Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Opinion

Canberra’s Leading
Relationship Lawyers

Fun police cancel Australia Day Live

By Charlotte Harper - 24 August 2016 37

Children prepare for the Australia Day Live event.

If the argument about potentially dangerous storms raised by the National Australia Day Council in defence of its axing of the Australia Day Live Concert was applied to every outdoor event organised in Australia, most rugby, league, AFL, soccer and cricket matches scheduled to be played in grounds around Australia every weekend should also be cancelled forthwith.

The Australian Open should also go. Music festivals like the Groovin the Moo, the Falls Festival and Splendour in the Grass should be shut down. The New Year’s Eve fireworks in Sydney should be cancelled. I can think of dozens of other examples, but I’m not going to mention them, because I don’t want to give the Federal Government fun police any more ideas.

The Australia Day council’s chief executive officer, Chris Kirby, has told The Canberra Times that weather and safety played a major part in planning for the event, and referred to storms that impacted on the most recent concert, telling reporter Chris Knaus that the weather “brought the event to a standstill and potentially put the public at risk”.

Mr Kirby has made no mention of financial cuts being a factor, but presumably that’s what’s really behind the decision to ditch the event, which has kicked off with the Australian of the Year Awards on the Federation Mall lawns between the Parliament House and the Museum of Australian Democracy every year since 2004.

What we do know is that the organiser has decided to move the Australian of the Year Awards indoors, to an invitation-only function in the Great Hall of Parliament House, removing the opportunity for tens of thousands of Australians to see them presented live, and for the winners to address large crowds in person upon receipt of the accolades.

Should the National Australia Day Council reinstate its canned Australia Day concert?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

The only argument I can think of against this event is that its timing commemorates a day that symbolises all that is wrong about our history in terms of the treatment of Indigenous Australians. It was this fact that made being there to see Gurrumul perform at the concert in 2009 and Adam Goodes win Australian of the Year in 2014 mean so much. Those moments are what reconciliation is all about. Hiding them away at a private function is just plain wrong.

I can understand why other cities have argued against the event being held in Canberra. Of course they’d like to host an event of this scale for their residents. But they’re not the capital city of Australia, and the nation’s Parliament House is not available to them as a backdrop.

The ACT Government was right to contribute $100,000 in funding to the concert, and ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr is right to threaten to pull that funding from the event now unless the decision is overturned.

Though the argument that only Canberrans benefit from the gig is simply not true. Tourists have travelled from interstate en masse to see the likes of Guy Sebastian, Jimmy Barnes and INXS play live on Australia Day Eve ahead of a day experiencing our national cultural institutions. I’ve been to several of the concerts with friends who have driven from Sydney or Melbourne just for the occasion, and I know I’m not alone. Also, the event is televised live across the nation, showcasing the capital city at a time when Australians are thinking about what it means to be a citizen of this great nation.

The concert has long provided one of the few opportunities there are in Australia for families to get together for a picnic while enjoying live music that appeals to the grown ups and the kids. Children dance on the lawns with their siblings, parents and friends on a scale I’ve not seen elsewhere. My children loved this most of all about the concert. They are fans of Bob Evans, Ganggajang, Jimmy Barnes, INXS, Guy Sebastian, Lior and Paul Kelly. When are they going to see acts like that live if not at the Australia Day concert?

It’ll be several years now before they will again be exposed to live Australian music on this scale. They won’t be inviting their parents along for a dance then, either.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
37 Responses to
Fun police cancel Australia Day Live
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
dungfungus 3:32 pm 01 Sep 16

madelini said :

dungfungus said :

Spiral said :

dungfungus said :

madelini said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Perhaps the people behind the decision are of the “it’s Invasion Day and to be discouraged” persuasion.

More like they are taking away a forum that the pro-invasion day lobby will use to promote their fable.

How is it a fable? The white men invaded, did they not? I was under the impression that is how colonialism worked, for many years.

