Barend Vlaardingerbroek: The Dave Pellowe Case - What Exactly Is It About?

I refused to do a Welcome to Country at my Christian conferences. Now I'm being taken to the Human Rights Commission.

A conservative Christian minister claims he is being persecuted for refusing to include a 'Welcome to Country' ceremony at the start of his religious conferences - and that he is prepared to go to jail to defend his rights.

Dave Pellowe said he had been hauled before the Queensland Human Rights Commission after a complaint was made that he failed to include the Indigenous ritual - or a Smoking Ceremony - in his national 'Church and State' conferences. 
- The Daily Mail Australia, 23 August

Oh dear. So what is a ‘Welcome to Country’ ceremony? It is a welcome ritual that includes an acknowledgement of the traditional elders of the indigenous people who claim the land where the event is held. A traditional ceremony called a ‘smoking ceremony’ may be involved.

From Reconciliation Australia

But note the following from the website ‘indigenous.gov.au’:

Only Traditional Owners/Custodians of the land on which the event takes place can deliver a Welcome to Country.

If a Traditional Owner is not available to do a Welcome to Country, an Acknowledgement of Country can be delivered instead.

Oh. So Mr Pellowe would not, in fact, be authorised to conduct this ritual. What about an Acknowledgement of Country?

Again from Reconciliation Australia,

An Acknowledgement of Country is an opportunity for anyone to show respect for Traditional Owners and the continuing connection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to Country.

An Acknowledgement of Country can be offered by any person and like a Welcome to Country, is given at the beginning of a meeting, speech or event. 

There is no specific wording for an Acknowledgement of Country, just be sincere and, if possible, do some research on the Country you are acknowledging.

Mr Pellowe is making a big deal of the incompatibility of indigenous religion and Christianity  (from the Daily Mail article: “It’s the duty of Christians to preach the truth and gospel and to not mix Christianity with false religion, such as the Aboriginal traditional religion, which is bearing all the hallmarks of paganism … inherently false beliefs,”, he claimed) but there is not a word about religion in the very loose prescription for an Acknowledgement of Country.

This guy is clearly after a high-profile State vs church confrontation over religion with him as the central actor – he is, after all, founder of the Church and State Ministries. He is using public cynicism concerning the inclusion of the indigenous realm in public life as a bandwagon for his cause. Right-wingers are flocking to support him as what they see here is an issue of freedom of religion and expression. For instance, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australia Jacina Price was quote by the Daily Mail (same date) as saying that “threatening Mr Pellowe with legal action over religious expression was a threat to democracy.”

There is an implication throughout that Mr Pellowe is being pursued because he did not deliver any traditional ritual himself. But there is no reason why he could not have engaged an elder to do so (no, I am not defending the right of the State to impose this ritual, just trying to get my facts right). Anyway, to labour a point made earlier, he could have simply delivered an Acknowledgement of Country without a hint of indigenous religiosity and there would have been no fuss at all (again, I am not defending this policy, only trying to get my facts right). What does he do instead? – He reads Psalm 24:1 (“The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it”) – clearly throwing down the religious gauntlet. Would Mr Pellowe support calls for the abolition of the opening prayer in Parliament? If not, he is a damned hypocrite.

In my view this case is not about freedom of speech either as Mr Pellowe is not being hammered for something he said but for what he did not say (either himself or through someone else). That ‘something’ being of a political nature, it would be a violation of his human right to not be forced to support, or be forced to be seen to support, a political stance.

I am very much a right-winger and I abhor much of what is happening with regard to the erosion of personal liberty and the increasingly doctrinaire and totalitarian nature of the Western political elite but I am going to very wary of ostensibly right-wing causes that rely on false premises to garner my support. I suggest you too be canny about what causes you throw your lot in with, dear reader – and make sure you do your homework, unlike some reporters.

Barend Vlaardingerbroek is a retired academic.