What the history of Australia Day can tell us about the date


…  Before we talk about the best date for our national day, let’s get a better understanding of its history and what it means to all our citizens and what we want to commemorate.

Ebony Bennett, Deputy Director of the Australia Institute, observed when launching the institute’s December 2017 poll on Australia Day:

The national conversation about Australia Day is an opportunity for all of us to learn about and reflect on Australia’s history, especially the more than fifty thousand years of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history, and to ask ourselves what kind of country we want to be in the future.

A recent conversation got me thinking about the migrant experience of Australia Day. The friend I was talking to is attached to 26 January. It reminds her of the ceremony she participated in to become Australian. Born in Ireland but brought up here, she only contemplated becoming an Australian citizen once the requirement to pledge allegiance to the British monarch was removed from the citizenship act. That was in 1993.

Jacinta Price, an Indigenous leader who supports keeping 26 January as Australia Day, observes that 26 January 1949 marked the beginning of the Nationality and Citizenship Act (1948), which created an Australian citizenship and the conditions by which it could be acquired. (Indigenous people were implicitly included in the act in the category of ‘natural-born’ Australians.) Speaking about the bill, the Minister for Immigration, Arthur Calwell described its intended effect:

It will symbolise not only our own pride in Australia, but also our willingness to offer a share in our future to the new Australians we are seeking in such vast numbers…My aim, and that of the Government, is to make the word ‘Australian’ mean all that it truly stands for to every member of our community. We shall try to teach the children that they are fortunate to be British, and even more fortunate to be Australian.

Severing the colonial ties took many more decades. A note on the National Archives of Australia website about its citizenship collection explains:

The term ‘Australian nationality’ had no official recognition or meaning until the [Nationality and Citizenship] Act was amended in 1969 and renamed the Citizenship Act. This followed a growing sense of Australian nationalism and the declining importance for Australians of the British Empire. In 1973 the Act was renamed the Australian Citizenship Act. It was not until 1984 that Australian citizens ceased to be British subjects.

The debate about Australia Day’s date is not new. Humphrey McQueen’s 2017 survey of the day’s history is useful, although it does not seem his argument that Australia Day is about class warfare as well as race relations has been widely taken up.

Alison Broinowski’s comment on his article suggested Australia Day should also have something to do with the nation’s sovereignty:

A new date for Australia Day? The Indians will be pleased to have 26 January to themselves. No other country appears to have 23 August. But it is right in the middle of 3rd term and HSC preparation time. Good for a skiing weekend for those who can still afford one. It still commemorates British colonialism, however, so what’s the point? I propose that we change the date when we become a republic and call it Independence Day or Diversity Day. Until then, we are only perpetuating the status quo.

So if we change the date, do we wait till we become a republic? We would then have a free holiday in the calendar: the Queen’s Birthday weekend in June. (See here for an explanation as to why the holiday is in June, even though the Queen was born on 21 April.)

Or should we look at the plethora of other dates that already have significance? The ACT Government has introduced a new holiday, Reconciliation Day to take place on the first Monday on or after 27 May each year. That is the anniversary of the 1967 referendum in which 90.77 per cent of voters (including Indigenous Australians) said yes to removing the words from section 51 (xxvi) and the whole of section 127 from the Australian Constitution that were seen as discriminating against Indigenous Australians.

Some suggest 27 May would make a better Australia Day. I am not so sure. The national day must also take account of non-indigenous Australia’s heritage. While considering this point, I discovered we have an Australian Citizenship Day on 17 September. The Department of Home Affairs explains that this day was launched in 2001 to increase community awareness of Australian citizenship. Could this become our national day?

Before we can answer any of these questions, we have to get clear in our minds what a national day represents and what it aims to do. Promoting reconciliation, celebrating diversity and avoiding jingoism would be good goals.

The Australia Institute poll reveals a great deal of ignorance about the nation’s history but a clear preference (35 per cent) for celebrating the date we became an independent country. It is a matter of debate when that was, is or will be. For many Indigenous people 26 January represents the loss of sovereignty. For most others, the continent’s progression from a set of colonies to an independent nation is a poorly understood story. The single event of Arthur Phillip setting foot on Sydney Cove in 1788 can only become significant if it is placed in a context of Indigenous, migrant, colonial and post-colonial experience.