Well, I don’t know what the lefties are teaching in schools these days but when the history I am familiar with was that the first fleet had settlement in mind.
I think you should refresh the meaning of invasion.
If indeed it was an invasion, when did the then occupants surrender and what were the terms and conditions of the peace agreement? How come so many survived?

Also, if you look ar the actual “force” sent by the British, it was 247 marines (plus 46 wives and children and also 15 officials and passengers). They had to control 788 Convicts. That doesn’t really look like an invasion force. Sure there were crews on the ships, but they were needed for the ships which either returned or were used to support the colony. iirc I don’t think any of the ships were really combat warships either. The fortifications that were built were designed to protect against other colonial powers, not primarily to be used against the locals.

If it was really an invasion you would have expected to see warships to provide fire support and probably the famed British army, not a bunch of second rate marines.

The British of the time had no qualms about invasion. They invaded places before and after. They just didn’t consider this an invasion.

It wasn’t even “bullying and harassment”.

Considering that a definition of invasion includes “an unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain”, I would say that the British settlement of Australia beginning in 1788 was absolutely an invasion; it was an armed force, they claimed the land even though it was already inhabited, and they had no intention of leaving it. There is a difference between “attack” and “invasion”.

You don’t have to agree with it, but given the impact that European settlement had on the Indigenous population, you can surely understand the resentment held and why Aboriginal Australians feel that the term “invasion” is apt. Aboriginal peoples had been living here for tens of thousands of years, and then in the space of two centuries, lost so many people (to violence and disease), had children taken from their families, and were denied citizenship of the country in which they were born. Who are we to say that they are wrong for resenting all the bad stuff the British and convicts brought with them?

There is currently a large quasi-religious group making an uninvited and unwelcome intrusion into our domain, some are armed and radicalised and none of them have any intention of leaving so I guess we have been invaded again.
The people who are most “resenting all the bad stuff the British brought with them” seem to be anything but indigenous and it is clear that they never want reconciliation.
I wonder why that is?
Also you say the land was “inhabited”. Where were the cities, the roads etc.?

rommeldog56 1:50 pm 01 Sep 16

madelini said :

Considering that a definition of invasion includes “an unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain”, I would say that the British settlement of Australia beginning in 1788 was absolutely an invasion; it was an armed force, they claimed the land even though it was already inhabited, and they had no intention of leaving it. There is a difference between “attack” and “invasion”.

You don’t have to agree with it, but given the impact that European settlement had on the Indigenous population, you can surely understand the resentment held and why Aboriginal Australians feel that the term “invasion” is apt. Aboriginal peoples had been living here for tens of thousands of years, and then in the space of two centuries, lost so many people (to violence and disease), had children taken from their families, and were denied citizenship of the country in which they were born. Who are we to say that they are wrong for resenting all the bad stuff the British and convicts brought with them?

There is a referendum coming up to recognise aboriginals in the constitution. Long over due in my view.

What I am so sick and tired of hearing about, particularly from what i presume is the “left”, is arguments/definitions about “invasion” Vs “settlement”.

Get over it. It is what it is. Stop trying to make a career about the “invasion” term. All that risks is to turn people off voting YES in the referendum. You probably do the YES vote no favors.

Draw a line in the sand. Move forward.

madelini 11:30 am 01 Sep 16

dungfungus said :

Spiral said :

dungfungus said :

madelini said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Perhaps the people behind the decision are of the “it’s Invasion Day and to be discouraged” persuasion.

More like they are taking away a forum that the pro-invasion day lobby will use to promote their fable.

How is it a fable? The white men invaded, did they not? I was under the impression that is how colonialism worked, for many years.

Well, I don’t know what the lefties are teaching in schools these days but when the history I am familiar with was that the first fleet had settlement in mind.
I think you should refresh the meaning of invasion.
If indeed it was an invasion, when did the then occupants surrender and what were the terms and conditions of the peace agreement? How come so many survived?

