Few other nations on earth would have so much debate and ambivalence about its national symbols than Australia. The debate will no doubt get a fresh head of steam today – Australia Day. Much of the debate is heated and emotional rather than rational and calm – that is because it is about emotional things. Many Australians question whether we should change the national day, the head of state and the flag. In other countries such questioning would be looked upon as odd or even treasonous. In Australia, it is a perfectly respectable, even majority, viewpoint to be in favour of changing all or some of these major national symbols.
The reason for this is that these symbols are unsatisfactory to very many Australians. Many regard the presence of the Queen in our constitutional arrangements as unsatisfactory because an Australian should be able to aspire to office at the constitutional apex, and it should be a democratically selected position, not one based on right of birth.
For similar reasons, many do not like the fact that the Union Jack – the flag of Britain – takes up a quarter of the Australian flag. Perhaps there are fewer objectors to the flag that the Queen at the apex of the Constitution, and that if the Queen were replaced, they would more readily accept the place of the Union Jack on the flag as a statement of history rather than present allegiance.
The other national symbol which niggles at many is the national day – Australia Day. They argue that the day is the anniversary of the arrival of the British to the east coast of the Australian continent to establish the colony of New South Wales. That, from an Aboriginal perspective was the beginning of occupation. And from the perspective of the other states, it is not representative. But it does mark the day of profound change. Indeed, nearly all people who describe themselves as Aboriginal in Australia carry the genes of European people who arrived from 1788. But that is beside the point. It is an emotional matter, not a logical one.
For national symbols to be effective in their purpose, they must unify. They must make people feel confident, comfortable and good about their nation – while acknowledging (without dwelling on) its short-comings.
It is a sad fact that in Australia our national symbols are failing us. It is not a question of just a few odd people expressing disquiet. Such a large proportion are saying that the symbols fail in two critical areas: they are dismissive, if not insulting, to indigenous people and they ignore the huge demographic change since World War II that has resulted in the Queen and the Union Jack being irrelevant to so many Australians’ lives.
Even the most diehard supporters of keeping the monarchy, the flag and Australia Day, must recognise that a significant portion of their compatriots do not. And if patriotism is their aim, they must recognise that effective national symbols are critical to that.
Changes can be made without too much long-term acrimony. We have changed the national anthem. The debate about that continues, but at a lower level – not whether it should have been changed, but whether the choice of what we changed it to was the best option. Virtually no-one would like to see the restoration of the God Save the Queen as the national anthem of Australia these days.
Similarly, if the Queen were replaced by an Australian at the apex of the constitutional arrangement, after a short time virtually no-one would want a reversal. Virtually no-one in Canada would want to revert to the old Union Jack-based Canadian flag. And the same could be said about Australia’s national day being moved to a more representative and inclusive occasion.