Unwelcome to country?

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.