The booing of a Welcome to Country ceremony at the Anzac Day Dawn Service in Melbourne last Friday, has sparked a heated debate about whether such ceremonies belong at events honouring veterans, like Anzac Day, and their broader relevance in modern Australia.
While the incident was tainted by the involvement of a known neo-Nazi, Jacob Hersant, it also revealed widespread public discontent, with polls showing 68% of nearly 50,000 Australians want Welcome to Country ceremonies stopped entirely.
Anzac Day: A sacred space disrupted
Anzac Day is Australia’s most solemn national event, a day to honour the sacrifices of servicemen and women who fought and died for the nation. For many, it is a unifying moment free from cultural or political agendas.
The booing of Bunurong elder Uncle Mark Brown’s Welcome to Country at the Shrine of Remembrance, though highly inappropriate and led by extremist Jacob Hersant, reflected a broader sentiment. Attendees shouted “this is our country” and “we don’t have to be welcomed,” expressing frustration that the ceremony implied they were guests on the land they or their forebears fought for.
A veteran’s viral Facebook post captured this anger, calling the Welcome “tone-deaf” and a “spit in the face” of soldiers, arguing it steals focus from the fallen for “political theatre.”
These reactions suggest the ceremony clashes with Anzac Day’s purpose. Veterans and their families feel that acknowledging Indigenous custodianship before commemorating those who defended the nation undermines the universal sacrifice being honoured.
The implication that Australians are visitors on Aboriginal land, particularly on a day celebrating those who died for it, strikes many as divisive and inappropriate. A news.com.au poll reinforced this, with 90% of respondents wanting fewer or no Welcome to Country ceremonies, indicating mainstream discontent beyond fringe extremism.
Proponents argue the ceremony respects Indigenous Australians, whose connection to the land predates modern Australia, and honours Aboriginal servicemen and women who fought alongside others.
Reconciliation Australia frames Welcome to Country as a cultural protocol acknowledging Traditional Owners, fostering inclusivity. Yet, even this argument falters when the ceremony’s framing – welcoming attendees to “Aboriginal land” – feels exclusionary to those who see Australia as a shared nation forged through collective sacrifice.
The roots of Welcome to Country: Tradition or modern construct?
Understanding the ceremony’s origins is key to evaluating its fit. Welcome to Country stems from pre-colonial Aboriginal protocols where visitors sought permission to enter another group’s land. Its modern form emerged in the 1970s, with early instances at the 1973 Aquarius Festival and a 1976 Perth arts event welcoming Māori performers.
Coined in the 1980s by Rhoda Roberts, the practice gained traction during the 1990s reconciliation movement, post-Mabo, as a gesture of goodwill. Unlike Acknowledgements of Country, which anyone can deliver, Welcome to Country requires a Traditional Owner or delegate, often involving speeches or rituals.
While rooted in Indigenous tradition, the ceremony’s widespread adoption is a recent phenomenon, driven by institutional efforts to address historical exclusion. However, its rapid integration into public life – government events, sports, work meetings and now veteran commemorations – has sparked accusations of overreach.
UNSW’s Indigenous Strategy notes even some Indigenous voices criticise Acknowledgements of Country as “perfunctory” and distracting from substantive issues like treaties or the Uluru Statement. This suggests the ceremony’s modern ubiquity may not fully align with its cultural origins, raising questions about its authenticity and necessity in every context.
A divisive trend in modern Australia
The Welcome to Country’s prominence coincides with a broader push for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), amplified by global movements and local reconciliation efforts.
Corporate adoption, incentivised by ESG scores linking DEI metrics to social responsibility, has normalised practices like Acknowledgements of Country.
Yet, this institutional embrace has bred resentment, with many Australians viewing such ceremonies as performative “box-ticking” rather than meaningful engagement. The 2023 Voice to Parliament referendum, rejected despite a $450 million campaign, underscored this frustration.
Critics saw the Voice as entrenching racial divisions, a sentiment echoed in objections to Welcome to Country ceremonies that appear to prioritise one group’s identity over shared national unity.
Public backlash is not limited to extremists, as media often claim. The Anzac Day booing, while disrespectful, reflected a majority view, per polls, that these ceremonies feel out of place.
Many veterans and ordinary Australians argue that Anzac Day should focus on universal sacrifice, not cultural distinctions. The ceremony’s language, framing attendees as guests on “Aboriginal land,” reinforces perceptions of exclusion, particularly when delivered before honouring those who fought for the nation as a whole.
Indigenous Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has called this “divisive,” arguing it tells non-Indigenous Australians “this isn’t your country,” a message that grates on a day celebrating shared identity.
Media and political responses often exacerbate tensions by labelling dissent as bigotry. Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan’s claim that the booing targeted “Aboriginal servicemen and women” intentionally misrepresented the issue, to deflect the growing broader objection to the ceremony itself.
Meanwhile, protestors who heckled ANZAC services on Friday with “Free Palestine” chants received no media coverage or comparable outrage, highlighting selective indignation that fuels perceptions of virtue-signalling. This double standard alienates those who question Welcome to Country not out of racism but from a desire for unity on solemn occasions.