Also, if you look ar the actual “force” sent by the British, it was 247 marines (plus 46 wives and children and also 15 officials and passengers). They had to control 788 Convicts. That doesn’t really look like an invasion force. Sure there were crews on the ships, but they were needed for the ships which either returned or were used to support the colony. iirc I don’t think any of the ships were really combat warships either. The fortifications that were built were designed to protect against other colonial powers, not primarily to be used against the locals.

If it was really an invasion you would have expected to see warships to provide fire support and probably the famed British army, not a bunch of second rate marines.

The British of the time had no qualms about invasion. They invaded places before and after. They just didn’t consider this an invasion.

It wasn’t even “bullying and harassment”.

Considering that a definition of invasion includes “an unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain”, I would say that the British settlement of Australia beginning in 1788 was absolutely an invasion; it was an armed force, they claimed the land even though it was already inhabited, and they had no intention of leaving it. There is a difference between “attack” and “invasion”.

You don’t have to agree with it, but given the impact that European settlement had on the Indigenous population, you can surely understand the resentment held and why Aboriginal Australians feel that the term “invasion” is apt. Aboriginal peoples had been living here for tens of thousands of years, and then in the space of two centuries, lost so many people (to violence and disease), had children taken from their families, and were denied citizenship of the country in which they were born. Who are we to say that they are wrong for resenting all the bad stuff the British and convicts brought with them?

Dreadnaught1905 1:34 pm 30 Aug 16

Spiral said :

dungfungus said :

madelini said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Perhaps the people behind the decision are of the “it’s Invasion Day and to be discouraged” persuasion.

More like they are taking away a forum that the pro-invasion day lobby will use to promote their fable.

How is it a fable? The white men invaded, did they not? I was under the impression that is how colonialism worked, for many years.

Well, I don’t know what the lefties are teaching in schools these days but when the history I am familiar with was that the first fleet had settlement in mind.
I think you should refresh the meaning of invasion.
If indeed it was an invasion, when did the then occupants surrender and what were the terms and conditions of the peace agreement? How come so many survived?

Also, if you look ar the actual “force” sent by the British, it was 247 marines (plus 46 wives and children and also 15 officials and passengers). They had to control 788 Convicts. That doesn’t really look like an invasion force. Sure there were crews on the ships, but they were needed for the ships which either returned or were used to support the colony. iirc I don’t think any of the ships were really combat warships either. The fortifications that were built were designed to protect against other colonial powers, not primarily to be used against the locals.

If it was really an invasion you would have expected to see warships to provide fire support and probably the famed British army, not a bunch of second rate marines.

The British of the time had no qualms about invasion. They invaded places before and after. They just didn’t consider this an invasion.

I’m deeply, deeply disappointed that you feel that way. That’s a very harsh comment, and I’m sure many would be upset or downright offended at it. The Royal Marines were not, are not and will never be “second rate”!

Also, for what it’s worth HMS Sirius was most definitely considered a warship by the Royal Navy. (albeit the smallest class of ship commanded by a Post-Captain.)

dungfungus 12:44 pm 30 Aug 16

Spiral said :

dungfungus said :

madelini said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Perhaps the people behind the decision are of the “it’s Invasion Day and to be discouraged” persuasion.

More like they are taking away a forum that the pro-invasion day lobby will use to promote their fable.

How is it a fable? The white men invaded, did they not? I was under the impression that is how colonialism worked, for many years.

Well, I don’t know what the lefties are teaching in schools these days but when the history I am familiar with was that the first fleet had settlement in mind.
I think you should refresh the meaning of invasion.
If indeed it was an invasion, when did the then occupants surrender and what were the terms and conditions of the peace agreement? How come so many survived?

