The creation of a new flag may well be the first step to re-commence constitutional renewal, something that sadly seems to have been avoided altogether by the Albanese Government.
The Australian Flag is not mentioned in the Australian Constitution at all. To develop a new flag is entirely up the people and, of course, the federal Parliament. The origin of the existing flag is based on the prior colonial relationship of Australia to the British Crown. It makes sense that the renewed process of constitutional change starts with changing the Australian flag.
The existing flag is described in the 1953 Flags Act, section 3. That flag, and also other new flags for the state and territories, is chosen by a simple majority of all the electors voting. The Albanese Government could address this situation by now showing its awareness of the need to address this issue should it be re-elected. The deafening silence about the need for constitutional change altogether reveals the ALP’s system of conservatism which was recently also revealed by Electoral Reform plans following the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters aiming to strengthen the major parties in future federal elections.
That report is expected to be coloured by the views of Senator Don Farrell who has earlier indicated that he would endeavour to strengthen the position of the major parties and the two-party system. This erroneous approach would not assist Australia to strengthen its democracy at all, to the contrary. However, the attitude of Albanese has altogether been to not rock the boat as much as possible. The result of this has been to make the two major parties more alike in order to win the election. Not only has the environment been the loser here, but constitutional and system change has simply not been attempted at all. Australia can only hope that, should the ALP narrowly win the election, this attitude will disappear. There are progressive ALP ministers who could, really should, take over the leadership of the party. However, for the moment the political system in Australia is caught in a vicious circle. Electoral reforms that would strengthen the two-party system and damage smaller parties and independents in any way would be an error. In contrast, system renewal would be welcomed widely. Major electoral reform is needed to achieve that.
What is being contemplated here is not unlike other Anglo systems in this respect. Both in the UK and in the US major problems exist largely as a result of their electoral systems, all based on single member district electoral systems. The outcome of the recent national election in the US and the UK demonstrates this quite convincingly.
The election of the Labour Party in Britain suggests very much that the proportional system is now quite suddenly widely supported. Strong campaigns have been mounted in recent years by mostly Labour Party sympathisers but now that a Labour Government has been elected on the current system, conservatives have come on board as well. The reason for that is that the huge Labour majority gained in the House of Commons does not at all reflect the actual total votes cast for that party. As one observer commented:
“The UK’s 2024 general election was the least proportional of modern times. Labour’s substantial parliamentary majority rested on the smallest ever winning party vote share. The Conservatives, meanwhile, suffered one of their worst ever results.”
In the US, the two-party system is also the result of single member districts used in almost all states resulting overall in a two-party system. In almost all states, as in Britain, the simplistic “first past the post” rule governs in these districts, a further anti-democratic feature. The US has now managed to come up with a president and many Americans are wondering how this could have happened. As the four-year term proceeds, questions about that electoral system are likely to be discussed more seriously than in the past.
However, the enormous difficulties to amend Australia’s colonial Constitution are not an issue when it comes to changing the flag. A way to overcome these difficulties resulted in the Australia Act 1986, granting Australia legal independence from the United Kingdom by removing the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to legislate for Australia and its states and territories. A similar Act was passed by the UK Government at the same time. No mention of the flag then either. The Act was meant to ensure Australia’s independence from the UK, something that was apparently practically impossible in other ways.
It seems to me that the creation of a flag that represents the existing multicultural population, as well as the Indigenous people, would be welcomed by most Australians. It is also something that the government can even plan for right now and thereby show its awareness that the policies of constitutional change indeed are still very much part of its policy program. When the Australian people will again have the opportunity to prepare for a vote on a flag constitutional change is likely to follow much more readily than in the past. Such a flag needs to say that by its design and colours. This is why an example, used earlier, in attached to this article.
Such a flag needs to represent Australia and its desirable future fully and not be encumbered with prior colonial ties. One would think that, apart from a small older portion of the population perhaps, Australians would welcome a new flag now. The ALP would be wise to at least prepare for such a campaign should it be re-elected, if not earlier. This, in itself, would also facilitate resumption of the question of the Republic and a new Republican Constitution.
I attach my own proposal for a new flag dating back to the previous attempt.
Klaas Woldring is a retired A/Prof of Southern Cross University and was active in the ALP in the 1980s, when he twice stood for the federal seat of Richmond, based on Lismore.