There is something particularly saddening about seeing decisions made to remove practices that offer such a simple, meaningful and non-harmful expression of inclusion. The decision by Lower Eyre Council to stop opening its official meetings and council-led events with an Acknowledgement of Country is one such example, and it raises broader questions about the commitment to reconciliation within our public institutions.
After eight years of beginning its meetings and events with an Acknowledgement of Country, Lower Eyre Council has voted to discontinue the practice.
According to reporting by Magic 89.9, councillors voted four to two in favour of a motion brought forward by Councillor Neville Tresize, with the decision taking immediate effect.
An Acknowledgement of Country is not a complicated gesture. It does not require significant resources, additional funding or substantial time. It is a public expression of respect, recognising the Traditional Custodians of the land, their continuing connection to Country, and the cultures, histories and communities that have existed for tens of thousands of years.
They also have a positive psychological impact, whereas negative media connotations can cause a person to automatically think negatively of Aboriginal Peoples, exercises like the Acknowledment of Country, can help reverse these impacts. They are more than tokenistic.
Yet, increasingly, even these small acts of recognition appear to be becoming a point of contention. and tokenism is one of the arguments raised against Acknowledgements of Country being done.
It is a criticism that deserves consideration, because reconciliation should never be reduced to a series of statements made without meaning or action behind them. An acknowledgement delivered without genuine understanding or commitment can certainly become routine.
But it's mere occurance ensures it is not tokeistic at all.
A question following this development must be, if the four Lower Eyre Council members are voting against it because it is 'tokenistic', then what are they actually doing that is not?
There is also a much bigger question worth asking of those who find these acknowledgements difficult to accept: if a few moments of recognition at the beginning of a meeting are so difficult to swallow, how must the reality of colonisation be understood?
If acknowledging the Traditional Custodians of this land, recognising their continuing connection to Country and showing a moment of respect is considered too much, then the history of colonisation must be almost impossible to confront.
Because colonisation was not a brief inconvenience. It involved the dispossession of First Nations peoples from their lands, the disruption of cultures and communities, the denial of rights, and generations of policies and practices that continue to have consequences today. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, this history is not some distant chapter in a textbook. Its impacts are lived, remembered and experienced across generations.
An Acknowledgement of Country does not ask anyone to carry that history personally. It does not demand guilt, assign individual blame or take anything away from anyone.
It simply asks that we recognise the history of the land we meet on and the people whose connection to it has never ceased.
The reality is, an Acknowledgement of Country was never intended to be the entirety of reconciliation. It is one small part of a much broader responsibility that includes understanding history, addressing racism, building relationships and recognising the continuing rights and contributions of First Nations peoples.
Removing it does not address concerns about tokenism. It does not create stronger relationships with Aboriginal communities. It does not make an organisation more inclusive. And it does not advance reconciliation.
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of decisions like this is what they communicate to the communities these institutions are supposed to represent.
Local government plays an important role in community leadership. Councils are not simply responsible for roads, rates, rubbish and local infrastructure.
They are also public institutions with an opportunity to demonstrate the values of their communities, including respect, inclusion and recognition of the people who have cared for the land for generations.
When a council decides that acknowledging Traditional Custodians is no longer necessary, it sends a message about the importance it places on that recognition.
Nobody is being asked to surrender anything. Nobody is being disadvantaged by the practice. It is an opportunity to extend recognition to people and cultures that have too often been excluded from the institutions and narratives that shape this country.
But reconciliation requires more than simply avoiding harm. It requires a willingness to recognise historical injustices, build relationships and take meaningful steps towards a more inclusive society.
That commitment is tested not only through major policies and public statements, but also through the everyday decisions institutions make about what they consider important.
If those complainging about Acknowledgement of Country's are serious about it being tokenistic, the question, what are they suggesting to be done to curb racism and other forms or discrimination and bigotry in this country, or just in their local concil area?