The Welcome to Country Debate: A Divisive Woke Ritual, By Paul Walker
Welcome to Country ceremonies, intended to honor Australia's Indigenous heritage, have become a lightning rod for controversy, with a recent Herald Sun article reporting that a staggering 65% of nearly 50,000 Australians polled want them stopped entirely. Fuelled by incidents like the booing of Bunurong elder Uncle Mark Brown by protesters at an Anzac Day Dawn Service in Melbourne on April 25, 2025, the debate has exposed deep divisions. Critics, including prominent Liberal Party figures like Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Tony Abbott, argue the ceremonies are divisive, implying non-Indigenous Australians are less legitimate in their own country. Supporters, including Indigenous advocates and some political leaders, view them as essential for acknowledging historical dispossession and fostering reconciliation. This blog post explores the public backlash, the role of vested interests, and whether Welcome to Country can bridge Australia's cultural divide or is doomed to deepen it.
The Herald Sun cites a news.com.au poll of nearly 50,000 respondents, conducted on April 26, 2025, revealing overwhelming discontent: 65% want Welcome to Country ceremonies abolished, 23% want them reduced, 8% find the current frequency appropriate, and only 4% support an increase. This aligns with earlier polls, such as a Daily Mail Australia survey from April 2025, where 90% of 8,000 respondents opposed the ceremony at an Anzac Day service. Posts on X amplify this sentiment, with users like @PaulineHansonOz and @ellymelly calling the ceremonies "racially divisive" and a "political stick" that casts non-Indigenous Australians as "guests" in their own nation.
The backlash gained traction after high-profile disruptions. On Anzac Day 2025, neo-Nazis heckled Uncle Mark Brown's Welcome to Country at Melbourne's Shrine of Remembrance, prompting condemnation from both Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton. Similar jeering occurred in Perth, highlighting a growing willingness to publicly challenge the ritual. These incidents reflect broader frustration among some Australians who feel the ceremonies are overused or performative, particularly at sporting events, corporate functions, and civic gatherings.
Conservative leaders have seized on this discontent, framing Welcome to Country as a symbol of cultural overreach. Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, a prominent Indigenous Liberal, has been vocal, stating, "Everyone's getting sick of Welcome to Country." She argues that the ceremonies, far from uniting, tell non-Indigenous Australians "this isn't your country," fostering division rather than shared identity. Price also points to a small group of Indigenous individuals whose "only source of income" is delivering these performances, suggesting a self-serving industry propped up by progressive lobbies. Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott echoes this, expressing fatigue with both Welcome to Country and the equal display of Indigenous flags, warning that prolonged emphasis on Indigenous primacy risks "dangerous" division.
Peter Dutton, while acknowledging the ceremonies' role in recognising Indigenous heritage, advocates moderation. He told 2GB radio that repetitive Acknowledgements of Country by multiple speakers at events dilute their significance, proposing a single, respectful acknowledgment instead. National Party leader David Littleproud similarly supports scaling back, aligning with the Liberal Party's broader pledge to reduce the ceremonies' frequency. These critiques resonate with voters disillusioned by what they perceive as tokenistic gestures, especially after the 2023 Voice referendum's defeat, which saw 60% of Australians reject constitutional recognition for Indigenous peoples.
Your assertion that "everyone except the lobbies that benefit from the dispossession of traditional Australia" is sick of Welcome to Country points to a perceived industry profiting from these ceremonies. The Herald Sun notes Price's claim that some individuals rely solely on delivering Welcome to Country for income, a point reinforced by a Daily Mail Australia report revealing that taxpayers spent over $450,000 on such ceremonies in government departments over two years. Critics argue this creates a financial incentive for Indigenous organisations and progressive allies to push the ritual, regardless of public sentiment.
These lobbies—spanning Indigenous advocacy groups, universities, and corporate entities—benefit from signalling cultural sensitivity, often tied to government funding or social capital. The Australian university system, previously criticised for corporate hijacking and "woke" agendas, exemplifies this, with institutions like the Australian Catholic University briefly mandating Welcome to Country in exams before public outcry forced a reversal. Such moves fuel perceptions that the ceremonies are less about reconciliation and more about entrenching a narrative of Indigenous victimhood and non-Indigenous guilt, benefiting a select few while alienating the majority.
The Welcome to Country debate reflects deeper tensions in Australia's identity, exacerbated by the Voice referendum's failure and economic pressures like the 8% drop in living standards under Labor. James Allan's Daily Sceptic critique of the Liberal Party's "Leftist boot licking" suggests their tepid response to cultural issues, including the Voice, has ceded ground to Labor's progressive agenda, leaving conservatives unable to capitalise on public frustration. The Herald Sun poll's 65% rejection rate indicates a public eager for unity over division, yet the ceremony's defenders see it as non-negotiable for justice.
