Should Australia’s national anthem be played before the Big Bash Final on Australia Day? Cricket Australia has reignited a national debate

Commentary

Few sporting decisions should be capable of dividing an entire country.

Yet Cricket Australia has managed to do exactly that before a ball has even been bowled.

The organisation has confirmed the Big Bash League Final will return to Australia Day in 2027 after a two-year absence.

That decision was widely welcomed.

Big Bash League Final and Australia's national anthem debate

The controversy began with what may happen before the first delivery.

Reports this week indicate Cricket Australia does not currently intend to play Advance Australia Fair before the match unless the host city specifically requests it.

The governing body also says it will consult the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cricket Advisory Committee (NATSICA) about how January 26 should be acknowledged.

That immediately raised an obvious question.

If Australia’s biggest domestic cricket final is being played on Australia’s national day…

Shouldn’t Australia’s national anthem be part of the occasion?

For many Australians, the answer is self-evident.

The anthem is not a political slogan.

It is the country’s official national song.

It has traditionally accompanied major international sporting contests for decades.

Many supporters argue that a championship played on Australia Day is exactly the sort of occasion where it belongs.

Former Olympian and Indigenous leader Nova Peris has publicly supported playing the anthem, arguing that national symbols can unite Australians while still recognising the difficult history experienced by First Nations peoples. She has suggested that respect for Indigenous Australians and respect for national symbols do not have to compete with one another.

But Cricket Australia sees a more complicated picture.

January 26 remains one of the most contested dates on Australia’s calendar.

For many Indigenous Australians it represents the beginning of colonisation and dispossession rather than a day of celebration.

Over recent years Cricket Australia has attempted to navigate those competing perspectives.

The organisation previously removed references to “Australia Day” from some promotional material, decisions that themselves generated fierce public criticism.

Its latest approach appears aimed at avoiding making the national anthem another flashpoint while still returning elite cricket to the public holiday.

That balancing act satisfies almost nobody.

Those who want stronger recognition of Australia Day argue Cricket Australia is overthinking something that should be straightforward.

If the final is deliberately scheduled for January 26 because it is a national holiday capable of attracting large crowds and television audiences, they ask why the organisation would hesitate to include the country’s own anthem.

Others argue the opposite.

Sport, they say, should avoid inflaming cultural divisions.

Cricket already occupies a unique place in Australian identity.

Perhaps the game itself should be allowed to unite people without adding symbolic debates that overshadow the players.

There is another point worth remembering.

The Big Bash League has never routinely featured the national anthem before every final.

This is not a long-standing tradition that has suddenly been abolished.

Rather, the controversy exists because the championship is returning to Australia Day itself.

The date has transformed an ordinary pre-match ceremony into a national political discussion.

Is the anthem really the problem?

Perhaps not.

The anthem has become a symbol standing in for a much larger disagreement about what January 26 represents.

Australians disagree about the meaning of the date.

They disagree about history.

They disagree about reconciliation.

They disagree about national identity.

The pre-match ceremony simply becomes another stage on which those disagreements play out.

No sporting administrator can solve that argument.

Nor should they pretend they can.

What should happen?

Reasonable Australians can reach different conclusions.

Some will believe the anthem belongs before any major sporting event held on Australia Day.

Others will believe alternative acknowledgements better reflect modern Australia.

Neither position automatically reflects a lack of patriotism or respect.

The challenge is finding a ceremony that acknowledges Australia’s history without turning one of the country’s biggest sporting events into another culture-war battleground.

Cricket Australia is attempting that balancing act.

Whether it has chosen the right approach will ultimately be judged not only by politicians or commentators, but by the millions of Australians who tune in on January 26.

Sport has always brought Australians together.

The hope is that, whatever pre-match ceremony is ultimately adopted, the cricket itself remains the main event.

Related Posts

Editorial illustration of Steven Miles and David Crisafulli in Queensland politics

Steven Miles Challenges Crisafulli Over Child Safety After Amanda Camm Quits

Queensland Opposition Leader Steven Miles has challenged Premier David Crisafulli to appoint an experienced replacement for Amanda Camm after she announced her decision to step down from the child safety and domestic and family violence portfolios. Miles says the choice will reveal how seriously the government takes services for vulnerable children and families. Crisafulli has praised Camm’s record and defended the reforms initiated during her term. Camm says her decision was personal and followed major surgery and an incomplete recovery. She has also referred to the stress of her ministerial workload and the impact of public harassment. Her resignation should not be portrayed as an admission that the criticism of her administration was correct. The policy dispute and the reasons she has given for leaving office are separate facts.