Flaws and counterarguments
The Welcome to Country’s flaws are evident, but dismissing it entirely risks ignoring its potential value.
Critics rightly highlight its exclusionary tone, which could be addressed by reframing the ceremony to emphasise shared history. For example, a Welcome at Anzac Day could focus on Indigenous and non-Indigenous soldiers’ joint sacrifices, avoiding language that implies non-Indigenous attendees are outsiders.
However, even this adjustment may not resolve the core issue: Anzac Day’s focus on universal loss leaves little room for cultural ceremonies that, by design, foreground one group’s identity.
Overuse is another problem. UNSW warns against repetitive acknowledgments, which dilute meaning and feel like bureaucratic mandates. Limiting Welcome to Country to major cultural or civic events, rather than every public gathering, could restore its significance.
At veteran commemorations, where solemnity is paramount, a brief Acknowledgement of Country by the MC, as Peter Dutton suggested in last night’s debate, might suffice without overshadowing the main purpose.
Proponents argue the ceremony educates and reconciles, but this assumes attendees need educating on a day meant for remembrance.
Indigenous servicemen can be honoured through specific tributes, as already occurs, without a ceremony that feels imposed.The charge of performativity is harder to refute. The ceremony’s commercialisation, with some individuals reportedly paid large amounts to deliver it, undermines claims of cultural purity.
SBS’s recent framing of Welcome to Country as an “ancestral cleansing” to ensure visitors “intend no harm” stretches its traditional meaning, as UNSW and Reconciliation Australia define it as an acknowledgment of custodianship.
Such reinterpretations fuel scepticism that the meaning of the ceremony is being adapted to deflect criticism rather than reflect authentic tradition.
Should ‘Welcome to Country’ be at veteran commemorations?
The Welcome to Country is ill-suited to Anzac Day and similar veteran commemorations. Its implication that attendees are guests on Aboriginal land conflicts with the day’s focus on shared sacrifice for a unified nation.
While Indigenous servicemen and women deserve recognition, this can be achieved through targeted tributes, not a ceremony that feels like a cultural add-on. The public’s overwhelming rejection, per polls, and veterans’ visceral reactions suggest it disrupts rather than enhances these events.
Alternative gestures, like a moment of silence for all who served, including Indigenous soldiers, would better align with Anzac Day’s ethos.
In broader contexts, the ceremony’s relevance is waning. Its overuse and association with divisive agendas have eroded public goodwill. To remain meaningful, it must be reserved for significant occasions, delivered authentically, and framed inclusively.
Without these changes, it risks further alienating Australians who long for unity over identity-based distinctions.
I don’t know if quoting news.com.au as a representation of all public opinion gives this story a credibility.
Honestly if his discussion at election time which it’s not even a law seems to be buying into a racist underbelly in Australia.
While I agree the overuse has diluted meaning and feels at times ridiculous at work conferences where every speaker makes an acknowledgement- mark my words the current debate is political and designed to fire up the division and draw votes to the coalition.
Come on – we can do better then bite the low hanging fruit.
I think welcome to country is over done, why should we be welcomed to our own country. I will say sadly that I know of a number of white people that will never accept anybody of a different colour
I agree, Amanda. This article reads as divisive, inflammatory, racist and based on the current politicization of the issue in the wake of the upcoming election. I couldn’t agree more that quoting the news.com.au data is a particular low point.
Aboriginal people fought in wars alongside other Australians when they were not recognised as citizens of the land they had occupied for millennia
Welcome to country is not a welcome to Australia, it is similar to welcoming someone into your home
You hope they will do no harm to you, your family and possessions, you hope they respect you
This is what welcome country is hoping you respect the country, do no harm, take nothing from it except greater knowledge
we are all Australians we do not need to be welcomed to our own country. Indigenous Australians also migrated to this land. Frankly the land belongs and was given to us by the Lord himself.
This country belongs to us all and we definitely don’t need to be welcomed to our own country.
If you come to my home as a guest I will welcome you. I like knowing where I am being welcomed to, being aware of traditional indigenous names for the area I live in makes me proud to live in a country with such a long and flourishing history and tradition. My grandchildren regard it as a normal part of their Australian culture.
“Welcome to Country” is purely THAT! “Welcome!” , “G’Day!”, the same as you would say when inviting a friend into your home. In my opinion, totally appropriate.
Welcome to County has.become a repretipve saying that now means very little to the majority & to the younger generation it means nothing.
But should be left to special occasions .not every meeting held. do a review & ask why we do it & what we are acknowledging & the majority of people won’t have any idea
I agree Welcome to Country should not be performed at Anzac Day ceremonies, this day is to remind us of the sacrifice made by Indigenous and non Indigenous peoples for Australia. My father an indigenous man fought alongside his non indigenous mates to save our country from invasion. However when the war was over my dad applied for a Soldier Settlement block in Simpson in Victoria like a lot of returned soldiers did and were successful BUT not my father . We put it down to him being indigenous and therefore not intitled . This was so disappointing and hurtful to him ,he never spoke of it or the war again. Read what Welcome to country really means to us. By the way at school I had to sing God Save the Queen every Monday morning even though it meant nothing to me
as an indigenous kid and still doesn’t as an adult. BIG COUNTRY BIG HEART.