Also, if you look ar the actual “force” sent by the British, it was 247 marines (plus 46 wives and children and also 15 officials and passengers). They had to control 788 Convicts. That doesn’t really look like an invasion force. Sure there were crews on the ships, but they were needed for the ships which either returned or were used to support the colony. iirc I don’t think any of the ships were really combat warships either. The fortifications that were built were designed to protect against other colonial powers, not primarily to be used against the locals.

If it was really an invasion you would have expected to see warships to provide fire support and probably the famed British army, not a bunch of second rate marines.

The British of the time had no qualms about invasion. They invaded places before and after. They just didn’t consider this an invasion.

It wasn’t even “bullying and harassment”.

Spiral 8:17 am 30 Aug 16

dungfungus said :

madelini said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Perhaps the people behind the decision are of the “it’s Invasion Day and to be discouraged” persuasion.

More like they are taking away a forum that the pro-invasion day lobby will use to promote their fable.

How is it a fable? The white men invaded, did they not? I was under the impression that is how colonialism worked, for many years.

Well, I don’t know what the lefties are teaching in schools these days but when the history I am familiar with was that the first fleet had settlement in mind.
I think you should refresh the meaning of invasion.
If indeed it was an invasion, when did the then occupants surrender and what were the terms and conditions of the peace agreement? How come so many survived?

Also, if you look ar the actual “force” sent by the British, it was 247 marines (plus 46 wives and children and also 15 officials and passengers). They had to control 788 Convicts. That doesn’t really look like an invasion force. Sure there were crews on the ships, but they were needed for the ships which either returned or were used to support the colony. iirc I don’t think any of the ships were really combat warships either. The fortifications that were built were designed to protect against other colonial powers, not primarily to be used against the locals.

If it was really an invasion you would have expected to see warships to provide fire support and probably the famed British army, not a bunch of second rate marines.

The British of the time had no qualms about invasion. They invaded places before and after. They just didn’t consider this an invasion.

dungfungus 5:43 pm 29 Aug 16

madelini said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Perhaps the people behind the decision are of the “it’s Invasion Day and to be discouraged” persuasion.

More like they are taking away a forum that the pro-invasion day lobby will use to promote their fable.

How is it a fable? The white men invaded, did they not? I was under the impression that is how colonialism worked, for many years.

Well, I don’t know what the lefties are teaching in schools these days but when the history I am familiar with was that the first fleet had settlement in mind.
I think you should refresh the meaning of invasion.
If indeed it was an invasion, when did the then occupants surrender and what were the terms and conditions of the peace agreement? How come so many survived?

madelini 2:22 pm 29 Aug 16

bd84 said :

What are we really losing? A concert with a line-up mainly consisting of C grade acts and failed reality tv music competition contestants. The event was never on Australia Day, and the Australian of the Year was almost always known before it was announced.

No big loss. Put the money towards a family celebration event on the day.

A concert is a family celebration event, surely? What more do kids need, a jumping castle and clowns?

madelini 2:18 pm 29 Aug 16

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Perhaps the people behind the decision are of the “it’s Invasion Day and to be discouraged” persuasion.

More like they are taking away a forum that the pro-invasion day lobby will use to promote their fable.

How is it a fable? The white men invaded, did they not? I was under the impression that is how colonialism worked, for many years.

gooterz 8:54 pm 26 Aug 16

dungfungus said :

gooterz said :

Canberra really needs a big replica of cooks ship or the first fleet.

It would be ideally located in Weston Park, next to that token SIEV X memorial.

I was thinking closer to the jet. So you could actually get wet on the decks just like the real ocean.

Problem is that the city is so disconnected from the lake( and building apartments wont help in the slightest) which makes the area isolated except for the fitness nuts that go there at 4am and train.

dungfungus 8:43 am 26 Aug 16

gooterz said :

Canberra really needs a big replica of cooks ship or the first fleet.

It would be ideally located in Weston Park, next to that token SIEV X memorial.

