I think Australia Day should remain January 26. I am not certain what it should commemorate beyond this—that Australia is a good place to live, that I am grateful to be part of our national project, and that this is worth marking. If that sounds insufficient, perhaps we’re asking too much of any single day.
What I am sure about is that most arguments currently dominating public discussion fail basic coherence tests, preventing the adult conversation the question requires.
“Moving citizenship ceremonies shows respect through neutrality”
More than 80 councils have shifted citizenship ceremonies away from January 26, calling this neutral accommodation. The City of Yarra cancelled Australia Day events and replaced them with “culturally sensitive” alternatives.
But when councils administer citizenship on behalf of the Commonwealth, they exercise state authority. That authority does not become neutral on a different date—it signals the institution now considers the nation’s founding ritual illegitimate. A council may have reasons for this. But it cannot hold this position and claim neutrality. The categories are incompatible.
“Changing the date is simple and avoids conflict”
Pick May 8, or Federation, or something else, and the conflict resolves.
This treats Australia Day as a scheduling problem. It fails because those who object to January 26 do not merely object to the date.
They object to what the date represents to them: dispossession and the moral character of the nation built afterward. Moving celebration to the 8th of May does not address this.
A nation lacking confidence in its right to exist on January 26 will not discover that confidence on May 8. The argument recurs annually because symbolic substitution cannot resolve disagreement about national legitimacy.
“Corporations should avoid Australia Day because it’s divisive”
When Australian Venue Co announced it would not celebrate Australia Day because the date “causes sadness,” it framed this as business neutrality. Woolworths and Big W pulled merchandise citing declining demand and inclusivity.
National cohesion is not an optional externality. It is the precondition for the property rights, contract enforcement, and stable markets that make commerce possible.
When corporations treat national symbols as consumer preferences to stock or discount based on sales data, they undermine their own strategic interests as much as they do their hosting country.
That Woolworths reversed course after backlash simply proves both decisions were unprincipled—the company will celebrate or not celebrate Australia based on whichever choice generates less pressure.
“Reconciliation requires abandoning symbols that cause offense”
This appears across council motions and activist campaigns: reconciliation means the majority relinquishing symbols Aboriginal Australians find painful.
If reconciliation requires unanimous approval of national symbols, then reconciliation is impossible.
No diverse society has ever achieved, or could achieve, unanimous approval of its rituals. What this argument actually demands is not inclusion but dissolution—the end of shared national symbols entirely.
“It’s just a date—letting it go would show generosity”
This minimises stakes while conceding the game. If January 26 is “just a date” with no significance, why does moving it constitute generosity? And if moving it helps Australia “move on,” what are we moving on from?
Either the date matters—or it does not.
The argument recurs because it lets people avoid stating what they believe: that Australia’s national symbols are illegitimate and should be discarded, but this sounds too extreme to defend directly.
These arguments share a common failure: inability to state clearly what is at stake. The Australia Day debate persists because the terms of discussion obscure the actual question:
Is Australia a legitimate nation or not?
Those who answer ‘no’ should say so. Those who answer ‘yes’ should stop negotiating with people who don’t.