Why the Welcome to Country Falls Short: A Critical Perspective, By Paul Walker

One Nation's recent protest, turning their backs during an Acknowledgement of Country at the opening of Australia's 48th Parliament, has reignited debate over Indigenous ceremonial practices. Senator Malcolm Roberts and his party call the Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country, divisive, overused rituals that alienate Australians rather than unite them. Here is the core issue: if we're all part of this country, why are we "welcomed" like strangers? Below, I argue the case against these ceremonies, arguing they're incoherent in a modern nation-state, fuel division, and value symbolism over substance.

The most pointed critique is the logical disconnect of welcoming Australians to a country they already belong to. Citizenship in a nation like Australia implies equal belonging, born here, living here, contributing here. Yet, the Welcome to Country, traditionally performed by Indigenous Elders, positions non-Indigenous Australians as guests on "someone else's" land. This framing, critics argue, undermines the idea of a shared national identity. Senator Roberts' website calls it a ritual that divides Australians along racial lines, implying Indigenous people have a unique claim to the land that others lack. For many, this feels like an anachronism in a modern, multicultural society where all citizens are equal stakeholders.

The Acknowledgement of Country, often a scripted nod to traditional custodians, compounds the issue. When recited rote at every meeting, school event, or email signature, it risks coming across as a performative obligation rather than a meaningful gesture. If everyone is Australian, why are we perpetually acknowledging a distinction that feels like it separates rather than unites? The ceremonies' premise, rooted in Indigenous protocols predating the nation-state, clashes with the reality of a diverse, unified Australia, making them feel incoherent to critics.

One Nation's Facebook post captured a sentiment that resonates with many: "We are all sick of being welcomed to our own country." The critique here is that these ceremonies, far from fostering reconciliation, emphasise racial and historical differences. By framing Indigenous Australians as custodians and others as interlopers, they risk alienating non-Indigenous citizens who feel they're being cast as outsiders in their homeland. This is especially grating for those born in Australia, who see no reason to be "welcomed" to a place they've always called home.

The repetition of these rituals, now ubiquitous in schools, workplaces, and public events, amplifies this alienation. Critics argue they've become a tool of identity politics, signalling virtue rather than building bridges. Roberts contends they "guilt" Australians into submission to a narrow ideological agenda, where questioning the ceremonies is taboo. This stifles open debate and fuels resentment, as people feel coerced into participating in rituals they don't understand or agree with. Instead of uniting, the ceremonies can deepen divisions, pitting "Indigenous" against "non-Indigenous" in a way that feels unnecessary in a nation striving for equality.

Perhaps the strongest critique is that these ceremonies prioritise symbolic gestures over tangible outcomes. Roberts argues that real respect for Indigenous Australians comes from improving health, education, and economic opportunities, not reciting ceremonial words. Critics see the Welcome to Country as a feel-good ritual that lets institutions and governments pat themselves on the back for "reconciliation" without addressing systemic issues like remote community poverty or health disparities. One Nation's calls to drop these practices entirely, focusing instead on practical measures for equality.

The overuse of Acknowledgements, in particular, fuels this perception. When every email or meeting begins with a formulaic statement, it risks becoming hollow, a bureaucratic checkbox rather than a genuine act of respect. Critics argue this dilutes the ceremonies' original intent, turning them into a "mythology" of reconciliation that distracts from harder, more meaningful work. If the goal is unity and progress, why focus on rituals that many find divisive or irrelevant to modern challenges?

Finally, the ceremonies have been politicised, as One Nation claims, morphing from cultural practices into markers of ideological allegiance. In progressive circles, performing an Acknowledgement is often seen as a litmus test for moral correctness. This creates a climate where dissent, like One Nation's protest,
is met with accusations of racism rather than engagement with the critique. The result? A polarised debate where questioning the ceremonies is equated with disrespecting Indigenous Australians, shutting down legitimate discussion about their place in a modern nation.

The performative excess, mandatory Acknowledgements in every context, from corporate boardrooms to school assemblies, further undermines their value. When rituals feel forced, they lose authenticity, becoming a source of eye-rolling cynicism rather than unity. Critics argue this overreach has turned a once-meaningful gesture into a caricature of itself, more about signalling than connecting.

The Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country, face valid critiques for their incoherence, divisiveness, and symbolic excess. If Australia is a nation of equals, welcoming citizens as if they're strangers feels out of step. The rituals' ubiquity risks turning them into hollow gestures, alienating those who feel they're being lectured rather than included. One Nation's protest, while controversial, taps into a real frustration: Australians want unity, not rituals that highlight division. Instead of doubling down on ceremonies, the focus should shift to practical steps for equality, where all Australians feel they belong, without needing a welcome.

https://goodsauce.news/one-nations-protest-against-welcome-to-country-sparks-national-debate/

"One Nation has reignited debate over Indigenous ceremonial practices after its senators turned their backs during the Acknowledgement of Country at the formal opening of the 48th Parliament. Senator Malcolm Roberts and his party defended the protest as a principled stand against what they see as a divisive and overused ritual.

On his official website, Senator Roberts described the gesture as a rejection of the daily repetition of Acknowledgements and Welcome to Country ceremonies across Australian institutions. He argued that while these practices may have once had symbolic value, they have since become politicised and serve to divide Australians along racial lines rather than unite them. Roberts asserted that the tradition now functions more as virtue signalling than genuine reconciliation, and claimed that Australians are being "guilted" into submission to a narrow ideological agenda.

The protest gained further traction through a Facebook post by One Nation, which claimed:

"One Nation is saying what we're all thinking: Welcome to Country has worn out its welcome.… We are all sick of being welcomed to our own country."

This message sparked both widespread support and sharp condemnation. Supporters praised the party for speaking out against what they see as performative displays of identity politics, while critics accused One Nation of undermining national reconciliation efforts and disrespecting Indigenous Australians.

The controversy hinges on a distinction that is often misunderstood: Welcome to Country is a traditional ceremony performed by Indigenous Elders, while Acknowledgement of Country is a gesture made by non-Indigenous Australians to show respect. One Nation appears to conflate the two in its messaging, calling for both to be dropped from public proceedings.

Senator Roberts insists that Australians are "sick of being divided by race" and says the party's action was not an attack on Indigenous people, but a stand for equality and national unity. He argues that real respect for Indigenous Australians will come from improving outcomes, not ceremonial words.

While many Australians value these ceremonies as important acts of recognition, One Nation's protest highlights ongoing tensions over identity, history, and the role of symbolism in public life. Whether the move strengthens One Nation's base or isolates it from mainstream voters remains to be seen—but it has undeniably put the debate back in the spotlight."