Welcome to Country ceremonies are a significant cultural practice among Indigenous Australian communities, traditionally performed to mark the formal beginning of an event and to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land. While widely embraced, the practice sparks debate, raising concerns about fiscal responsibility during a national cost of living crisis.
A discussion took centre stage this week when Sunrise host Nat Barr questioned the government’s expenditure on these ceremonies, igniting a fresh wave of conversation. With her on the breakfast show programme were Housing and Homelessness Minister Clare O’Neil and Shadow Finance Minister Jane Hume, at the time.
While the Welcome to Country ceremonies are a respected and important aspect of Australian culture, the $100,000+ spent by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s leadership, coupled with the additional $450,000 by other government agencies, has come under scrutiny.
The coalition’s government efficiency spokesperson, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, has suggested that the funds could be better utilised to directly ‘improve the lives of marginalised Indigenous Australians.’ Price’s stance is that while cultural recognition is important, the focus should be on tangible outcomes that enhance the well-being of Indigenous communities.
During the Sunrise segment, Barr questioned O’Neil about the necessity and cost of the Welcome to Country ceremonies, saying, ‘$550,000, obviously a lot of taxpayer money. Is there any way to reduce some of that cost?’
In response, O’Neil defended the expenditure, emphasising that ‘the big problem facing our citizens at the moment is the cost of living and housing.’ She added that the government is ‘firmly focused’ on addressing these pressing issues.
She criticised the coalition’s focus on the cost of Welcome to Country ceremonies as ‘inconsistent’ with Australian values and ‘a huge distraction’ from more significant challenges facing the nation.
‘This just has a meanness about it. We’ve got this beautiful multicultural country because we’re courteous to each other and respect each other’s cultures and traditions. That is what the ceremonies are about,’ she argued.
Meanwhile, Hume chimed in and countered O’Neil’s defence by highlighting the importance of fiscal responsibility and the need to prioritise spending on initiatives that close the gap in Indigenous health, education, and incarceration rates.
‘We have to remember that every dollar spent is a dollar another taxpayer has earnt,’ she said.
‘We have to question whether this amount on Welcome to Country ceremonies is the right use of taxpayer money. They have their place occasionally, but whether it needs to be this amount and this often is a question that I think Jacinta Price will be following up.’
The debate took a turn when O’Neil fired back and said the coalition ‘has had three years to come up with a cost-of-living policy and their big idea is that they want to tax the people watching at home, the people in my electorate, to subsidise fettuccine for their bosses.’
This discussion raises important questions about the allocation of taxpayer funds and the balance between cultural recognition and practical support for Indigenous Australians. It also highlights the broader issue of government spending priorities in the face of economic challenges.
Australians value the rich cultural heritage and the traditions of the First Nations people. However, in times of economic hardship, others could not help but scrutinise government spending to ensure that every dollar is used effectively to support the well-being of all citizens.
We invite our readers to share their thoughts on this matter. Do you believe that the government’s expenditure on Welcome to Country ceremonies is justified, or should these funds be redirected to address more immediate concerns within Indigenous communities? Join the conversation and share with the YourLifeChoices community your perspective in the comments below.
Also read: Mayor defends sky-high salaries amidst 40% rate hike for residents
I do not have an issue with Welcome to Country ceremonies. To be realistic with this, there are 150 seats in the House of Representatives, so $550000 spread across those electorates is not much money. The Australian economy is a trillion dollar economy.
Most people do not understand the history behind them. There were several nations and many different tribal groups, visiting tribes were given a welcome to country by those whose tribal lands they were on.
Some ceremonies are better than others, but they aid in acknowledging and respecting one of the oldest cultures on earth.
On the issue of money, and efficiency, the coalition is talking about a $600 Billion package for nuclear power, which is decades away. Their policies include making lunches tax deductible.
I worked in the corporate world for many years including the time before the deductibility was changed. They were often expensive and boozy affairs. They could be worthwhile on occasions but not worth the $10billion hit for the budget line.
Culture wars do not achieve anything. The opposition is stoking culture wars yet on issues genuinely important we have no costings.
As an example, they will not tell us where they intend to cut $300 Billion from. Veterans waited years to get their claims assessed and the area was under staffed.
Most of the older Australians who read this site, have had to deal with Centrelink, My Age Care and the health system. Medicare rebates have fallen relative to fees paid, there are waiting lists, the NDIS is under pressure.
Welcome to Country $500,000 per annum as compared against these other items is being used as a distraction.
Why do I have to be welcomed to MY OWN COPUNTRY? I was born and bred here in Australia, so it is MY Country as well. I am not against the Aboriginal people in any way, but they must get over what happened in 1788 and later in History. Read the history books (The real Ones) it was not all one sided.
I wonder if you’d be so quick to dismiss cultural – and real – genocide if it had happened to your ancestors. No country truly ‘belongs’ to anyone but its native inhabitants (who would most likely argue that it doesn’t belong to them), especially as these custodians of the land arguably did nothing but respect and protect it, unlike the rest of us. Besides, most of us are mutts, as well as descendants of invaders, so I don’t know why we’re getting our knickers in such a twist about who-all “owns” a country. Let’s look after what we have, honour those who have come before us, and respect one another’s right to exist, for a change.
The ceremonies are not welcoming you to your own country, they are a welcome to the local tribal lands.
Ronloby refers to history books. I think that is a good idea, for First Nations peoples were not mistreated in 1788. It is far more recent than that.
1. Aboriginal people and Torres’s Strait Islanders were not counted in the census. They were regarded like flora and fauna. The 1967 referendum changed that status.
2. Even in the late 1980’s First Nations peoples in Queensland could not marry or leave a mission without permission in Bjelke Petersens state.
3. There are still surviving descendants today who were forcefully removed from parents and / or children.
4. The film Jedda was made in 1955 by Charles Chauvel. The aboriginal cast had their wages paid to the protector.
5. There were a lot of massacres. There are historic records of this. There are settler accounts in diaries, in journals and letters. It was not uncommon to write about killing many natives for taking a sheep.
6. Aboriginals served Australia in World Wars 1 and 2 yet were not eligible for soldier settlement land.
There is a lot of misinformation out there.
Hear, hear!
And yours stands out too, there is no FIRST NATION a number of different roaming tribes does not constitute a nation. I came here in 1952 have lived for many decades without a welcome to country or to tribal lands, so what has changed? nothing. An Ernie Dingo invention that I have absolutely no need for. Keep it for the tribes to welcome each other or a novelty for tourists. Would it still exist if it wasn’t for the money? I doubt it and is it a genuine welcome considering that a lot of them wish we would just disappear. The past is the past as is slavery and burning witches, inquisitions etc but after 250 odd years we still have to drag it up as if doing so will change anything, get over it, move on .
Peter, to respond to your point 5. From day one of the arrival of the English here, it was emphasised that should any indigenous be killed by any one, there would be an enquiry and appropriate judicial actions taken. Quite a few white men were hanged as guilty of murder of an aboriginal. The same as if a white was killed by an aboriginal, the death penalty could be imposed, but wasn’t always.
What is known is that it was very difficult to enforce the Law in the case of aboriginal on aboriginal deaths as these were quite often a retribution reaction (sometimes taken years after the original death) and maybe due to language and cultural differences, very difficult to get the aboriginals to report such tribal interactions to the colonial administrators.
The claims of some massacres of the aboriginals have been difficult to substantiate, but when known the white perpetrators did face full judicial investigation and capital punishment. Who threw the first spear/fired the first shot can be uncertain and the reasons may be unclear.
Inter tribal and intra tribal killings were not uncommon and the reasons unclear other than traditional culture.
During the surveying and construction of the Overland Telegraph, it was recorded that on occasion tribes men endeavoured to get the workers to use their rifles against a neighbouring tribe. When this was refused, the workers were attacked by the local tribes men. As a result of these actions, the Telegraphy Stations needed to be reinforced against spear attacks.
The whole truth does need to be presented.
Your point 3 is also interesting. During the inquiry into the “Stolen Generation”, no mothers came forward to tell of their children being forcefully taken from them. And as paternity was not fully understood, certainly no fathers came forward. The actions taken of taking children from impoverished and uncertain parenting saved more children than lost them.
The Welcome To Land is a great Lie, sponsored by Labor, Greens and anyone who hates Australia. The welcome to land was only ever used as a traditional, pre White settlement times, greeting to a tribe who wanted to cross another tribes land
Welcome to country is a beautiful spiritual ceremony. I do believe it does have its place in certain settings but I feel it is being over used.
I was born here along with my mother and grandmother.my ancestors are from convict stock. I respect the aboriginal people, the traditional elders. For many years I thought there was very little acknowledgment to the aboriginal traditions . Unlike New Zealand’s Māori people.
Like my wise grandmother used to say. (Everything in moderation) there has to be a balance between tradition and money. It does seem a lot of money is being wasted.
In many areas of government, and from whoever is in office. Just common sense please.