Editorial illustration of Sharon Freund and Michael Allen with courthouse imagery, not a photograph of proceedings

Judge Sharon Freund Challenges Watchdog Referral Amid Dispute With Michael Allen

NSW Deputy Chief Judge Sharon Freund has taken her challenge to a watchdog referral before the Court of Appeal amid a prolonged dispute involving Local Court Chief Judge Michael Allen. The latest proceedings concern whether decisions and observations arising from a Judicial Commission process were reached and handled lawfully. The legal contest remains unresolved, and the allegations at its centre must not be treated as disciplinary findings against either judge. Published accounts of the Court of Appeal proceedings say Freund’s lawyers have challenged the Attorney-General’s referral of her conduct to the NSW Judicial Commission. The dispute has been linked to questions about the handling of a criminal case involving a judicial colleague’s adult child and to competing allegations about procedural propriety. Those accounts remain contested, and the Court of Appeal’s task is not identical to a final disciplinary inquiry.

Editorial illustration of Angie Bell and Anne Aly, Australian parliamentary debate

Angie Bell Calls Stoning Remarks ‘Regrettable’ After Anne Aly Criticism

Liberal frontbencher Angie Bell has described her earlier parliamentary remarks about Small Business Minister Anne Aly and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese as regrettable, calling them a poor choice of words after a furious public dispute over violent imagery in political debate. Bell says the comment was neither helpful nor planned, and that she withdrew it and tried to rectify the matter with Aly. The new statement follows criticism from Aly, who described the original language as racist and misogynistic. The exchange is significant not because the words have just been spoken, but because Bell has now publicly addressed them. Her expression of regret should be reported accurately without claiming that she accepted every criticism Aly made or that the parties have resolved their disagreement.

Editorial illustration of Nina Taylor and Fishermans Bend urban development

Nina Taylor Defends Fishermans Bend Plans as Rivals Demand Faster Transport

Labor MP Nina Taylor has defended the Victorian government’s approach to Fishermans Bend as rival candidates in the Albert Park electorate demanded faster public transport and better infrastructure for the growing inner-Melbourne precinct. The debate at a local election forum highlighted the gap between plans for a major urban renewal area and the transport connections residents and businesses can already use. Candidates questioned why promised tram and rail links remain distant prospects despite long-running plans to accommodate substantially more homes and jobs. Taylor pointed to recent planning steps, the Metro Tunnel and expanded bus services, while opponents pressed the government to deliver infrastructure earlier. The disagreement concerns priorities, funding and sequencing; a planning announcement should not be confused with a completed railway or tram service.

Editorial illustration of Angus Taylor and Chris Bowen with the Snowy 2.0 hydroelectric project

Angus Taylor Demands Chris Bowen Resign Over Snowy 2.0 Cost Blowout

Opposition Leader Angus Taylor has called for Energy Minister Chris Bowen to resign after Snowy Hydro revised the cost and completion forecast for Snowy 2.0, reviving a political argument over who is responsible for one of Australia’s most expensive energy projects. The company’s updated target is $22.2 billion, with an allowance for a cost of up to $25 billion, while commissioning is now expected in late 2029. The latest assessment is a major test for the Commonwealth-owned company and for governments of both political persuasions. Taylor was energy minister when the project was approved under the Coalition. Bowen, who oversees the project as a shareholder minister under Labor, says the early design and engineering assumptions left a lasting problem. Neither side’s political account changes the figures Australians now need to assess.

Editorial illustration of David Pocock and Anthony Albanese with parliamentary funding documents

David Pocock Challenges Albanese Over Helen Haines Funding Dossier

Independent senator David Pocock has challenged Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s explanation of a document circulated from his office about fellow independent Helen Haines, drawing a sharp distinction between routine political briefing and material that can cast doubt on an MP’s integrity. Albanese says the file concerned Haines’s requests for funding for her electorate and was not intended as a personal attack. The row has taken on particular sensitivity after the alleged vehicle attack that left Haines critically injured. That incident is the subject of a separate criminal investigation. No established evidence links the circulation of the political document to the alleged attack or identifies political briefing as a motive. Treating the two events as causally connected would go beyond the facts.