Debate over Australia Day: Symbolic Change or Woke Extremism?

Commentary

Two years ago, The Epoch Times published my opinion piece in which I rhetorically asked the question whether Jan. 26 is “Australia Day” or “Invasion Day.”

Now, the answer has become somewhat clearer.

On Australia Day, citizens commemorate the arrival at Sydney Cove, on Jan. 26, 1788, of the First Fleet, commanded by Captain Arthur Phillip. It was the beginning of a new nation, fashioned by Western civilisation and Christianity.

For a long time, Australia Day was a day of joy when many new arrivals received their naturalization papers, and deserving Australians were honored for their contributions to the country.

But nowadays, in the weeks leading up to Australia Day, citizens will undoubtedly have to endure an annual season of whining by people who consider Jan. 26 to be “Invasion Day.”

Indeed, this description of the current situation should be taken not just figuratively, but also literally.

This is because two of Australia’s biggest and most popular stores, Woolworths, and Aldi, have decided not to stock or sell any Australia Day products and merchandise ahead of Jan. 26.

A spokesperson for Woolworths noted a “gradual decline” in demand for the Australia Day merchandise over the years and referred to a “broader discussion” about Jan. 26 and “what it means to different parts of the community.”

It is interesting to note that Woolworths’ explanation, in relying on the deflated market for Australia Day products, is masquerading as its adoption of a woke policy dictated, or inspired, by the detractors of the country’s national day.

The action of Woolworths also raises the question as to whether Australia Day should be moved to another day, and if it should be aimed at remedying the disadvantages endured by Indigenous people in Australia.

For the People to Decide

The Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has called for consumers to boycott Woolworths. For him, the consumers should decide whether a product will fail or succeed, be sold or withdrawn; it is not a decision to be taken by the management of these companies.

He said: “I think until we get some common sense out of a company like Woolworths, I don’t think they should be supported by the public.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, although noticeably silent on the present controversy, has indicated that he does not propose to change the date on which Australians celebrate their National Day.

However, in 2021, the federal parliament repealed a law that compelled local councils to hold naturalization ceremonies on Australia Day.

The Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code now states that “The [federal] government expects local government councils to hold a citizenship ceremony as part of their Australia Day celebrations” and that “Councils must hold a ceremony on Australia Day, or the three days prior or the three days after Australia Day.”

This change was an invitation for left-wing councils to move the dates of their traditional citizenship ceremonies away from Australia Day.

At the time of writing, 81 councils have already reportedly moved the dates of their traditional citizenship ceremonies.

Continued Woke Corporate Behaviour After The Voice Result

The Woolworths and Aldi saga, however, points to a more profound problem.

It is disturbing that companies do not seem to have learned from The Voice debacle—a project, which was decisively rejected by 60.04 percent of electors in the referendum, held on Oct. 17, 2023.

Yet Woolworths, and other companies, had pumped large sums of money into the flawed and failed venture.

The problem with this corporate behavior is that the function of supermarkets is to provide the necessities of life to people and to increase the profits of their shareholders. But once companies enter the political arena, they spend their shareholders’ money on projects, loathed by a sizable part of their constituencies.

Presumably, the behavior of these supermarkets is based on the belief that collaboration with the Labor government will shield them from intrusive legislation that might look into their pricing and gauging policies.

Or they may have been swayed by the demands of the United Nations’ Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) philosophy, which requires them to pursue policies of inclusiveness and diversity.

The problem with this approach, however, is that sound management practices are disregarded and that they erode the very function these companies are expected to perform in society.

What is certain is that those policies, like the one we have seen from these companies, may affect their share price and, therefore ultimately it is the shareholder who pays for these splenetic decisions.

Of course, the spokesperson for Woolworths has noted that the non-availability of Australia Day merchandise is caused by an unwillingness of their customers to buy these products and, hence, is merely a business decision.

While that may be true, this consumer behavior is likely a function of the financially strapped times and may not serve as evidence of people’s wish to move Australia Day. Obviously, in an inflation-ridden environment, people will think twice before spending money on non-essential items.

In any event, the claims of these companies are dubious because these non-essential items are not perishable and, therefore, could be stored for sale at a later date.

The discontinuation of the supply of Australia Day merchandise, and the choosing of another day are merely symbolic but meaningless gestures that, in themselves, will not improve opportunities for the full participation of Indigenous Australians in public life.

Symbols are often just inadequate window-dressing substitutes for projects that would make a real difference in the lives of people.

The misfortune of this unfolding story is that, in giving in to the incessant demands of some radical activists, Indigenous Australians are likely to remain permanent “victims” of a so-called “inherently racist society.”

What is not often understood, but nevertheless germane to this debate, is that in a permanent situation of victimhood, reconciliation will inevitably remain unattainable and a distant, unreachable objective, never to be achieved in the history of what is now an “Unlucky Country.”

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.