‘It's my country too': Aussies have their say on Welcome to Country
Peter Dutton has proposed Welcome to Country ceremonies be relegated to 'major events' only, claiming that acknowledgments of the traditional owners of the land have gone too far.
With just five days to convince Australians to vote for them in Saturday's election, the Liberal leader and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese squared off in their final debate of the campaign on Sunday night.
The showdown, moderated by Seven's political editor Mark Riley, took place amid a culture war over the necessity of the ceremonies, reignited after a group of hecklers – including known neo-Nazis – booed the Welcome to Country at the traditional Anzac Day Dawn Service in Melbourne last week.
Both Mr Dutton and Mr Albanese have strongly condemned the incident. But, questioned by Riley whether he will 'acknowledge the traditional owners at your official events', the Opposition Leader said there was a sense in the community that they're 'overdone' and 'divide the country' just as the failed Voice referendum did in 2023.
In the days since the Dawn Service incident, a growing number of politicians and Australians have waded into the debate.
On Friday, Empact News took to the streets of Melbourne's CBD to ask whether people supported a Welcome to Country.
Though all respondents lambasted those who had protested it that morning, some, much like Mr Dutton, declared the ceremonies were not necessary 'all the time'.
'It gets a bit monotonous,' one man told the outlet. 'I've got some great Aboriginal friends, you know, and they feel the same.'
'Yeah, I do (support a Welcome to Country) – but it's my country, too,' another said.
'I do, yes, when it's appropriate,' a third man said, without specifying what might constitute an 'appropriate' occasion.
Just as many people, however, stood in support of the ceremonies all the time.
'Oh yes, of course I do,' one woman told the outlet.
'What we need to do as Australians is actually honour and respect everything to do with the First Nations people.'
'I think it's necessary,' another man agreed.
'We've got be a lot more discerning'
During Sunday's debate, Mr Dutton gave two examples where he felt the ritual was no longer needed.
'For the opening of parliament, fair enough, it is respectful to do, but for the start of every meeting at work, or the start of a football game, I think other Australians think it is overdone and cheapens the significance of what it was meant to do,' he said.
Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce then echoed Mr Dutton's comments, clashing with Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek on Sunrise on Monday morning.
Though Mr Joyce agreed with Ms Plibersek labelling the Dawn Service protesters 'scumbags', he claimed the 'overdone' ceremonies were leading to 'aggravation' among Australians.
'People are starting to feel awkward at them and awkward goes to anger at times. That is something we don't want,' he said.
'I certainly don't want to be welcomed back to my own hometown. I think veterans have a genuine concern, if they've signed on the dotted line to (serve) for this nation, they don't believe they need to be welcomed to it.
'We've got to be a lot more discerning about how we do this because there is an aggravation that's building up in the community.
'The best thing to do to avoid that is to be a lot more discerning about when you do Welcome to Countries.'
Welcome to Country a 'matter of respect'
Asked for his response to his Mr Dutton's claims during the debate on Sunday, Mr Albanese said the ceremonies are a 'matter of respect', and that it should be at an event's host's discretion as to whether they hold one or not.
'It's up to them, and people will have different views, and people are entitled to their views, but we have a great privilege, from my perspective, of sharing this continent with the oldest continuous culture on earth,' the Prime Minister said.
'When I welcome international visitors to Parliament House, you know what they want to see? That culture.'
Though post-debate data compiled by Roy Morgan found Mr Albanese was the winner under the network's panel of voters, it was Mr Dutton they sided with on the matter of Indigenous affairs.
Seven's new 'The Pulse' measurement – which is similar to the old 'Worm' – spiked way into the positive when he was speaking about Welcome to Country ceremonies
A news.com.au poll of more than 100,000 readers on Saturday also overwhelmingly found Australians think 'they should stop completely'.
'It's not welcoming': Liberals double down
Liberal frontbencher Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott and National Party leader David Littleproud have all also indicated support for a winding back of the tradition.
Speaking at a Voice to parliament 'No' campaign event in 2023, Mr Abbott said he is 'getting a little bit sick of Welcomes to Country because (Australia) belongs to all of us, not just to some of us'.
'And I'm getting a little bit tired of seeing the flag of some of us flown equally with the flag of all of us,' he said.
'And I just think that the longer this goes on, the more divisive and the more difficult and the more dangerous that it's getting now.'
If elected on May 3, Mr Dutton has stated his commitment not to stand in front of the Indigenous or Torres Strait Islander flags at official press conferences.
'I want our country to be united under one flag, and I want our country to be as good as it can be, and we can't be as good as we can be if we're separating people into different groupings,' he told reporters on Saturday.
'We are all equal Australians, and we can respect the Indigenous flag and the Torres Strait Island flag, but we unite under one flag, as every other … comparable country does and that's how we can help close the gap.'
Senator Price has also repeatedly voiced her opposition to Welcome to Country ceremonies.
'There is no problem with acknowledging our history, but rolling out these performances before every sporting event or public gathering is definitely divisive,' Sen Price, who is the Coalition's Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians, said.
'It's not welcoming, it's telling non-Indigenous Australians 'this isn't your country' and that's wrong. We are all Australians and we share this great land.'