No_Nose 7:13 am 26 Aug 16

Mordd – IndyMedia said :

dungfungus said :

A sausage sizzle at the Arboretum? (Halal sausages of course). Entertainment by Kevin Wilson.

I am going to take you seriously on that and +1 it. Please don’t fall out of your chair when reading this reply though, it’s unlikely for me to +1 a comment of yours again anytime in the near future, this is the exception that proves the rule 😛

Sounds good to me. I’d go to that.

wildturkeycanoe 8:12 pm 25 Aug 16

How about we let the pollies and the rest of the rich snobs have their ceremonies in parliament, whilst everyone else has their concerts, fireworks, aerial flyovers and other fun stuff? Why do we have to can the good stuff just so the privileged few can have Australia Day for themselves? It is a celebration for ALL Aussies, so why are the minorities ruining yet another part of being Australian and using the weather as an excuse?
I for one, am very quickly being so demoralized by all that is going on in this country that moving to another part of the world is beginning to look good. Political correctness and minority pandering has destroyed humanity. It is getting to the point that we can’t leave our homes without being careful not to do something that might offend somebody, somewhere, without knowing what it is we’ve done wrong. Bugger off fun police, bugger off moral crusaders, this is Australia where everybody is supposed to be free to say what they want. We don’t have free speech any more than we have the freedom to do anything else, unless of course it is related to a “persecuted” minority group, in which case anything goes. I am an ordinary, middle aged, heterosexual white male. I am now in one of the smallest minorities there is and everything I stand for is offensive to everyone else. Help me please, bring back the 70s and 80s when life used to be fun.

gooterz 6:50 pm 25 Aug 16

Canberra really needs a big replica of cooks ship or the first fleet.

Mordd - IndyMedia 3:44 pm 25 Aug 16

dungfungus said :

Mordd – IndyMedia said :

They just issued a partial backdown, that didn’t take long: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/major-public-event-promised-for-canberra-on-australia-day-20160824-gr0edg.html

Interestingly, not only did Barr threaten to pull the funding, but Zed personally lobbied Turnbull to intervene as well.

The NT Chief Minister of course welcomed the cancellation news, but Barr had his own zinger in response to that, saying “looking forward to talking with the new Northern Territory chief minister after this weekend”. Ouch!

So what would you like as the replacement event Canberra? What should it contain or not contain? Where should it be held? This is our chance to make our voice heard on this.

A sausage sizzle at the Arboretum? (Halal sausages of course). Entertainment by Kevin Wilson.

I am going to take you seriously on that and +1 it. Please don’t fall out of your chair when reading this reply though, it’s unlikely for me to +1 a comment of yours again anytime in the near future, this is the exception that proves the rule 😛

dungfungus 8:42 am 25 Aug 16

Mordd – IndyMedia said :

They just issued a partial backdown, that didn’t take long: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/major-public-event-promised-for-canberra-on-australia-day-20160824-gr0edg.html

Interestingly, not only did Barr threaten to pull the funding, but Zed personally lobbied Turnbull to intervene as well.

The NT Chief Minister of course welcomed the cancellation news, but Barr had his own zinger in response to that, saying “looking forward to talking with the new Northern Territory chief minister after this weekend”. Ouch!

So what would you like as the replacement event Canberra? What should it contain or not contain? Where should it be held? This is our chance to make our voice heard on this.

A sausage sizzle at the Arboretum? (Halal sausages of course). Entertainment by Kevin Wilson.

dungfungus 8:40 am 25 Aug 16

gooterz said :

You’ll see lots of Australia day activities culled, but its not because of rain.

The real reason is the political correctness of “Invasion day”

Screw it. Without Australia there would be no democracy here.
When else are we going to celebrate our successes?

Adam Giles is glad that its cancelled. Does he represent all NT folk for their hate of the national Capital?

The Invasion Day lobby should be celebrating the fact that the British got here before the Spanish, Portuguese or Dutch.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site