The continuing and endless division of Tony Abbott

Abbott’s extremist views and rhetoric raise significant concerns about the direction of the national conversation regarding Indigenous rights and identity.

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s recent statements and calls to remove Indigenous flags from public spaces and cease Welcome to Country ceremonies have sparked controversy and ignited discussions about the role of Indigenous symbols and recognition in Australia. This move has raised concerns about Abbott’s divisive and combative approach, as well as his lack of understanding of the deeper issues surrounding Indigenous rights and identity.

Abbott’s tenure as Prime Minister, which lasted less than two years before his own party removed him from office, serves as a backdrop to understanding his controversial remarks. His short-lived leadership was marked by political polarisation, incompetence and divisive policies, which ultimately contributed to his downfall. The role of a Prime Minister is not only to lead but also to unite the nation. However, Abbott’s inability to foster unity during his time in office is now reflected in his divisive stance on Indigenous flags.

Abbott’s status as a former Prime Minister should also be taken into consideration when assessing the weight of his statements. Post-retirement, former leaders must tread carefully when making public comments, as their relevance and influence often wane. This principle applies to all former Prime Ministers, including Paul Keating, John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Malcolm Turnbull, and even Scott Morrison, who rarely offers insightful or relevant perspectives, and Abbott’s recent remarks suggest that he may be struggling with the transition from the political limelight to a more subdued role in society.

The backdrop for this controversy is the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart, which called for constitutional recognition of Indigenous people and the establishment of a First Nations Voice in the Australian Constitution and the historical moment represented an important step in recognising the rights and identity of Australia’s Indigenous communities, albeit one that was defeated at the referendum stage. However, Abbott’s statements appear to misinterpret the spirit of this initiative, portraying the rejection as a vote to assimilate Indigenous people and erase their culture.

Abbott’s comments reveal a concerning attitude towards Indigenous culture and identity, where he is dismissing the importance of Indigenous symbols and representation, pushing for their removal from public spaces and it is an attitude which raises questions about his commitment to acknowledging and respecting the rich Indigenous history and culture in Australia. His appearance on media outlets such as Sky News “After Dark” and his association with the fringes of society only adds to the concern, as it raises questions about the values he chooses to align himself with. Certainly, he is no longer Prime Minister and he is free to do as he pleases, but his already-tarnished reputation is now declining further into a sinkhole, a decline he seems to have inclination to arrest.

The Aboriginal flag and the Torres Strait Islander flag, with their deep historical and cultural significance, are symbols of pride and identity for Indigenous communities – and they are recognised as official flags of Australia. Their presence in public spaces and at Welcome to Country ceremonies holds immense importance in acknowledging and respecting the unique heritage of Australia’s first inhabitants. To call for their removal is not only misguided but also raises concerns about the broader issue of Indigenous recognition in Australia.

Abbott’s statements and his call to remove Indigenous flags from public spaces reveal a provocative disregard and a concerning lack of understanding and sensitivity toward the issues of Indigenous recognition and identity. This controversy underscores the need for open and respectful discussions about the place of Indigenous culture in Australian society.

An extremist backlash: Aftermath of the Indigenous recognition referendum defeat

The aftermath of the defeat of the referendum for the Voice of Parliament and constitutional recognition of Indigenous people has been marked by a disturbing wave of extremism, led by individuals such as Tony Abbott. Abbott’s persistent extremist views and rhetoric, raise significant concerns about the direction of the national conversation regarding Indigenous rights and identity.

Abbott’s stance, which can only be described as uncompromising, maniacal and radical, has its roots dating back to his university days in the late 1970s. His inability to evolve and adapt his views over the decades is a concerning sign of his rigidity and unwillingness to engage in constructive dialogue on Indigenous issues. It’s crucial to recognise that the defeat of the referendum was not the end of a war but the result of a peaceful and democratic process, aimed at recognising the rights and identity of Indigenous people in Australia: this is a key issue a belligerent Abbott has overlooked.

The extremist viewpoints emerging in the wake of this defeat seek to negate any progress made in the pursuit of Indigenous rights. They attempt to portray the defeat of the Voice of Parliament as a victory in a broader ideological battle, wherein the eradication of all traces of Indigenous culture becomes the ultimate goal and is an extremist mindset marked by a vehement rejection of the Voice of Parliament, Treaty, Welcome to Country ceremonies, Indigenous flags, land rights, and land claims, anything that stands in the way of an imperial and victorious coloniser.

