Dutton claims majority of veterans don't want welcome to country at Anzac Day ceremonies
Peter Dutton has confirmed he does not believe welcome to country ceremonies are necessary at Anzac Day dawn services and on commercial flights, continuing to stoke a culture war in the final week of the election campaign.
It comes days after a neo-Nazi booed and heckled a welcome to country ceremony at a dawn service in Melbourne.
On Monday, Dutton again condemned those extremist protests, saying Anzac Day ceremonies were 'sacred' and not a place for booing, but repeated comments from Sunday night's televised debate that Indigenous acknowledgments were 'over the top'.
In an at-times testy press conference in the NSW central coast seat of Paterson – a key Liberal target – Dutton said 'significant events' like opening of parliament were appropriate for a welcome to country, but downplayed the need in other areas.
Asked about Qantas' practice of giving acknowledgment of country where their planes land, Dutton dubbed it 'over the top'. The airline was contacted for comment.
During his press conference, pressed on whether Anzac Day ceremonies warranted a Welcome to Country, Dutton replied: 'No, would be my answer to that.
'It's ultimately a decision for the individual organisers at the events, and they can make a decision based on their membership and what their board wants to do, and that's a decision for them, and I respect that,' Dutton said.
'Anzac Day is about our veterans … I think if you are listening to their sentiment, and we are respectful of that sentiment on Anzac Day, I think the majority view would be that they don't want it on that day. But I think it is an individual decision for the RSLs.'
Dutton did not say how his view about the 'majority' of veterans was formed. Several media organisations have referred to an online survey run by news.com.au, which was an unscientific and unrepresentative opt-in poll, which found 65% of 50,000 respondents wanted Welcomes to Country to end completely and another 23% said they wanted fewer welcomes.
On 15 April, the Cairns RSL sub branch asked the local state MP, Michael Healy, not to acknowledge country in his speech at a dawn service.
'In defence to [sic] our members' wishes, we respectfully request that you refrain from including the welcome to country in your speech at our Anzac Day dawn service,' said an email seen by Guardian Australia.
skip past newsletter promotion
Sign up to Afternoon Update: Election 2025
Free daily newsletter
Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key election campaign stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our
Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy . We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion
The Queensland RSL was contacted for comment. It is not known whether Healy was asked not to provide a welcome to country acknowledgment as one had been delivered earlier in the service. Healy has also been contacted for comment.
When contacted for a response to Dutton's remarks, the national RSL referred Guardian Australia to a website providing advice on hosting an Anzac Day service, which includes a 'welcome including acknowledgment of country'. The Victorian branch of the RSL was also contacted for comment.
Labor cabinet minister Jason Clare told Sunrise on Monday morning that he hoped the issue would not become a political football in the final days of the election.
'Remember where all of this began on Friday. It spawned out of the actions of neo-Nazis interrupting an Anzac Day Dawn Service. I don't think any of us want to find ourselves on the same side of this argument as neo-Nazis,' he said.
Anthony Albanese, during the Seven debate on Sunday, said it was up to individual organisations to decide whether to open their event with a welcome to country but noted the ceremonies were a 'matter of respect'. He noted that in New Zealand, the national anthem was sung in Māori language as well as English.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
2 hours ago
- Metro
'Neo-nazi' teen wanted to go on 'terrorist rampage inspired by Jo Cox murder'
A neo-nazi teenager who was caught by MI5 as he tried to buy a gun for an attack has said he was inspired by the murder of MP Jo Cox. Alfie Coleman was detained during an undercover operation while he paid £3,500 for a Makarov pistol and ammunition in a supermarket car park. Coleman, who is now 21, believed in 'the supremacy of white people and neo-Nazism' and idolised Thomas Mair, who killed the Labour MP for Batley and Spen, jurors heard. The teenager had approached far-right organisation Patriotic Alternative in July 2021, saying he wanted to participate in its activism. The Old Bailey heard that he had allegedly planned a terrorist attack in 2022 on 'Mayor of London house', with his target specified as the address of the Lord Mayor of London. His plan included a reference to planting an explosive in a cash machine and the use of knives and crossbows, but was later abandoned, jurors heard. Another file outlined another planned attack, this time a plane hijacking. In a 'diary' document, Coleman had also expressed interest in going to France, which he said was close to an 'all out race war' and was 'where I feel most useful and where I can create the biggest impact. Coleman, of Great Notley, Essex, was caught after agreeing to buy a Makarov pistol, five magazines and 200 rounds of ammunition. He made the purchases after conversing with undercover officers on social networks including Telegram and Wire for several months, believing they were sympathetic to his views. The former Tesco worker was led to believe that the goods would be delivered in a Land Rover Discovery at a Morrisons car park in Stratford, East London on September 29, 2023. Just two days before he picked up his equipment, Coleman allegedly told a contact: 'Just something has gotta be done, how long can we sit here and talk over the internet.' The same day he also placed an online order for a Gerber Strong Arm knife with a 4.8 inch blade. When he arrived, he was arrested by a team of counter-terrorism police armed with stun guns. Nicholas