Australia has an austerity problem. The country, which once prided itself on its larrikinism and self-determination, has been so admonished over Aboriginal affairs in the past decade that it has surrendered to excessive activism.
Acknowledgements of country have become a familiar part of the daily and weekly routines of Australian people. At the start of a school class, university lecture, work meeting, or public event, silence falls over the crowd and they are reminded that the land on which they live was stolen by British colonists.
The wording might vary, but it often goes like this:
‘We begin today by acknowledging the Traditional Custodians of the land on which we gather, and pay our respects to Elders past, present and future. I extend that respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples here today. Sovereignty has never been ceded. It always was and always will be, Aboriginal land.’The sermon has become part and parcel of everyday life. There is no denying that the British parked their ships, committed atrocities, and laid dubious claims to land that did not belong to them. However, incessantly reinforcing the notion that people centuries removed from these events – families, newlyweds, immigrants – somehow do not have a right to their own property only serves to hinder the country’s progress. The act of acknowledgment itself is only entry-level self-flagellation. Australian businesses routinely employ Indigenous organisations to perform Welcome to Country and Smoking Ceremonies at professional meetings. The event involves an Aboriginal Elder attending corporate offices to ‘officially’ welcome the company to the land. The smoking ceremonies, which can cost in the thousands, include the expulsion of bad spirits from the office space. The audience – more often than not composed entirely of non-Aboriginal Australians and immigrants – watch on like atheists at church, bowing their heads in deference and allowing the burning sticks to wash away their ancestral guilt. It’s truly a bizarre occurrence. Imagine the confusion and publicity if Qantas or the Commonwealth Bank paused their operations for a robed priest to sweep through the break room with a thurible chanting ‘te deum laudamus’. It would be farcical. These ritual practices have become so ubiquitous that they can sometimes be heard many times in the same day, even multiple times in a single meeting. They are present on most corporate websites and are even printed onto supermarket receipts. A plane lands at its destination: ‘We acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the land on which we fly.’ A football team is playing: ‘We acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the land on which we play.’ A CEO presents the finance update: ‘We acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the land on which we sell homewares.’ These constant reminders that Australians reside on stolen land and must pay respect to people they don’t know and will probably never meet have become an omnipresent source of guilt-tripping. Respect is something transactional and demonstrative, not something you can conjure through political incantation. The rhetoric concerning Welcome to Country practices often claims that the protocol has been in use for tens of thousands of years, serving as a means for Aboriginal communities to offer safe passage to foreign tribes on their ancestral lands. However, there exists limited concrete evidence supporting the assertion that the tradition dates back further than a few decades, and the idea that it was universally practised is implausible. However, the notion that businesses can purchase protection through a Welcome to Country ceremony is not an entirely absurd one given the foolish categorisation of dissenters as the worst kind of racists. Many Australians have been forced into self-censorship because of the bad faith attitude among cultural elites that disagreement is tantamount to dislike, and that being sceptical of these populist policies is heretical. Such attitudes have bred antipathy among much of the population, and even Aboriginal communities are divided on the topic. Many leaders have come out against the events – including Indigenous Australian Senator, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who labelled the practice ‘divisive’. The dogmatic approach towards these cultural narratives has pervaded even the highest levels of government. The Australian Government Style Manual, the authoritative resource for government content, also widely used by private publishers, includes a chapter on correct language usage for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. The advice offered by the government is a political correctness minefield that asserts phrases like ‘Indigenous Australians’ and ‘Australian Indigenous peoples’ can be discriminatory and offensive. It also includes advice like: Make sure to:
- Use empowering, strengths-based language.
- Tell positive stories.
- Emphasise ongoing connections to community, culture and country.