This extremist perspective is reminiscent of the Adam Goodes saga from 2015, where the prominent Indigenous Australian rules football player was subjected to racial abuse, with critics attempting to divert attention from the real issue by labeling him a “cheat” or a “divisive figure,” language that was used to avoid acknowledging the underlying racial discrimination. In a similar vein, the current extremist rhetoric aims to deflect the discussion away from the core issues at hand, instead focusing on divisive arguments about change, too much change, or a supposed lack of effectiveness in recognising Indigenous rights.

One example of this diversion tactic is seen in the controversy surrounding the naming of a new train station in the central business district of Sydney as Gadigal station, akin to naming a train station Naarm in Melbourne, Boorloo in Perth, or Meanjin in Brisbane. Naming a train station – or any other landmark – should be an unspectacular issue: new bridges, stations, public buildings are created and named every day of the week around Australia. Opponents argued that the defeat of the Voice to Parliament was a sign that 61 per cent of the electorate rejected this form of symbolic gestures and “virtue signaling”. Certainly, the referendum was defeated, but it was a question of constitutional recognition, not a vote to remove Indigenous culture in perpetuity. Besides this issue, the naming of the train station is a simple and respectful recognition of Australia’s diverse cultural heritage. What is the real agenda here?

The worrying question that arises from these extremist viewpoints is: where does this end? If the extremists get their way, would we witness iconic Indigenous place names like Bondi Beach, Woolloomooloo, Cronulla, and Parramatta erased from our collective memory? Would Uluru revert to “Ayers Rock”? It is crucial to emphasise that the referendum was not about these symbolic gestures; it was about recognising the rights and voices of Indigenous people. Much like the treatment of Adam Goodes, it's easier to claim that the referendum was solely about these various other issues, which, of course, masks an underlying level of racial vilification and abuse.

In this context, figures like Tony Abbott represent a troubling and extremist interpretation of the defeat of the referendum, which threatens to further divide and alienate Indigenous communities in Australia. Rather than engaging in productive discussions on the path to Reconciliation and recognition, extremists risk pushing the nation into a regressive and divisive stance on Indigenous issues. It is of paramount importance to reframe the conversation in a way that respects the history, culture, and rights of Australia’s first nations, while also encouraging dialogue and understanding. Extremist views and actions only serve to undermine the progress that is essential for a more inclusive and equitable Australia.

Challenges and opportunities in post-referendum Australia

These extremist perspectives are neither healthy for those who advocate it, nor for the nation as a whole and it’s an agenda that runs the risk of undoing the strides made in acknowledging the importance of Indigenous culture and identity.

Australia’s rich Indigenous history is reflected in the names of places, many of which are Indigenous names that carry deep cultural significance. Dubbo, Wagga Wagga, and countless others are not mere abbreviations of longer names but are steeped in cultural meaning. Efforts have been made to incorporate Indigenous names into the naming of new schools, moving away from the tradition of naming them after white explorers. The push for Indigenous names is part of a broader recognition of the significance of Indigenous culture and heritage, and a step towards embracing the Indigenous narrative as an integral part of Australia’s history and identity.

This extremist perspective espoused by Abbott has also manifested in the political arena, where some Liberal Party MPs are calling on Labor state governments to halt or abandon Treaty negotiations with Indigenous communities. This political game is likely to become a prominent feature of the next federal election campaign – political games and misinformation played a significant role in the Voice of Parliament referendum, and the Coalition may view this as an opportunity to gain political leverage in the next election.

A federal election focussing on divisive and uninformed agendas based on race and Indigenous issues would be a disaster for Australia, and this development calls for a more nuanced approach from the Labor government, which needs to recognise the Coalition’s tactics and respond far more effectively than it did during the Voice to Parliament referendum. The government should learn from the lessons of the past and campaign effectively on issues that matter, not being afraid to stand by its principles.

Despite some criticism and a loss of support in recent times, it is vital for progressive governments to remain principled and agile in their approach. Recognising that criticism is part of the political landscape and that reform often requires quick action and clear communication, these governments can continue to make substantial progress in a balanced and effective manner.

In the end, lessons must be learned, and the Labor government must adapt to the changing political landscape. While the challenges are many and the criticism can be harsh, the aim should always be to create a better, more inclusive, and equitable Australia for all its citizens, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike. The journey towards Reconciliation and recognition is a long one, but it’s crucial to keep moving forward, acknowledging the past, and learning from it to shape a better future for the nation.