The Herald Sun poll's revelation that 65% of Australians want Welcome to Country ceremonies stopped underscores a nation weary of divisive rituals. While lobbies benefiting from the narrative of Indigenous dispossession—Indigenous organisations, universities, and progressive elites—push for their expansion, figures like Jacinta Price and Tony Abbott argue they alienate non-Indigenous Australians, undermining national unity.
"Tens of thousands of Aussies have made their opinion clear on Welcome to Country ceremonies, with two thirds saying they want them to stop altogether.
As controversy continues to swirl around the booing of Bunurong elder Uncle Mark Brown during Friday's Anzac Day Dawn Service at Melbourne's Shrine of Remembrance, both sides of politics have condemned the actions of neo-Nazis who led the heckling.
But the Liberal Party has previously vowed to scale back the ceremonies, with frontbencher Jacinta Nampijinpa Price warning people are "sick if it".
A news.com.au poll on Saturday with nearly 50,000 responses found readers overwhelmingly agree.
Asked, "How do you feel about Welcome to Country ceremonies?", 65 per cent said "they should stop completely".
Twenty-three per cent said "there should be less" and 8 per cent said "there is the right amount".
Just 4 per cent said "there should be more".
Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, federal opposition leader Peter Dutton and National Party leader David Littleproud have all 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 it belongs to all of us, not just to some of us".
Bunurong elder Uncle Mark Brown. Picture: Asanka Ratnayake/Getty Images
"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."
Mr Dutton has also expressed some reservations over Acknowledgement of Country and Welcome to Country ceremonies.
"It's a respectful way to acknowledge the Indigenous heritage of our country," he told 2GB radio.
"But I do get the point that when you go to a function and there's an MC who I think appropriately can do recognition, you then get the next five or 10 speakers who each do their own Acknowledgement to Country, and frankly, I think it detracts from the significance of the statement that's being made."
"There is no problem with acknowledging our history, but rolling out these performances before every sporting event or public gathering is definitely divisive," she 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."
She said "around the country" there were some people whose "only role, their only source of income, is delivering Welcome to Country".
"Everyone's getting sick of Welcome to Country," she said."
The Price Paid by Conservatives for Leftist Boot Licking: Professor James Allan
By James Reed
In a scathing critique published in The Daily Sceptic on April 26, 2025, James Allan, a prominent conservative commentator, argues that the Australian Liberal Party is reaping the consequences of its failure to embrace bold, values-based conservatism. The article draws parallels between the Australian Liberal Party's internal betrayals and the British Conservative Party's decline, asserting that both have suffered from pandering to progressive ideologies at the expense of their core principles. This blog piece expands on Allan's analysis, exploring the Liberal Party's missteps in the lead-up to the May 3, 2025, Australian federal election, the broader implications for conservative politics, and the urgent need for a principled, courageous approach to reclaim voter trust.
Allan's central thesis is that conservative parties hemorrhage support when moderates oust principled leaders and adopt "Labour lite" policies. He points to the British Conservative Party's 1990 ousting of Margaret Thatcher, a transformative Right-wing leader, by "wets" or moderates. Despite subsequent electoral victories, the Tories under David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and Rishi Sunak governed as pale imitations of Labour, capitulating on culture wars, free speech, immigration, and constitutional integrity. Their embrace of lockdown measures, which Allan describes as "thuggery" inspired by the Chinese Communist Party, further alienated their base. Today, the Tories face an existential threat from Nigel Farage's Reform Party, as voters distrust their hollow promises.
Allan sees a similar pattern in Australia, where the Liberal Party has not recovered from the 2015 removal of Tony Abbott, a Right-wing leader who secured a landslide victory in 2013. Replaced by the moderate Malcolm Turnbull, the party has since been riven by factionalism between "Black Hand Gang" wets, who seek to mirror Labor's progressive agenda, and "actual conservatives," who advocate for principled governance. This division has produced a string of leaders—Turnbull, Scott Morrison, and now Peter Dutton—who have failed to inspire, opting for focus-group-driven centrism over bold conviction. Allan argues that this cowardice has left the Liberal Party ill-equipped to capitalise on the Albanese Labor Government's failures, risking electoral defeat in 2025.
Allan reserves his sharpest criticism for the Liberal-National Coalition's 2025 election campaign, which he calls "pretty woeful." Led by Peter Dutton, the campaign has tried to straddle the divide between moderates and conservatives, resulting in an incoherent platform that alienates both sides. Allan identifies several missed opportunities:
Net Zero Retreat: Dutton's reluctance to abandon Net Zero commitments, despite their economic toll and the U.S.'s shift away from such policies, has squandered a chance to champion affordability. Allan notes that China and India's coal expansion exposes Australia's climate policies as "impoverishing and totally stupid."