'Around the country', Sen Price said, there were some people whose 'only role, their only source of income, is delivering Welcome to Country'.
'Everyone's getting sick of it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Tax on superannuation robs retirees of self-respect by turning them into wards of state, a ploy straight out of the socialist playbook
If you earn more than $350 a week and are not yet old enough for retirement, you are classified as a "taxable person" by the Australian government. The income tax the Australian Taxation Office claws from your pay packet provides services for non-taxable citizens, be they young, old, poor or infirm. The social compact, in which the nation insures its citizens against misfortune, works well as long as the number of net-contributors and net-recipients remains in balance. Yet the inescapable fact is that the number of taxpayers relative to the number of non-taxpayers will shrink over the next half century as Australians grow older and fewer future taxpayers are born. The old-age dependency ratio, which measures the number of people aged 65 and over for every 100 working-age people, is expected to increase from 26.6 per cent to 38.2 per cent by 2062. This explains why Jim Chalmers is looking to retirement savings rather than income, as he seeks ways to increase government revenue. The $4.4 trillion we have collectively invested in superannuation is too tempting to resist. The government's plan to extract money from superannuation savings by taxing unrealised gains on investments is partly born out of desperation and partly because taxing and spending are what socialist governments like to do. The $3 million threshold will fool few. The Treasurer's refusal to link it to inflation means it will eventually apply to most superannuation savers. Like all forms of taxation, it will transfer wealth from private citizens to the public purse, where it will be spent on the whim of politicians and bureaucrats rather than at the discretion of individuals. Taxing people's retirement savings is particularly egregious. Thrifty individuals who forgo spending during their working years to provide for the necessities of old age should be given every incentive to do so. Every self-funded retiree is one less recipient of public pensions. Those who accumulate enough capital are more likely to maintain their private health insurance payments and enjoy the added comforts of private aged care homes. A tax incentive for working-age individuals to save reduces the burden on future generations of taxpayers. When the government pockets that tax, it improves the books in the short term but creates a long-term public liability. The costs quickly add up. The nominal lifetime cost of paying the average pension is $430,000 for men and $550,000 for women. When you add to that the average cost of public health in retirement ($140,000 for men, $180,000 for women) and aged care, the case for allowing people to look after themselves becomes clear. Yet the explicit assumption in Treasury's forecasts is that an expanded welfare state will provide those things. Treasury's 2023 Intergenerational Report (IGR) frames the ageing population as an inevitable fiscal and economic burden — a "challenge" that will strain public finances, depress productivity, and expand the cost of government services. In the Treasury's perverse logic, the absence of tax on superannuation savings is branded as an expenditure. Yet, if we follow this twisted line of thinking and assume that refraining from taxing superannuation is a cost to the state, it must be set against the money the government will save on pension spending. As the report concedes, while the cost of public pensions is expected to increase by an average of 1.4 per cent of GDP in most OECD countries by the middle of the century, in Australia, it will decrease from 2.3 per cent of GDP in 2022-23 to two per cent in 2062-63. For this, we must thank the Hawke and Keating Labour governments, who had the foresight to use both carrots and sticks to encourage workers to save for retirement. Today, 44 per cent of retirees claim the full government pension, while 25 per cent are self-funded. By 2063, however, those figures are expected to be reversed, as 43 per cent of retirees will be fully self-funded, and only 21 per cent will rely on the state, according to the IGR forecast. The report misses a fundamental opportunity: to recognise older Australians not as dependants but as contributors. From the outset, the report assumes that an ageing population means fewer workers, slower economic growth, and ballooning government expenditure on health, aged care and pensions. It tells us, for example, that government payments for health, aged care, and the NDIS will rise from 6.2 per cent to 10.7 per cent of GDP over the next 40 years. It forecasts the need to double the size of the care workforce, funded primarily through public outlays. It fails to explore how those costs might be reduced, or at least better managed, with the right incentives to encourage personal responsibility. It ignores the potential for Australians of independent means to contribute more directly to their own health and aged care costs if given the freedom and incentive to do so. There is no meaningful discussion of co-contribution models, private health strategies, or reforms that might allow wealthier retirees to opt out of publicly funded care in favour of private arrangements. If government policy continues to penalise thrift and reward dependency, we should not be surprised that more Australians turn to the public purse. The government appears to accept the rise in state dependency as a given. The old are to be cared for, not empowered. Indeed, this will become a self-fulfilling prophecy if the government discourages people from saving for retirement. It presents us with a fatalistic vision of a dystopian welfare state, the kind of future Robert Menzies railed against in 1942 Forgotten People radio talk, a world in which an all-powerful State "will nurse us and rear us and maintain us and pension us and bury us". Menzies's objection to the dependency-driven welfare state was not primarily fiscal or even against the evils of big government. It was that it robbed individuals of the dignity that comes from paying their way in life and the freedom to strive for something better. 'If the motto is to be 'Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you will die, and if it chances you don't die, the State will look after you; but if you don't eat, drink and be merry and save, we shall take your savings from you', then the whole business of life would become foundation-less,' he said. If today's Liberal leaders remain true to the principles of their intellectual founder, they will oppose Chalmers' superannuation tax unconditionally. Taxing paper profits that may never be realised is fundamentally unfair. Nick Cater is a senior fellow at Menzies Research Centre and a regular contributor to Sky News Australia