De La Poer KC, prosecuting, told jurors: 'The prosecution's case is that Mr Coleman believed in an extreme right-wing ideology which included idolising the likes of Thomas Mair, the man who murdered the MP, Jo Cox.' Mr De La Poer added that Coleman had allegedly created a list of vehicle number plates, one of which belonged to a Tesco colleague who he branded a 'race traitor'. The singled-out white female co-worker was married to a man of mixed Indian and Seychellois heritage, Mr De La Poer said. He continued: 'The prosecution's case is that however he presented to the outside world when at work, Mr Coleman was seething with hatred on the inside. As a result he created a list.' Coleman did not deny writing a text similar to the 'manifestos' of far-right terrorists, and admitted to chatting to people online who declared extreme right-wing views and idolised Hitler. He also pleaded guilty to attempting to possess both a firearm and ammunition but denied he was planning a terrorist attack, and insisted he procured the weapons because he envisaged the breakdown of society. Coleman denies one charge of preparing terrorist acts. The trial continues. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Trial date set for man accused of murdering partner found dead after gas explosion MORE: Sleeper cells are lurking in the UK — experts reveal how worried we should be MORE: 'We want property developers to rebuild our pub brick-by-brick'
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Super tax debate highlights everything wrong with Australia's media and economic system
The reason why we don't have free dental in Medicare is because we subsidise the inheritance of the wealthiest people in Australia. I know it might shock you to see it written plainly, it might even annoy you. But it is the truth. The way superannuation is mostly covered by the media in this country is about how to avoid paying tax and how to use it to fund inheritance. Take the headline this week in Nine newspapers 'money column': 'We have $8m in an SMSF. How can we avoid the new super tax?' You could hardly find a more pointed example of everything wrong with Australia's media and economic system. I look forward to the SMH and others providing advice on how people on jobseeker can work for cash to avoid losing any benefits and paying extra tax. Similarly, it doesn't take long for any story about the proposed changes to the tax breaks on superannuation balances over $3m to mention inheritance. That's because $3m is so far beyond what anyone needs to retire comfortably that only the most self-delusional think they need more than that to survive. Heck, the main way Peter Dutton criticised the changes was to label them a 'quasi inheritance tax'. The best one of the genre is an AFR headline: 'New $3m super tax is 'stealing my children's inheritance''. You might expect that from the AFR, but you would hope for better from the ABC. On Tuesday night, ABC's 7.30 reported on a pair of farmers who were worried about the changes to the superannuation tax breaks because the combined balances of the couple was $5.5m and so might soon have a combined $6m (ie more than $3m each). The 7.30 story had no mention of inheritance, but the written version noted that 'the money isn't only being used to fund their retirement. The plan is for it to help fund the inheritances of their other children without necessitating selling off the family farm.' Let's stop right there. We don't give tax breaks on superannuation so that you can fund the inheritance of your children. Tattoo that on your eyeballs. Superannuation tax breaks are designed to encourage you to save so you do not need to rely on the age pension. It is not so your kids can get a head start in life. That might be a nice thing for you to do, but there is zero public benefit in giving you a tax break to do it. The story also contained the claim by the couple's son that 'Mum and Dad will be up for an extra $120,000 a year'. According to the report, the extra tax was due to the anticipated unrealised capital gain of the farming assets (the wind turbines and the agricultural chemical businesses) once the couple's super balance passed $6m (ie $3m each). Well now. If your Spidey senses are tingling, you should be a journalist. Because that seems a rather bold claim. Consider that to pay $120,000 in tax on just plain old income you need to earn $342,000 a year. If the graph does not display click here Given the average tax on that is 35.1%, we know that cannot be the case for super, because super earnings are only taxed at 15% until the balance goes above $3m and then the earnings attributable to the amount above $3m are taxed at 30% – both below 35%. So, for that claim to be true, the earnings on their superannuation (including unrealised capital gains) would need to be well over $342,000. How much? Well, the Treasury has given us a handy fact sheet that lets us work it out. For one person with a $3m super balance, their fund would need to increase by $2m for them to have to pay an extra $120,000 (yes, just a 6% tax rate). But what if the $120,000 is combined? In that case, both their funds would need to grow in a year from $3m to $4.3m. Each would pay $60,035 on that $1.3m unrealised gains. Yep, a tax rate of just 4.6% each. If the graph does not display click here Consider as well that an ordinary income earner pays an average tax rate of 4.6% when they earn just $25,500. Those with super balances of over $3m are still getting a tax break because if it was taxed like normal income they would pay 45% tax not 30%. These tax breaks cost money. Money that the government has decided it is better to spend than, for example, to include dental in Medicare. Let's do some maths. The cost of putting dental in Medicare, which would include 'preventative and therapeutic dental services, including regular check-ups and teeth cleans, crowns, orthodontic treatment, oral surgeries, periodontics and prosthodontics' is estimated by the Parliamentary Budget Office to be $13.63bn in the first year. That is a lot of money. But not compared to how much each year the government gives in tax