batteries if it is to go a long way, and if it wants to go that long way at any reasonable speed it has to surface completely. Doing either means it is easily found using radar. A conventional submarine is therefore unlikely to last long under the footprint of hostile radar-equipped aircraft – as indeed the U-boats did not, back in the day. By contrast a nuclear boat can stay fully down for months on end, going at any speed it chooses the entire time. Only a complex system of specialist assets – seabed sensors, enemy nuclear subs, specially equipped anti-submarine warships and aircraft, all working together – has any chance of locating and tracking it. Its heavyweight torpedoes can sink any ship: its cruise missiles can strike targets ashore from a thousand miles away. It's a game-changing weapon, and a nation with nuclear subs is a hugely more dangerous opponent than one without. It's true, there are various so-called 'air independent' enhancements which can be added to conventional boats. These involve using tanks of oxygen to run various different kinds of auxiliary propulsion while submerged. The mainstream method is hydrogen fuel cells, but some nations prefer Stirling-cycle engines as these can be run on the boat's ordinary diesel fuel while the oxygen lasts. France, uniquely, has developed the 'Module d'Energie Sous-Marine Autonome' (MESMA) system, which is an ethanol-powered steam turbine. It's considerably more powerful than the other air-independent options, but it apparently lacks endurance and makes a lot of noise. The only nation which actually uses MESMA is Pakistan: France doesn't, of course, as it has proper nuclear boats. All the air-independent options are always installed alongside conventional diesels, which gives a good handy hint as to just how useful they are. None of them come anywhere close to the capability of a nuclear boat, and they require recharging with oxygen and usually one or another kind of exotic fuel as well: they can't do this at sea, or even in most harbours or naval bases. A nuclear boat, by contrast, runs for many years without refuelling and makes its own air and water: all it needs is supplies of food for the crew every few months. If Australia and its friends are going to tip the Pacific balance of power in their favour, it's nuclear submarines that are needed, not any kind of conventional ones. That means Aukus. The second factor in favour of Aukus is basing. When it comes to facing down China a submarine based at Perth in Western Australia has a lot more effect than one based on the US West Coast, and enormously more than one based in the Atlantic. The first element of the Aukus plan – before even the transfer of Virginia s to Australia – is the basing of a British Astute and some USN boats at Perth. This is planned for this decade, and will appreciably change the parameters of wargames modelling a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Elbridge Colby, the man in charge of Trump's Aukus review, is a known China hawk. If he's serious about that he'll realise that the Perth base is a good thing on its own. Getting that base is well worth leasing a few Virginia s to the Aussies, especially as it brings a British Astute into the Pacific in the near future, and a new friendly fleet of UK-Australian boats further off. From the American point of view, Aukus is a rare case of some Western allies actually pulling their weight on defence – something President Trump and Secretary of Defence Hegseth are vocally in favour of. As Tom Sharpe of this parish has put it: ' The free world needs a fleet of nuclear submarines based in Australia '. Aukus must succeed.