Right: Herald-Sun columnist Andrew Bolt has called Professor Mick Dodson a "race-preacher of last century".Arguments against changing the date of Australia Day
1. Changing the date of Australia Day would be divisiveConcern has been expressed that changing the date of Australia Day from January 26 couuld lead to ill-feeling against those Aboriginal activists who have advocated this change. Thus, there are those who believe that a change of date could set back the process of Aboriginal reconciliation and lead to increased hostility toward Aboriginal Australians. This point was made in an editorial published in The Australian on January 27, 2009.
The editorial states, 'the danger in singling out for criticism a date of national pride for millions of people is that it can become divisive, offensive and, worse, counter-productive by encouraging the less sympathetic to react cynically.'
A similar point has been made by Herald Sun commentator Andrew Bolt who has argued that Australia requires an Australian of the year who will promote racial harmony rather than disharmony. Mr Bolt claims that Professor Dodson's call for a conversation around the date of Australia Day is divisive and therefore not what this country needs. Andrew Bolt has stated, 'We've been far better and more reconciled than Dodson has preached. We have no need to divide ourselves by race as he demands. Rather the reverse.
How odd it all is, and how sad.
We thought we were getting an Australian of the Year, but got instead some race-preacher of last century. Not helpful.'
Susie O'Brien in an article published in The Herald Sun on January 27, 2009, stated, 'Picking on the very concept of Australia Day will damage rather than improve the cause of Aboriginal people.
It's a move that is too divisive, and too negative, and will enrage many non-Aboriginal Australians.
No wonder that online polling shows around 80 per cent of Herald Sun readers are against changing the date we celebrate Australia Day.'
2. January 26 is not celebrated as the day Aboriginal Australia was invaded
It has been claimed that there is no need to change the date of Australia Day as the public holiday is not used to celebrate the dispossession of Aboriginal people. Though the date it derives from was the date on which white settlers came to Australia and began the dispossession of Aboriginal Australians, many defenders of the day argue that that is no longer what is celebrated.
Susie O'Brien in an article published in The Herald Sun on January 27, 2009, asked, 'How did you spend your Australia Day? Jobs in the garden? Barbie with friends? Picnic on the beach?
Or did you gather friends around and celebrate the annihilation of the Aboriginal culture more than two centuries ago? Of course not.
And this is why Australia Day should not be moved to a different date, and why it should not be changed into a day of mourning for the injustice done to Aboriginal people.
Although the day officially represents white settlement - which certainly amounted to an invasion of Aborigines in many areas - it has come to mean positive things to most people.'
3. The day now has significance for all Australians, regardless of their ethnic origins
It has been claimed that Australia day is meant to be a celebration for all Australians, regardless of their ethnicity or country of original. It is for this reason that nationalisation ceremonies are held this day, so that new Australians are symbolic invited to become Australian citizen on the day that the country as a whole celebrates what it means to be an Australian.
In an editorial published in The Australian on January 26, 2009, it was stated, 'Australia has welcomed nearly seven million migrants since 1945, demonstrating that the vast majority of us have an expansive idea of who can be included among "all" Australians.
This welcoming tolerance has served us well since mass migration began after World War II and the White Australia policy began to be reversed in the late 1960s. And it is a spirit the country will need this year. For the past 15 years, every Australia Day was a celebration of our national prosperity and the great, and very Australian achievement, of ensuring the wealth was shared across all segments of society.'
4. Improving the quality of the lives of Aboriginal Australians is more important than altering the date of Australia Day
It has been claimed that improving the lives of Aboriginal Australians is not dependent on the symbolism of a day such as Australia Day. Rather, it requires real practical changes in access to education, employment, housing and social services. This point has been made by J. Olaf Kleist is a political scientist from Berlin, Germany, who is working on political memory and migration in Australia in an article published in The Age on January 28, 2009. Kleist stated, 'Just as a "sorry" should not be a substitute for reparations, inclusion into commemorations is not the social justice needed by those who still feel excluded.
It should not be forgotten that symbolic gestures tend to cover the social rifts that need to be fixed...