Timid Immigration Cuts: The Coalition's proposed cut of 100,000 immigrants is too modest and lacks credibility, failing to confront the big business and university lobbies that drive high migration and supported the failed 2023 Voice referendum.
Cultural Capitulation: Dutton's evasion of defining "what's a woman," support for the eSafety Commissioner, and praise for Morrison's lockdown policies have alienated conservative voters. Allan questions why the Coalition hasn't capitalised on Labor's 8% drop in living standards or the Voice referendum's defeat, suggesting moderate MPs' lingering support for progressive causes stifles bold campaigning.
Misuse of Talent: Assigning Senator Jacinta Price, a prominent Indigenous conservative, to a budgetary role rather than a cultural one is a strategic blunder, potentially sidelining her influence.
Allan contrasts Dutton's tepid approach with the values-based campaign of Canada's Pierre Poilievre, whose focus on economic freedom and cultural clarity has energised voters. If Poilievre wins while Dutton loses, Allan argues, the Liberal campaign team should be "shamed for the rest of their working lives."
Allan's critique reflects a broader crisis in conservative politics, both in Australia and globally. The Liberal Party's fear of its own Right wing, exemplified by its rejection of the "Tony Abbott wing," mirrors the British Tories' retreat from Thatcherite principles. This pattern—ousting strong conservatives, adopting progressive policies, and prioritising electability over conviction—has eroded voter trust. In Australia, the rise of minor parties like One Nation and the United Australia Party, which Allan hints conservative voters may preference, signals growing disillusionment with the Liberals' centrism.
The article also connects to broader institutional failures in Australia, such as the "rotten" university system and crumbling healthcare. The Liberal Party's failure to challenge progressive narratives in education—where corporate elites prioritise profit over integrity—or healthcare, where rural communities face inequitable access, reflects its broader capitulation to the Left. Allan's call for a values-based campaign aligns with critiques like Ricardo Duchesne's Greatness and Ruin, which argues that Western individualism, when unchecked, leads to cultural nihilism. The Liberals' refusal to fight culture wars, from free speech to multiculturalism, risks the same atomisation Duchesne warns against.
Allan's solution is clear: the Liberal Party must embrace bold, conservative principles to regain voter trust. This means:
Economic Clarity: Commit to abandoning Net Zero and slashing immigration to prioritise affordability and national cohesion, confronting lobbies head-on.
Cultural Courage: Fight for free speech, challenge progressive orthodoxy on issues like gender and multiculturalism, and highlight Labor's cultural missteps, such as the Voice.
Authentic Leadership: Elevate figures like Jacinta Price to prominent roles, leveraging their authenticity to rebuild trust.
Values-Based Campaigning: Emulate Poilievre's focus on principles over focus groups, offering voters a clear alternative to Labor's progressive agenda.
Allan's earlier Spectator piece from April 5, 2025, called for firing the Coalition's campaign advisors, a stance he reiterates as the election nears. Without a dramatic shift, the Liberals risk "limping over the line" or losing to a Labor Government that, despite its failures, faces no serious conservative challenge.
James Allan's The Daily Sceptic article is a searing indictment of the Australian Liberal Party's descent into progressive appeasement, drawing a compelling parallel with the British Conservative Party's decline. By ousting principled leaders like Tony Abbott and prioritising moderates' sensibilities, the Liberals have squandered opportunities to exploit Labor's weaknesses in the 2025 election. Their incoherent campaign, marked by timidity on Net Zero, immigration, and cultural issues, reflects a deeper identity crisis in conservative politics. Allan's call for a values-based, courageous approach is a rallying cry for conservatives to reclaim their principles or face irrelevance. As Australia grapples with institutional crises in education, healthcare, and politics, the Liberal Party's failure to lead with conviction underscores the high price of "Leftist boot licking"—a lesson that resonates far beyond the election.
All Political/Electoral Comment Authorised by
Arnis J Luks
13 Carsten Court, Happy Valley, SA.
"When the so-called 'moderate' MPs in a Westminster conservative political party remove a sitting Prime Minister from their own party, one who has delivered a majority government but is to the right of these moderates, the long-term effects are not good. Back in 1990, and after delivering 11 years of majority governments, Maggie Thatcher was knifed by the wets or moderates in the British Tory party. It is arguable that the party has never recovered. Sure, it won elections – we had 14 years of Tory governments in the UK until Keir Starmer won for Labour last year. But those Tory governments under David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak governed full on as Labour lite (to not so lite) ones. Liz Truss was almost immediately forced out for trying to shift direction. Spending, up. Taxes, up. Total capitulation on the culture wars that relate to schools, patriotism, free speech, massively over-powerful unelected judges, attacking the democratic parts of the constitution, over-the-top huge immigration, being prepared to appoint actual conservatives to anything and being afraid to take on the worst aspects of multiculturalism. And don't forget for two-and-a-half years a stunning willingness to travel down the path of lockdown thuggery, weaponising the police, embracing 'nudge' propaganda, closing schools and spending on steroids, all to ape the approach of the Communist Chinese politburo. Right now it's an open question whether the world's oldest political party, the British Conservative Party, will be able to survive the coming electoral inroads of Nigel Farage's Reform Party – such is the total lack of trust that its base voters have in anything the Tory leaders promise or pledge. (It's not easy to run the line 'okay, we made these promises four times in the past and never delivered, in fact did the opposite, but this time guys, well, we double-promise-cross-our-hearts that this time it'll be different'.)