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Albanese may have a clear vision for Australia, but it's not clear to the rest of us
In Victoria last week, the prime minister was able to talk about one of his favourite topics: infrastructure. The North East Link Project would 'allow commuters to skip 18 sets of traffic lights and take 15,000 trucks off local roads.' Cutting through abstract economic debates, he declared, 'This is what productivity benefits look like, right here and now.' In Western Australia, he visited an Urgent Care Clinic: 'we promised 50, but delivered 87'. This is politics as Albanese often practises it: concrete, both literally and figuratively. It is concerned, above all, with tangible and demonstrable benefits. On both visits, he was asked about the defection of Senator Dorinda Cox from the Greens to Labor. Twice, with only slightly different wording, he explained that Cox had decided the Greens were 'not capable of achieving the change that she wants to see… if you're serious about social change in Australia, the Labor Party is where you should be.' Last week, the overwrought political debate continued around the government's proposed superannuation tax changes. Those changes are minor. The original impulse behind Australia's modern superannuation system was the opposite. One of that system's originators, former union leader Bill Kelty, three years ago described to journalist Jennifer Hewett how it all began, early in the Hawke government. 'Paul [Keating] said we gotta make up our mind what we are, and what we want to do with super.' They rejected various pathways – most notably, 'we don't want to be tinkerers or reformers'. Instead, they decided: 'We want to start a new system… We will be revolutionaries. We will change the system. But we will not tear down the existing system. We will build a new system.' Interestingly, Kelty's phrasing is almost directly the opposite of a phrase Albanese has come to like, and which he deployed two days before the election. Kelty said he and Keating decided to be revolutionaries, not reformers. Albanese said: 'I don't pretend to be a revolutionary. I'm a reformist'. Loading Which fits with Labor's proposed tax hike on the earnings of superannuation balances over $3 million. Remember we are talking about a rarefied set of Australians: in 2023, the Australian Financial Review, one of the loudest critics of the change, reported that earnings from such a balance would get you 'two luxury holidays a year, home renovations every five to 10 years and comprehensive health insurance'. This is definitely not revolution. So why all the fuss? Treasurer Jim Chalmers answered that last week. He did so, probably smartly, in fairly indirect language, as though trying to walk a line: clear enough to reach journalists listening, not so sharp as to draw more attention to the issue. In essence, he said three things. First, because the rich want to hang onto what they have. Second, because a couple of newspapers are obsessed – most people don't care.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Albanese may have a clear vision for Australia, but it's not clear to the rest of us
In Victoria last week, the prime minister was able to talk about one of his favourite topics: infrastructure. The North East Link Project would 'allow commuters to skip 18 sets of traffic lights and take 15,000 trucks off local roads.' Cutting through abstract economic debates, he declared, 'This is what productivity benefits look like, right here and now.' In Western Australia, he visited an Urgent Care Clinic: 'we promised 50, but delivered 87'. This is politics as Albanese often practises it: concrete, both literally and figuratively. It is concerned, above all, with tangible and demonstrable benefits. On both visits, he was asked about the defection of Senator Dorinda Cox from the Greens to Labor. Twice, with only slightly different wording, he explained that Cox had decided the Greens were 'not capable of achieving the change that she wants to see… if you're serious about social change in Australia, the Labor Party is where you should be.' Last week, the overwrought political debate continued around the government's proposed superannuation tax changes. Those changes are minor. The original impulse behind Australia's modern superannuation system was the opposite. One of that system's originators, former union leader Bill Kelty, three years ago described to journalist Jennifer Hewett how it all began, early in the Hawke government. 'Paul [Keating] said we gotta make up our mind what we are, and what we want to do with super.' They rejected various pathways – most notably, 'we don't want to be tinkerers or reformers'. Instead, they decided: 'We want to start a new system… We will be revolutionaries. We will change the system. But we will not tear down the existing system. We will build a new system.' Interestingly, Kelty's phrasing is almost directly the opposite of a phrase Albanese has come to like, and which he deployed two days before the election. Kelty said he and Keating decided to be revolutionaries, not reformers. Albanese said: 'I don't pretend to be a revolutionary. I'm a reformist'. Loading Which fits with Labor's proposed tax hike on the earnings of superannuation balances over $3 million. Remember we are talking about a rarefied set of Australians: in 2023, the Australian Financial Review, one of the loudest critics of the change, reported that earnings from such a balance would get you 'two luxury holidays a year, home renovations every five to 10 years and comprehensive health insurance'. This is definitely not revolution. So why all the fuss? Treasurer Jim Chalmers answered that last week. He did so, probably smartly, in fairly indirect language, as though trying to walk a line: clear enough to reach journalists listening, not so sharp as to draw more attention to the issue. In essence, he said three things. First, because the rich want to hang onto what they have. Second, because a couple of newspapers are obsessed – most people don't care.
