After many years of heated debate over whether January 26 is an appropriate date to celebrate Australia Day — with some councils and other groups shifting away from it — the tide appears to be turning among some groups.

Some local councils, such as Geelong in Victoria, are reversing recent policy and embracing January 26 as a day to celebrate with nationalistic zeal.

They are likely emboldened by what they perceive as an ideological shift occurring more generally in Australia and around the world.

But what of young people? Are young Australians really becoming more conservative and nationalistic, as some are claiming? For example, the Institute for Public Affairs states that “despite relentless indoctrination taking place at schools and universities”, their recent survey showed a 10 percent increase in the proportion of 18-24 year olds who wanted to celebrate Australia Day.

However, the best evidence suggests that claims of a shift towards conservatism among young people are unsupported.

The statement “we should not celebrate Australia Day on January 26” was featured in the Deakin Contemporary History Survey in 2021, 2023, and 2024.

Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement level. The Deakin survey is a repeated cross-sectional study conducted using the Life in Australia panel, managed by the Social Research Centre. This is a nationally representative online probability panel with more than 2000 respondents for each Deakin survey.

Robust social survey
With its large number of participants, weighting and probability selection, the Life in Australia panel is arguably Australia’s most reliable and robust social survey.

The Deakin Contemporary History Survey consists of several questions about the role of history in contemporary society, hence our interest in whether or how Australians might want to celebrate a national day.

Since 1938, when Aboriginal leaders first declared January 26 a “Day of Mourning”, attitudes to this day have reflected how people in Australia see the nation’s history, particularly about the historical and contemporary dispossession and oppression of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

In 2023, we found support for Australia Day on January 26 declined slightly from 2021, and wondered if a more significant change in community sentiment was afoot.

With the addition of the 2024 data, we find that public opinion is solidifying — less a volatile “culture war” and more a set of established positions. Here is what we found:

This figure shows that agreement (combining “strongly agree” and “agree”) with not celebrating Australia Day on January 26 slightly increased in 2023, but returned to the earlier level a year later.

Likewise, disagreement with the statement (again, combining “strongly disagree” and “disagree”) slightly dipped in 2023, but in 2024 returned to levels observed in 2021. “Don’t know” and “refused” responses have consistently remained below 3 percent across all three years. Almost every Australian has a position on when we should celebrate Australia Day, if at all.

Statistical factors
The 2023 dip might reflect a slight shift in public opinion or be due to statistical factors, such as sampling variability. Either way, public sentiment on this issue seems established.

As Gunai/Kurnai, Gunditjmara, Wiradjuri and Yorta Yorta writer Nayuka Gorrie and Amangu Yamatji woman associate professor Crystal McKinnon have written, the decline in support for Australia Day is the result of decades of activism by Indigenous people.

Though conservative voices have become louder since the failure of the Voice Referendum in 2023, more than 40 percent of the population now believes Australia Day should not be celebrated on January 26.

In addition, the claim of a significant swing towards Australia Day among younger Australians is unsupported.

In 2024, as in earlier iterations of our survey, we found younger Australians (18–34) were more likely to agree that Australia Day should not be celebrated on January 26. More than half of respondents in that age group (53 percent) supported that change, compared to 39 percent of 35–54-year-olds, 33 percent of 55–74-year-olds, and 29 percent of those aged 75 and older.

Conversely, disagreement increases with age. We found 69 percent of those aged 75 and older disagreed, followed by 66 percent of 55–74-year-olds, 59 percent of 35–54-year-olds, and 43 percent of 18–34-year-olds. These trends suggest a steady shift, indicating that an overall majority may favour change within the next two decades.

What might become of Australia Day? We asked those who thought we should not celebrate Australia Day on January 26 what alternative they preferred the most.

Among those who do not want to celebrate Australia Day on January 26, 36 percent prefer replacing it with a new national day on a different date, while 32 percent favour keeping the name but moving it to a different date.

