Suggestions that Anzac Day should become Australia’s national day are completely ill-founded. There may well be objections to January 26 being the national day, with the solution being another day. But Anzac Day is not that day. The national day is one of broader perspective and would need to celebrate things – like achievements in the arts and sciences — that would be irrelevant to the things marked on Anzac Day. If Anzac Day were to become the national day either the Anzac element would be diminished or elements of the celebration of national achievement would go unmarked. The Anzac element of honouring the service and sacrifice of the armed services in war and more recently in peace-keeping operations, which also have their dangers, must be marked on its own day and not become part of a national day. Conversely, a national day would celebrate in a wider context than what is encapsulated in the Anzac spirit.
The idea was put this year by the Anglican Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn, George Browning. It has been put by others in the past. Bishop Browning went further. He called for a memorial place on Anzac Parade to recognise the pain and suffering of indigenous people and said, “”Perhaps the biggest challenge facing Anzac Day was for it to truly embrace the spirit of reconciliation with Australia’s indigenous people.”
Bishop Browning’s sentiments about reconciliation are important, but they belong in other forums. It is for the Prime Minister and the National Parliament to deal with reconciliation. Some new expression of reconciliation in the Anzac context is unnecessary. Aboriginal servicemen, especially those who served in war, were treated in a way of equality and respect in contrast to treatment I civilian life.
Anzac Day has attracted peripheral controversy for many years, perhaps starting in the 1960s with Alan Seymour’s One Day of the Year. In the Vietnam period it became the focus of some anti-war protest. It attacted the attentionof the women’s movement with demands that women commemorating women raped in war be allowed to march. The use of the word Anzac to mark a football match also drew controversy.
This year, with just a handful of World War I veterans around the question has been raised about the future of Anzac Day – in a spiritual way whether what it marks should change and in a practical way by questioning how to shore up the ranks of the marchers in various ways. The first of these musings will always be misplaced. Anzac Day is quite clearly defined. There is no need for change. The latter is premature. There are plenty of ex-service men and women and service and police personnel who served in peace-keeping to ensure marches comprise mainly service people for some time to come. And even with fewer marchers, participation in Anzac ceremonies has held up over recent years. Young people are attending and commemorating the sacrifice of others who have made the world a safer place for them.
However, all of the controversies over Anzac Day have served one purpose. They have revealed the enduring nature of the commemoration and the unique place Anzac Day has in Australian and New Zealand life. It is spiritual without being religious. It honours those who served in war without glorifying war. It is both sombre and a day for those who served to enjoy renewed friendship. And because its origin was in a defeat it is national without being nationalistic.
It is a unique day. Its traditions are now too strong to see any profound change in the way it is marked or what is marked.