breaks to the richest 10% on their superannuation – most of whom will not be eligible of the age pension, and thus are getting a tax break for no public good, and much of which will go towards inheritance. In 2025-26, the Treasury estimates these breaks will cost the budget $22bn. If the graph does not display click here When the treasurer, Jim Chalmers, was asked about dental in Medicare during the election campaign he told reporters that 'we've got to make sure that we can afford it and make sure there's room for it in the budget'. OK, then. Let's not cut all the super tax concessions for the richest 10%. Let's still give them $8bn a year in tax breaks to help ensure they have stonks more money than they need for retirement. Great, we have now found room in the budget to pay for dental in Medicare. Dental in Medicare or tax breaks to the richest so they can give money tax free to their kids? Budget and governing are about choices, and so too is how the media covers it. Greg Jericho is a Guardian columnist and policy director at the Centre for Future Work
Reuters
6 hours ago
- Reuters
UK politics blunts antitrust action against Google
LONDON, June 25 (Reuters) - Britain's competition regulator has finally come up with a plan to control Google's huge search business, but a shift in the political wind in favour of big tech and the money it invests makes it more of a bark than a bite. The Competition and Markets Authority spent years setting up a regime to intervene in the operations of tech giants such as Google, Apple and Amazon, saying it needed special expertise and powers to drive competition in the digital economy. But just as it received new powers, Britain's Labour government said its need to grow the economy meant tough regulation was now out. The CMA, chaired by a former Amazon executive, has touted a targeted approach as the way to meet its goal of reining in big tech without throttling investment from an industry that has spent tens of billions of pounds in Britain. On Tuesday, it proposed designating Google (GOOGL.O), opens new tab as having "strategic market status" in search, giving it the power to impose conditions on the U.S. tech firm such as changing the way it ranks search results or offering users more choice. Competition experts said the designation was no surprise, coming long after similar moves in the United States and the European Union. "Everyone has been at the search rodeo for years, there are EC (European Commission) decisions, U.S. judgements," Cristina Caffarra, a competition economist, said. "What the CMA is doing is purely performative." Nonetheless, the CMA's first designation is being closely watched by tech groups, lawyers, and business owners to see how it operates in the new political climate. In announcing its proposals, CMA Chief Executive Sarah Cardell was careful to stress its "targeted and proportionate actions" to regulate a sector innovating at breakneck speed via artificial intelligence, and mindful of the political pressure. Lawyer Ronan Scanlan, a partner at Steptoe International and former deputy director at the CMA, said Britain's Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act gave the CMA broad powers, but in practice it didn't have the political capital to make grand interventions. "The DMCC Act, which was billed as this revolutionary new tool that the CMA could wield, has arrived three years too late and is becoming a bit of an albatross around its neck," he said. "It's up against huge players like Google, Apple, Amazon, with a lot of political connections, and now - in a new political reality - somehow has to try to extricate itself with the minimum amount of damage." The CMA's delicate balancing act is made harder by U.S. President Donald Trump's muscular defence of U.S. business interests, and Scanlan said the regulator would want to see what would happen with Google there. Some of the measures the CMA is proposing, such as choice screens for consumers to easily opt for alternative search engines, have been around for decades. Others, such as changing the ranking of results to limit Google favouring its own services, could have more impact if they are confirmed in the CMA's final decision in October. Tom Smith, a competition lawyer at Geradin Partners and a former CMA legal director, said there was a question mark over political support for some of the regulator's tougher proposals, but thought it was trying to stick to its guns. "Given the new context, it's still implementing the regime properly," he said, adding that the U.S. Department of Justice had proposed measures that could lead to a breakup of Google, particularly in its search and advertising businesses. "The idea that the CMA is going too far by putting in a choice screen, it's quite ludicrous." Despite that, Alphabet-owned Google warned it may not bring new features and services to Britain if the regulator goes ahead with the proposals, and said "proportionate, evidence-based regulation" was needed if Britain was to grow its economy. Google, which employs around 7,000 people in Britain, accounts for more than 90% of all general search queries in the country, with more than 200,000 businesses relying on its search advertising to reach their customers. But according to submissions to the CMA from the likes of flights and hotel website Skyscanner and the recommendation platform Checkatrade, that dominance may have enabled it to favour its own services over their offerings, and they want regulatory intervention. Silicon Valley has been wary of the CMA since 2023, when it blocked Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of the "Call of Duty" maker Activision-Blizzard. Having sparked fury from the U.S. companies, it then tore up its own rule book to approve the case after Microsoft made some changes. Its second investigation under its new powers is examining mobile operating systems, targeting Google and Apple. Previous CMA investigations had pointed to Amazon as the subject of the third strategic market status investigation that was due to be announced this summer. On Tuesday, however, the CMA pushed the third case back to next year.