For example, Federation on 1 January 1901 was only the beginning of Australia’s independence from Britain. It was not until 9 October 1942, when it was clear the mother country could not defend its Antipodean dominions, that Australia ratified the Statue of Westminster, thereby legislating the fact of Australia’s independence as a self-governing dominion of Britain. And only in 1986, when the Australia Act was passed, did Australian law finally become independent of British parliaments and courts. This part of the story offers other possible dates for Australia Day: 9 October (the day the Statue of Westminster was ratified) or 3 March (when the Australia Act came into effect). However, as the Museum of Australian Democracy observes:

Although this [Commonwealth of Australia] Act defines Australia as a ‘sovereign, independent and federal nation’, and the Australia Acts [passed also by each of the states] are often described as completing the process of constitutional development begun with the Federation movement, Australia still retains the Queen as head of state.

Australia Day is, the National Australia Day Council declares, ‘for all Australians, no matter where our personal stories began’. Delve into what that means and things get complicated. Historians can help shape the conversation about our national day by explaining the complexities, especially when they bring life and colour to the legal intricacies that have moulded Australia.

Francesca Beddie

Image: Peters Ice Cream Float: ‘Australia’s March to Nationhood’ formed part of the parade on 26 January 1938. This image was taken in Driver Avenue, Moore Park, Sydney. It is part of a collection entitled ‘Australia Day 1938 – Sesquicentenary Celebrations’, which is available to view on the Royal Australian Historical Society’s Historypin Channel.


History Matrix


…In this occasional series about members’ blogs, we introduce HistoryMatrix, the electronic journal of Dr Bruce Baskerville.

Bruce maintains four blogs – HistoryMatrix is the ‘history’ blog; mrbbaskerville is the place he opines;  Sepia Green is a blog for reviews; and, Green Plaques is a grant project to create an archive of commemorative plaques for local communities in the County of Cumberland (Sydney) and larger country towns in New South Wales. He intends adding a fifth, ‘Convict Tracks’, which he is working on with a community group in Western Australia to commemorate the 150th anniversary in 2018 of the landing of the last convict ship at Fremantle.

Bruce learned how to construct and operate a blog (and Facebook and Twitter accounts) at a PHA continuing professional development (CPD) event run by Yvonne Perkins several years ago. He says it has proven to be one of the most useful CPDs he has attended. Any post he does is circulated through Facebook and Twitter, where most comments and feedback are generated. Since November 2014, the blogs have had 24,542 hits. Bruce has 860 followers across all the blogs, which still surprises him a bit! Some posts, especially old walking tour notes, are revisited many times.

One thing Bruce has learnt about blogging: posts need images that have some relationship to the text. He therefore takes lots of photos these days to make sure he has a good stock of images he can use without having any copyright problems. Bruce observes that much academic history remains either uncomprehending or fearful (or both) of using images as an integral part of any history writing not just as occasional decoration.

And that provides the segue to give you a taste of his latest post about a conference he attended in December 2017: Monarchies, Decolonisation and Royal Legacies in the Asia-Pacific | An Excellent Conference. One of his observations about the conference is that visual records such as photographs, a technology that accompanied colonialism, are increasingly available to researchers.

Bruce identifies and discusses five main themes emerging from the papers presented: historiographical biases; change and continuity; power relationships; religious relationships; and, symbolism. The post gives a sense of the scope of work being undertaken on royal history from an Austral-asian perspective and reveals the changing nature of monarchies themselves:

Many papers explicitly or implicitly challenged ideas of monarchies as timeless and unchanging structures.  The active insertion by several speakers of temporal dimensions into the study of sovereigns and reigns reinforced perhaps counter-intuitive ideas of royal identities being retained through change, not stasis.

Crowns are engaged in continual processes of re-making and re-imagining, some more effectively than others.  This can be seen through the co-option of western trappings of monarchy, especially in Pacific island kingdoms, or the presentation of royals as exemplars of middle class respectability.  Another lens was articulated through arguments over whether royal change was a return to original, purer forms of monarchy or a transformation into new democratic institutions; whether ancient rituals were being reinstated in older forms stripped on later accretions, or were rituals being commodified for consumption by newly-wealthy consumer cultures.


Happy New Year


Thank you to all those who contributed to the PHA NSW & ACT blog in 2017. The year’s 25 posts covered:

  • Aboriginal history
  • surprising resources for historical use such as knitting and the Botanical Gardens
  • issues in the practice of history, history tourism and memorialisation (this post received more comments than any other)
  • discussions on deep time and the history of place
  • two artists, Rayner Hoff and Eva Buhrich
  • several conferences and exhibitions
  • the PHA’s Public History Prize
  • members’ interests and activities and new publications.

Reviewing this activity is a reminder of the rich sources of knowledge and experience that exist in our association. I look forward to publishing your contributions in 2018.

Francesca Beddie, blog editor