I think this is a matter for joint discussions between Aboriginal Elders and organisers of any function.
You do not have to scratch very far to see how racist our country is. The high NO vote to the referendum exemplifies my statement. Aboriginal people have never ceded ownership to this country. The majority of people in Australia do not know about the genocide we deliberately instigated against Aboriginal people.
Why do the Aboriginal people require payment each time they do ” Welcome to Country”
And did the SHRINE pay?
Welcome to Country hits a nerve for those who do not understand it’s origins or purpose, and that is where the confected outrage comes from. That group is ignorant, usually willfully ignorant, and news.com polling does not represent accurate polling.
Welcome to Country at Anzac Day is entirely appropriate. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people fought for this country both defending themselves from colonial settlement/invasion, as well as defending it during world wars Australia has participated in.
Australia is a racist country that still largely refuses to acknowledge the damage caused to the original inhabitants of this land, and to the land itself from our activities. We are pillaging it.
As for the performative nature of Acknowledgement of Country, again, it speaks to the ignorance of those who are doing it as a tick-box procedure. Understand it and why it’s important, and you’ll be able to deliver a sincere Acknowledgement.
It’s so sad that the appalling behaviour of some at the Dawn Service has resulted in discussion of whether a Welcome to Country was appropriate rather than discussion of what can be done about the ignorance and lack of respect shown by those who disrupted or attempted to disrupt the ceremony.
I think welcome to country is over done, why should we be welcomed to our own country. I will say sadly that I know of a number of white people that will never accept anybody of a different colour
Of course we should respect all communities. As a descendant of white folk escaping tyranny and poverty of 1800’s England I was brought up to respect all people and their right to have beliefs different to mine. I was brought up by generations who lived with guilt for what has been done to first nations people. In the 1950’s my country cousins employed Aboriginal people on equal wages and socialised just as they did with others on the farm. Mutual respect that included listening to their wisdom and skills was demanded by my white cousins toward their Aboriginal friends and fellow workers.
When we saw small tufts of smoke in the bush we accepted that there was something special happening
We must incorporate respect into all we do. My grandfather was a member of the WWI medical corps. He arbored war he was present at every major action in France. I don’t believe he ever attended an ANZAC march but I never heard him say a word against those that did.
We must respect and celebrate where appropriate the views of others and when we can’t keep our closed minds from shouting our ignorance and dissent. I applaud the crowd that cheered Bunurong and Gunditjmara man Uncle Mark Brown, he is a good and decent person.
I am ashamed of the football administration that cancelled the welcome to country and did not stand proud beside Aunty Joy Murphy Wandin.
Thanks for an interesting article. Australia continues to wrestle with its racist past – and present – yet one might also argue that the Welcome and Acknowledge of Country is so ubiquitous as to be increasingly irrelevant and seemingly tokenism. I think it ought to be kept for special occasions and not before (what seems like) every meeting you turn up to. Ironically the ANZAC Day services seem, to me at least, quite appropriate for such addresses. The booing was in bad taste I think, but that’s life in a democracy. Also, the presence of religious persons seems out of date. Less than half our population is religious and less again Christian. The service should be secular.
I agreed with this view. It is not only offensive to all those who actually gave their lives for Australia as a unified country, it also ignores the multicultural aspects of the country.
I would have to say that even acknowledging just the indigenous who fought and gave their lives does little to acknowledge those from other cultures who did the same yet identified as Australians.
It does not honour the indigenous, it separates and divides the country further and when you hear it at the start of any news broadcast, industry webinar, meeting, professional and social events, sporting events and competitions from local to state and national, it is not seen as creating inclusion or acknowledgement of past wrong doings, it is starting to create an impression and feeling of reverse racism.
I do not want to be welcomed to my own country anymore.
I love Aboriginal people however welcome to country should be stopped, the Voice yes no vote was decisive and not being able to climb Ayer’s rock and Mount Warning is ridiculous.
Lets be one lot of people, if your born here you definitely should not be welcomed to your own country.
A really disappointing article Jakob. Cherry picking your sources, including Dutton, shows the lack of willingness to conduct decent background research into this journalist piece. It speaks to the racism that is rife throughout Australia and the lack of acknowledgement that this land was so very recently invaded with no adequate reconciling of the devastation that has occurred to Indigenous people and culture.
Hi Keturah, the article was an opinion piece. I have a thorough understanding of WTC and the historical plight of Indigenous Australians. My grandfather was part of the Stolen Generation. While I understand your perspective, personally, I prefer the idea of unity amongst Australians without the need for distinctions or asides based on race and culture. Particularly, when it pertains to ANZAC Day. The words of respect are for all soldiers regardless of group identities.