Unwelcome to country?

With the defeat of the Voice referendum, the so-called "silent majority" spoke clearly. In the face of overwhelming pressure from governments, big business, most of the media, and the main sporting bodies to vote "yes", there was a resounding "no" from voters. As a result, people have now become more confident in expressing dissent in respect of the excesses of political correctness, that surround Aboriginal affairs.

Two areas, now drawing renewed criticism and an element of public fatigue, are the (seemingly compulsory and "top-down" imposed) Smoking Ceremonies and Welcome to Country formalities that have become part and parcel of so many public events.

A smoking ceremony is an Aboriginal custom in parts of Australia that involves burning various native plants to produce smoke, which is claimed to have cleansing properties and the ability to ward off bad spirits. The official line is that "when you see a smoking ceremony happening, it is a gift from the Aboriginal people so make sure you go to the smoke and wave it over you and cleanse the past for a better future".

I see four main objections to smoking ceremonies.

Firstly, smoking ceremonies are pagan in origin and most Aboriginal people, especially outside remote areas, are not believers. (The majority of the Aboriginal population is in fact Christian, and fewer than one per cent identify as believing in traditional Aboriginal religions.) I get the impression that such ceremonies had long ago died out in more populated areas and had been reintroduced from remote regions by officialdom over the past few decades (mostly in formal contexts). Some Aboriginal people even believe that smoking ceremonies constitute a window encouraging belief in demons and spirits, which can be damaging.

Another reason not to promote smoking ceremonies is that they seem to institutionalise superstition. We don't promote superstitions from other cultures, so why promote Aboriginal superstitions?

A European equivalent would be throwing salt over your left shoulder. According to superstition, spilling salt is bad luck, and throwing a pinch over your shoulder reverses that bad luck.

Some Christian beliefs held that the Devil hangs around behind your left shoulder. In Leonardo da Vinci's painting The Last Supper, Judas Iscariot knocked the salt onto the table with his elbow. Because Judas is credited with betraying Christ, people began associating salt with lies and disloyalty. Throwing salt over the left shoulder "blinds the Devil", who is waiting to promote acts of bad behaviour.

A third reason for not supporting smoking ceremonies is cost and wasted time. One Aboriginal group offering to perform smoking ceremonies for corporate Australia quotescosts "from $6000 plus GST with travel and rehearsal costs being extra". Corporate and public money could be better spent, for example on direct health, education, and employment programmes for Indigenous Australians.

Finally, with the progressive left being one of the chief advocates of smoking ceremonies, such sponsorship is strikingly at odds with its general hostility towards religion in general and its desire to banish religion from public life and institutions. The hypocrisy of now embracing smoking ceremonies of pagan origin is stark.

Welcome to or Acknowledgement of Countryis another practice that has come into vogue.

Today, it is also common protocol for businesses, governments, conferences, forums, sporting events, official openings etc, to have Welcome to Country performed by an Aboriginal "custodian" of the land.

Only "Traditional Owners"/"Custodians" of the land on which the event takes place are supposed to deliver a Welcome to Country. If a "Traditional Owner" is not available to do so, an Acknowledgement of Country is often delivered instead. "It should be delivered at significant/large internal meetings or meetings with external participants".

My main problem with Welcome to Country is that it seems to do precisely the opposite, because the wording implies that "traditional owners/custodians" are the "true" owners of the land, and that all others should acknowledge this status and seek "permission" to enter or conduct business. Welcome to Country also gives the appearance of being linked to claims by radical groups for rent or reparations to be paid by non-indigenous occupants to "traditional owners".

Below is an example of how NSW public servants have signed themselves in recent correspondence I have received:

"If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Regards
XXXXXX XXXXXXX(she, her)

"I acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land and pay respects to Elders past and present. I also acknowledge all the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff working with NSW Government at this time".

This is actually a significant improvement on previous correspondence I received from NSW Agriculture (during the reign of a Coalition government!) in respect of a farm I have owned in NSW for over 30 years. During part of that time the footer below was standard fare for NSW Agriculture.

"We stand on Country that always was and always will be Aboriginal land. We acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the land and waters, and we show our respect for Elders past, present and emerging. We are committed to providing places in which Aboriginal people are included socially, culturally and economically through thoughtful and collaborative approaches to our work".

This footer is rude in the extreme to send to any farmer. In my case (as a freehold owner, who pays the taxes on my land) it is conflicting (to say the least) to say that this land always was and will be Aboriginal land. (By contrast, if land owned by an Aboriginal Land Councilfalls within a certain category, it is automatically exempt from rates and water charges.)

In addition, the recognition of only Aboriginal custodianship of the land, that I and other farmers work, defies reality. In the case of most NSW farms, any active role by the local indigenous tribe in management/custodianship mostly ceased sometime in the nineteenth century. Since that time all active management and custodianship of private farmland fell on farmers themselves, who receive no overt recognition in this footer for their role.

In many educational institutions, even pre-schools, there is now a daily ritual of acknowledging Country, accompanied by explicit teaching about stolen land. While there is no doubt that Aboriginal people have suffered in the past from colonialism, they have also benefitted from higher standards of living and the better public services available from a first world economy, which also should be recognised.

A lot of measures on the "wish list" of the radical left and many "moderate" Liberals (in respect of Aboriginal affairs) are both divisive and outdated. A fact often overlooked is that the majority of Indigenous people are in fact partnered to non-Aboriginal spouses. In addition, a lot of persons counted as "Indigenous" have far more white than Aboriginal ancestry. Is it therefore sensible to (for example) enter into the like of a Treaty with (in most cases) spouses placed on opposite sides of the agreement?

Despite the loss of the Voice referendum in 2023, an (elected) South Australian First Nations Voice to Parliament is being established. The first election will be held on Saturday, 16 March 2024. Based on the experience of such bodies elsewhere, its prognosis does not look good.

In the ACT, its elected body was established under a Labor government as far back as 2008. It was set up as a response to the abolition of the scandal-plagued Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission three years earlier. The ACT body is so low key that it has been largely unnoticed by most citizens. It has also been criticised by some high-profile Indigenous leaders in the Territory, and few of those eligible bothered to even vote for it. The low turnout in the most recent election illustrated the ambivalence of its client group. Just 276 votes were cast last time round compared to Canberra's official Indigenous population count of about 9000.

I suspect that there has been a fundamental change in Aboriginal affairs since the defeat of the Voice. Fifty years of dominance of policy by the so-called Aboriginal industry and the Aboriginal establishment, seems to have come to an end following a direct challenge from leaders like Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine. There now seems to be a move away from victimhood and divisiveness towards a new era of policy realism and greater identity as Australians. How much this will actually change policy will depend on the balance of power between conservatives and moderates within the next Coalition government.