Any discussion of the commemoration of Australia Day that fails to acknowledge its social foundations helps preserve negative indigenous and non-indigenous relations in the symbolic realm of the past.'
A similar point was made in an editorial published in The Australian on January 26, 2009. The editorial stated, 'But changing the date of Australia Day is irrelevant to the circumstances of too many indigenous Australians today, just as Professor Dodson is wrong to seek culturally specific solutions for their conditions. The lesson from funding two generations of indigenous Australians to subsist in remote communities as a means of protecting their culture is that it does not keep them healthy or educated, or give them a stake in the Australia they live in. Aborigines, especially in remote and regional Australia, are more likely to be unemployed, more likely to have been in prison and more likely to lack anything other than a basic education - and they will definitely die younger. The need to address the outrageous disadvantage endured by too many Aborigines living today is what matters most. The way to do it is to accept that the state has obligations to all Australians and that, while some of us have different needs, our rights and obligations are all the same.'
This point has also been made by Australia's Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, who has indicated has belief that it was more important to focus on practical measures to close the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians in health, education and employment, to build 'a nation for Australians all, not just for some Australians'.
This position was also put in an editorial published in The Australian on January 27, 2009, which claims, 'There is a need to free our indigenous citizens who find themselves trapped in mindset and social position between the world of 1788 and contemporary society, with completely unacceptably low life expectancy and poor health. There is a need to meet genuine continuing grievance with justice. The solutions for these needs will not be found in shallow attempts to blame present problems on a long-ago event.'
Susie O'Brien in an article published in The Herald Sun on January 27, 2009, outlined what she believed actually had to be done to improve the living conditions of Aboriginal Australians. O'Brien states, 'In the end, the debate should come down to a discussion about inequity and not so much a serious suggestion about changing the date of Australia Day.
But let's face it, there's no point denying that there are two Australias - one for blacks and one for whites. Aboriginals are more likely to die at birth, suffer serious illness, go to jail, live in poverty and die young. They're less likely to hold down jobs, do year 12 at school, and own their home. Aboriginal Australians die on average 26 years younger than whites, and are three times more likely to die at birth. They also make up 21 per cent of the jail population but make up only 2 per cent of the general population. Some experts estimate more than 40 per cent of Aborigines live in poverty compared to 15 per cent of whites.
The answer is for Governments to work with community groups - with the support of the wider Australian population - to get things done. To get Aborigines off welfare, out of debilitating cycles of poverty and self-destruction, and instill pride in their customs and history. '
5. January 26 commemorates all the benefits of British civilisation that all Australians now enjoy
It has been claimed that Australia's colonisation by thee British has left a legacy of law and political institutions which have benefitted all subsequent Australians.
This point has been made by commentator Janet Albrechtsen in the introduction to her blog for The Australian newspaper. Ms Albrechtsen states, 'The indigenous activist [Professor Dodson] has made clear his views about the evils of Invasion Day. It was a "day of reflection" rather than celebration, Dodson told ABC radio this morning. In fact, the day is one of celebration as many Australians mark the settlement of the nation. Dodson may not like our history, but he cannot change it. For Dodson, the arrival of the First Fleet marks "the day our world came crashing down". For most Australians, that day marks the beginning of a nation built on the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty.'
This point has been elaborated by former New South Wales premier, Bob Carr, who has stated in an opinion piece published in The Australian on January 27, 2009, 'Some might think old-fashioned Manning Clark's opening line that civilisation arrived in Australian in 1788. Still, in a land that had only seen hunter-gatherer cultures the arrival of the First Fleet was the start of settled communities on the Australian continent: buildings, bridges, villages, towns. It also brought the application of British common law to Australia and, eventually, government through parliament where, to be truthful, there had been only tribal systems and cycles of warfare. It brought a written language. Fortunate to be begun as an English settlement, too, because a revolution in England 100 years earlier - 1688 - had resulted in new constitutional arrangements to check the power of executive government. Out of English ideas and notions we acquired, in fits and starts, the institutions of a free society.'