In a powerful counter-narrative to prevailing political discourse, Noongar-Yamatji woman and lawyer Emma Garlett has challenged the simplistic labelling of younger Australians' views on Australia Day as mere 'wokeness'. Writing for The West Australian, Garlett provides a nuanced analysis rooted in her personal experience and professional insight.
A Personal and Professional Perspective on January 26
Emma Garlett, a barrister and former candidate, frames the debate around January 26 not as a generational fad but as an evolution of national understanding. She recalls her own childhood in the 1990s, a time when celebrating Australia Day with flags and community events was the norm, largely devoid of the critical conversation about the date's significance for First Nations peoples.
Garlett points to a significant shift in education and access to information as the primary drivers behind changing attitudes, particularly among Generation Z. Unlike previous generations, today's youth are exposed to a more complete and often uncomfortable history of colonisation through school curricula and digital media. This, she argues, fosters a natural empathy and a desire for a national day that unites all Australians, rather than one that causes pain for a segment of the population.
Beyond Political Labels to Core Australian Values
Dismissing the complex feelings of a generation as 'woke' is, in Garlett's view, a reductive tactic that stifles meaningful dialogue. She emphasises that the critique from young people is not an attack on Australian identity or achievement. Instead, it is a call for inclusivity and respect—values that are themselves deeply Australian.
The core of the argument for many, including Garlett, is that January 26 marks the beginning of dispossession, disease, and violence for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Celebrating national identity on this date, therefore, creates an inherent conflict. She questions why the nation clings to a date of profound sorrow for its First Peoples when another day could symbolise a forward-looking, unified future.
Garlett's commentary moves past the superficial political battleground the date has become. She reframes the debate as a practical and moral question: is continuing on this path worth the annual division and hurt? For a growing number of Australians, especially younger ones educated on the full scope of the nation's history, the answer is a clear 'no'.
The Path Forward: A Call for Mature National Conversation
Ultimately, Emma Garlett's analysis serves as a bridge for understanding. She validates the genuine, educated concerns of Generation Z while challenging older Australians to engage with the substance of the argument rather than resorting to labels.
The solution, she implies, lies in a mature national conversation that acknowledges historical truth and seeks a date all Australians can embrace with pride, not pain. This is not about erasing history but about building a national identity that is honest and inclusive. The views of Gen Z, far from being a passing trend, may well represent the next step in Australia's journey toward a more reconciled and cohesive national story.
