Tuesday, January 26, 2010 9:05 PM
Dear Senator
All of your reasons for maintaining the status quo are valid, but I disagree with you. Symbolism is everything, and the symbolism of the union jack on the Australian flag reflects a specific culture's control over that flag's country at the time of its creation (in this case, 1905 or thereabouts).
Australia in 1905 is not Australia now. Australia in 1788 is not Australia now. Australia in 5000BC is not Australia now.
I had a grandfather in Palestine (WWI) and another in Tobruk (WWII) as well as an uncle in Vietnam (a regular, not a conscript - not knocking the conscripts at all). None had an attachment to the Australian flag as it stands. The first two resented that they were there as second-class British subjects (and they say their comrades were almost unviersal in that view - especially Brian, my WWII grandfather).
My uncle could never understand that in every major study on the Indo-China conflict, the Australian effort is given very short shrift. "Australians died under this flag" ... complete tripe, in his view.
That's not to say that we change the flag every time we fancy it, but it does say that we ought to find a symbol that reflects as much as what we are about now as we can, and if we can do it in a minimalist way that does not marginalise any group of people, then we ought to do that. Every 100 years in the current modern world is hardly 'radical' and 'loony left' thinking.
I'll give you an example, (and I will avoid mention of the original inhabitants of the land as an argument that is too easy to win) : roughly 30% of all immigrants between 1788 and 1890 were Irish, Catholic, and from the part of the island that despised (and eventually overthrew) its British rulers. How does the current flag with the union jack in placde, remotely represent these people?
Add in this continent's original inhabitants; the Chinese Diggers; the islander Kanaka community in Qld; plus the multiple influxes of post-WWII Eastern and Central Europeans and Italians, Greeks, then the Vietnamese, now the Chinese and Sri Lankans ... you get the drift.
If we were choosing a flag now that satisfied the criteria above, what odds do you think you'd need to get the union jack on there? I'd say nil, and it would be dishonest to suggest otherwise.
There is a time to revisit a nation's flag:
South Africa's was achieved in a almost revolutionary context which Australia is unlikely to experience;
The USA were originally a British colony who fought for self determination and who created a flag that doesn't at all reflect that British influence (in 1777); Canada changed its flag to its current highly original design without the sky falling, and they have arguably the most recognisable flag of all; etc etc. Australia are lumped in with true British current and former colonies such as New Zealand, Tuvalu, Fiji, British Columbia ... every single 'other' country that flew the union jack has since discarded it. It would be difficult to argue that the main driver was its anachronism.
Your arguments around the similarities between the Dutch and French flag are not relevant to this discussion at all - the two countries are very close neighbours and share a common heritage and history going back 1500 years. The same argument you make make to fritter way the Australia / New Zealand flag similarities! Your logic here is not consistent at all.
So, Senator, change for change's sake? Taking just the tip of the argument above, it is clearly not "change for change's sake".
Further, if you represent a specific group of people, and that group of people are primarily white Anglo Celtic Queenslanders (me included - though now resident in the 'smoke') you basicaly DO NOT represents the views of the country at large, or anything near it. Happy for you to make your points and also this acknowledgement, but now that you are a senior opposition front bencher (and I hope this continues, by the way) the nation probably expects a little more circumspection, and a little less "Cartoon Barnaby".
You are entitled to your opinions, and I respect that these opinions are broadcast for your voting audience, but don't undermine the genuine contribution you could actually make. As a CNP man you will never be PM and will never have th eresponsibility of running the country as leader of a ruliong party (and this is an important point) but you do have a responsibility to this country to be balanced and thoughful in your comments and press releases.
The NATS need contemporary thinking to stay relevant, not outdated Bruce-Ruxton-type platitudes about the flag.
You would be surprised how many of the apparent 'enemy' are looking to you for a genuinely clever and well-informd alternative voice.
Best regards
SWS Johnson