My claim is that something a little bit similar has happened to the Australian Liberal Party. It has not recovered from its axing of the man from the Right-side of the partyroom who was one of the most effective Opposition leaders ever and who had delivered the party a large majority government in 2013. He was defenestrated by his own party MPs. (And yes, I know Tony Abbott was a disappointment on free speech and a bunch else beside when in office but as I said back then, "if your answer to Abbott is Malcolm Turnbull then you are the problem, not Tony".) Since then we have seen the same pattern as in Britain. The partyroom is hopelessly divided between Black Hand Gang wets and what I would call 'actual conservatives'. The former want to park the Liberal Party an inch to the Right of Labour and then move Leftwards as soon as Labour does. They revel in focus groups and shun value-based campaigning. Truth be told, many were quietly for 'Yes' as regards the Voice, at least until the writing was on the wall. Very little concern for free speech. And as with the British Tories, we had myriad supposed 'liberal' MPs who disgracefully embraced lockdown thuggery at least as enthusiastically as their British cousins.
All of which brings me to the current Coalition election campaign. It has been pretty woeful. But why? My guess here is that it boils down to trying to drive down the middle between moderates and conservatives in the partyroom. If Team Dutton had come out bravely and run an election on pulling us out of Net Zero, with all the massive economic advantages that would entail, I think the Coalition would have romped home – despite the vitriol the ABC and Fairfax Press would have thrown at them. If it'd come out way earlier and harder on immigration cuts (because 100,000 isn't that big a cut and anyway, do you believe they would follow through?), taking on the big business and university lobbies that disgracefully funded and full-on supported the 'Yes' Voice campaign, it would have romped home. A values-based campaign would have been more like Pierre Poilievre's in Canada. (And if Poilievre's Tories win and Dutton loses the attempt to blame Trump will be patently laughable, remembering that Trump has relentlessly mocked Canada and that three-quarters of Canadian exports go to a US putting tariffs on them. Actually, a Poilievre win should shame the Dutton campaign team for the rest of their working lives.)
The incoherent half-matching of Labour spending pledges and refusal to fight the culture wars that so desperately need fighting all seems to stem from trying to keep both camps in the partyroom if not happy, then not incandescently angry. Call it the 'let's try at all costs to win Tim Wilson's seat back from the Teals' strategy. And boy oh boy do I hate that strategy and think it worthless.
So, Dutton's campaign launch praising of the Morrison government approach to lockdowns won not a single vote but sure got an awful lot of Right-of-centre voters like me thinking we might preference a minor party before the thuggish Libs. Ditto for Dutton evading the 'what's a woman?' question, as though there wasn't loads of political capital in being honest and not cowardly and afraid of people and groups who'd never vote for you. Ditto for Dutton's support of the eSafety Commissioner and for Kevin Rudd as ambassador? Why support them? And why hasn't Labour's failed Voice referendum self-indulgence been front and centre in the campaign? (You win if you think it's because an awful lot of Lib MPs wanted a conscience vote and don't want to drag that up again.) Why give Jacinta Price the Musk-like job of finding budgetary waste rather than a big-ticket cultural role? (You could be forgiven for thinking the idiots in campaign central were deliberately trying to sideline her.)
Likewise, why is it so hard to make political hay out of an Albanese Government that has seen living standards drop nearly 8% and electricity prices skyrocket? Correct answer: because you haven't got the cojones to tell voters the truth. That Net Zero is impoverishing and totally stupid with the US now abandoning it and joining China (two new coal-fired plants a week) and India. No, Albo, Australia is not some moral beacon whose economic suicide any other countries will mimic. But commit to this idiocy, only 20 years slower, and your whole set of policies becomes incoherent. 'You've agreed the world as we know it will end so tell me why we should be going slowly-slowly?'
Back on April 5th in the Spectator I argued that every Coalition campaign advisor should be fired. Three weeks on and the case for that is now blatantly clear, such is the value-free vacuum and incoherence of what we voters are being offered. Sure, maybe we can limp over the line. Let's hope. But it beggars belief that a Government like this Albo one has the Liberal Party so afraid of its own shadow. Actually, make that afraid of the shadow of the Tony Abbott wing of the party, the one that Mr Dutton was supposed to represent."
Comments