A further 13 percent support keeping January 26 but renaming it to reflect diverse history, and 8 percent advocate abolishing any national day entirely. Another 10 percent didn’t want these options, and less than 1 peecent were unsure.

A lack of clarity
If the big picture suggests a lack of clarity — with nearly 58 percent of the population wanting to keep Australia Day as it is, but 53 percent of younger Australians supporting change — then the task of finding possible alternatives to the status quo seems even more clouded.

Gorrie and McKinnon point to the bigger issues at stake for Indigenous people: treaties, land back, deaths in custody, climate justice, reparations and the state removal of Aboriginal children.

Yet, as our research continues to show, there are few without opinions on this question, and we should not expect it to recede as an issue that animates Australians.

Dr David Lowe is chair in contemporary history, Deakin University; Dr Andrew Singleton is professor of sociology and social research, Deakin University; and Joanna Cruickshank is associate professor in history, Deakin University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has described today’s Waitangi Day dawn service as moving and says he welcomes the shift away from a focus on politics.

Hundreds of people gathered before dawn to commemorate 183 years since Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed.

Hipkins said the national day had a greater focus on reflection and celebration than years ago.

The criticism that politicians had come to Waitangi in the past and used Māori as a way to increase their votes was a fair one, he said.

Hipkins said he saw his role as lighting the path forwards and not playing in the uncertain space where politicians could create fear and division.

“I think Māori have often been used as a way for politicians to whip up votes in other parts of the population and that’s something that I find abhorrent.”

Trend for less politics
Asked to compare this year’s Waitangi commemorations to previous years, Hipkins said in the last five years there had been a trend for less politics on Waitangi Day.

“I think there’s been a trend in the last five and a half years or so . . . for a bit less politics on Waitangi Day and a bit more reflection and a bit more commemoration and a little bit more celebration and I really welcome that.”

Hipkins said he first attended Waitangi commemorations at Waitangi about 15 years ago and overall he had always found it “to be a pretty positive experience”.

As prime minister his role was “to try and preserve a sense of unity and common purpose,” Hipkins said.

“It’s easy to create division when it comes to race relations and we’ve seen that in the past; governments have tried to to avoid that, it tends to have come from those who are not in government who are trying to get into government and I think that’s most unfortunate.”

National Party leader Christopher Luxon said New Zealand was an intelligent country that could engage in proper debates.

“I think what I’ve seen in reaction to some of our positions, say on co-governance, is you end up with some lazy sort of baseless accusations of racism frankly,” he said.

“Because that’s not what I’m doing, I’m having a conversation to say I’m interested in the ends of advancing all Māori and all non-Māori . . .  the means by which I do that may be different.”

The fact that National does not support co-governance of public services should not be misinterpreted as the party lacking ambition or aspirations for Māori in New Zealand, he said.

Open discussion needed
A lot of New Zealanders were scared to talk about the treaty and our history, we needed good honest relations to take place, Hipkins said.

“We have to create sort of safe spaces for people to say what they think. I think we get into dangerous territory when people stop saying what they think because they’re worried what the response to that might be and then you just perpetuate misunderstanding.

“I think when you create an environment where people can say what they think and other people can challenge that and people don’t have to feel offended or confronted by that.”

The signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi was a bold vision, Hipkins said.

“If we go to the spirit of what they were trying to accomplish, I think they were trying to accomplish an ability for us all to live here together, to all prosper together without conflict.”

The goal of the treaty was to try to avoid the conquest and conflict that occurred during settlement of some other countries during the mid-1800s, he said.

The history of Aotearoa shows this attempt was somewhat limited and conquest and conflict still followed, Hipkins said.

But the goal was a very noble one and the ongoing importance of the treaty recognises that it was a goal that was worth striving for, Hipkins said.

“I think when people say he aha te mea nui o te ao, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata, when I was here with my mokopuna last year and we were the only ones here due to covid, and we had our own karakia.”

“Funnily enough, it was a similar bleak sort of a morning.

“You just can’t beat having so many people, a throng of people, hearing different voices, hearing the diversity, but feeling the unity that everybody is seeking.”

History was also made this today with the delivery of the first Muslim prayer at the dawn service, from Labour MP Ibrahim Omer.

“We look at Te Tiriti of Waitangi as being between Māori and European or Pākehā, but we really need to be thinking much, much more of the other ethnicities in our country that make up a multicultural tapestry of our nation,” he said.

“How we view it is that we have tangata whenua, or people of the land, and tangata Tiriti, which is the broad application of all people who have come here over time.”

Luxon defends ‘little experiment’ statement
Luxon spoke at Waitangi yesterday, but missed the dawn service today, instead opting to go to an event at the Takapuna Boat Club in Auckland.

One part of Luxon’s speech yesterday caused some controversy: “We started on the 6th of February 1840 as a little experiment, and look at us now — the 21st century success story able to tackle the challenges that come our way.”

Today, Luxon clarified that he did not mean to say that the treaty was an experiment.

“What we’ve done here in New Zealand is incredibly special, I mean if you think about the goodwill of those people who were here negotiating that treaty, it was unprecedented in many ways.”

Looking at what happened in other countries and how they have developed over time the treaty that had been done in New Zealand was incredibly special, he said.

“So it was a brave experiment to set up a treaty as a foundation for a whole new country, that didn’t happen if you think about it pre-1840 around the world.”

The intention was great, but the Crown did not honour its obligations and that was what a lot of New Zealand’s modern history had been about in terms of trying to deal with that issue, Luxon said.

Treaty settlements, Ngāpuhi and rangatiratanga
Asked about the concept of rangatiratanga, or the right of Māori to rule themselves, Hipkins said he was comfortable with the notion of “by Māori for Māori”.

In education there had been significant expansion of things like kura kaupapa Māori and in health some progress was being made in a by Māori for Māori approach, he said.

“I think the government can be a better partner, we can have a better relationship, we can work together better when it comes to all things Māori.”

Hipkins said the Ngāpuhi settlement was likely to be one of the most complex and difficult to achieve, but it was important to continue to approach it “with good faith and good will”.

“We’ve still got a process that we’re going through, what I can provide assurance about though is that the Crown will approach that with good faith and we want to get a settlement, so that’s a pretty good starting point.”

Luxon defended National’s goal that all treaty settlements should be completed by 2030.

Having a deadline made a government focus on getting that job done, he said.

“Treaty settlements are full and final, I mean the individual settlements are full and final, not to be opened up and discussed again.”

He acknowledged that everyone had a lot of work to do in terms of digesting the latest Waitangi Tribunal report on the Ngāpuhi claim.

On rangatiratanga, Luxon said there was one sovereign state here in New Zealand and it was the government.

Equity and equal opportunity
Equity and equal opportunity were two concepts that politicians needed to spend more time talking about, Hipkins said.

“Equal opportunity doesn’t guarantee an equal outcome, but equal opportunity also in itself isn’t necessarily equity because if you’re starting from a very different place then the opportunity in front of you might be the same, but your ability to take up that opportunity might be vastly different.”

For example, a child who starts school and already has a good base of education will be ahead of a child starting school with no education base, Hipkins said.

So treating them exactly the same in the classroom is not equity, although it might be equal opportunity, he said.

To try and address this in the education sector the government had just changed the way schools were funded to allow targeted additional funding to schools with equity challenges, and the same would be done for early childhood centres, he said.

National rejects co-governance of public services
Luxon said National was very supportive of co-management arrangements and it had led to better outcomes.

“But when it comes to the provision of national public services, from a government that’s accountable to all New Zealanders, and those services are designed to deliver to people in need, we think the better way is to have a single system of delivery.”

But there could be innovation within that system to ensure services were being delivered to those communities that needed it, he said.

Luxon said he was focused on outcomes which were targeted on the basis of need which could be delivered through many organisations which would do a much better job than central government would.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz