Watching the Bejing Olympics
it's sometimes difficult to
distinguish between the British
and Australian flags.

I feel that's it's time that we
had a distinct flag of our own.

For example, the Australian flag could
retain the Southern Cross but it could
be rotated at 65 degrees, and the big
star of the States enlarged two fold
could be moved in place of the Union Jack.
It would still be Australian and recognisable.

I noticed that in these Olympics for most
countries the athlete's uniforms reflect
the colours of their National Flags.
Australian colours are and always have been
green and gold.

That's another possibility. Perhaps our new
flag could be green and gold, with a dark
green background and gold stars.

I'd be interested to get some creative responses
regarding this topic.

Nah.

Goad 'em.

Bait 'em.

Confuse 'em.

Up the Union, Jack.

Only next step you could take is adopt a new flag entirely: White cross on a white background would be most appropriate if any alteration at all was to be approved.

Besides which, there is frequently an auditory aid accompanying the appearance of the flag: Advance Australia Fair.

You'd have to change that to white noise if you changed the flag.

Strange how some want us to keep our flag.
Talking of those who died for it.
Ignoring the fact it has been different flags.
And ignoring the fact changing the flag is nothing to do with Britain.
Change the flag please change it.
Change our anthem too.
I test my royalist brother with distant shots of the kiwi flag he often gets it wrong.

And no smart remarks about me having shown my colours, either, Foxy.

I may have just shown you yours, however!

Just by way of background information (as one cannot divorce one's parents) be advised:

My paternal grandfather was born in Australia.

My father was born in Australia.

I was born in Australia.

None of us were 'career' servicemen (not that that is to imply anything derogatory about career defence force personnel).

My grandfather had a four digit regimental number.

My father had a five digit (RAAF) regimental number.

I had a seven digit regimental number.

Between us we had 17 years service in the forces.

Yet not one of us served Australia for a single day.

The person we all served is the same one all Commonwealth Parliamentarians swear to serve to this day, a person identified in the Schedule to the Constitution. A Queen, a King, a Queen, respectively, in our particular cases.

Would I march under your flag? Not on my life!

A proposed future quick citizenship test for able-bodied males claiming to be Australian, to which all should reflexively be able to answer: What is/was your regimental number?

A good test? You bet your life.

Sexist? Not intentionally. Girls can get one too, if they wish. Just shouldn't be obliged to have one. Vivienne Bulwinkle would have had one.

PS for Belly: "Ignoring the fact it has been different flags."

Only different with respect to the background colour to the three stellar quadrants. It (the national ensign) started out red (the 'red duster'), changed to blue in 1953, I think. For a while both were used interchangeably. I suppose you could have a sporting ensign with a green background and yellow stars, if you really, really must. Under IOC rules it would still have to be the national ensign displayed at the Olympics.

But what is it they say? 'Blue and green should never be seen'

And mistaking the New Zealand flag for the Australian shouldn't get you shot, should it! Besides, have you asked the Kiwis at Bondi what they think?

All I am trying to do is get some
logical, creative, dialog going
here. This is not meant to be
any sort of an attack on
our past proud heritage.

We are no longer a British colony,
and our national identity should reflect
that in this day and age.

But, if you think we should remain
a colony, that's your choice, and
by all means keep the flag as it is
with the British thumb over it.

CONT'D

If we look at most past British colonies,
they've established their own identity
in their flags, for example, Canada, India,
Malaysia,to name a few.

I'm not suggesting that we change the flag
completely, just remove the British symbol.

Our National Anthem used to be, "God Save
The Queen." Today its, "Advance Australia
Fair." Isn't it time that we matched our
flag to our Anthem. Afterall, how can we
"Advance Australia Fair," if the British
symbol is still there?

Foxy

I'm with you 100%.

I always look, with envy, at the Canadian flag - there's no mistaking that inimitable design.

FG

I'm 5th gen white Australian, proud of my forebears who both fought in the major wars and contributed to this country, so I don't get your point about linking military service and retaining the Australian Flag as is.

I'd also like to point out that my father returned from fighting with an abhorrence of guns, a refusal to have anything to do with the RSL and a belief that Australia can do better than blindly follow the big boys. He would say that a unique flag that actually represents this country would be a good start.

Foxy, I don't have any problem with the ozzie flag being connected to our heritage by way of bearing the union jack.

I cannot get enthused about changing our flag unless it is to become the symbol of a whole new era of governance, that is predicated on sustainability thus taking us right away from the blithering absurdity of never-ending growthism.

Having a British component on our flag, to me, doesn't mean we are any lesser but is an indication of our past history.

All the same, maybe it is time we had a new distinctive flag. In fact, it doesn't have to be a new flag. The Southern Cross was hoisted over 150 years ago at the Eureka Stockade. This represented the resistance of Australian and foreign miners against oppression. A fitting flag for our nation.

I agree with Foxy, to an extent. We definitely need a new flag. A flag that represents us all. Not one that only represents the Anglo colonists. We aren't just an Anglo colony of Great Britain, we are much more that. Australia is made up of many cultures who ALL came here on a boat or a plane except the original peoples.
I am of Aboriginal descent. We have been here for 40,000 years. I would like to see some representation of Indigenous Australians on the flag. Perhaps the Aboriginal flag/colours, and the Torres Straight Islander flag/colours incorporated somehow. Also some multicultural symbol amongst this, so we can ALL relate to it and feel proud of a nation that includes us all.

Well said Fractelle!!

Foxy “difficult to distinguish between the British and Australian flags..”

Then it is a good job New Zealand do not figure more prominent among the Olympic luminaries.

To the Aussie v British flag, they are a lot different, the union jack representing a portion of the whole Australian flag, rather than the whole thing.

I am not a monarchist and nor am I a republican.

In terms of the ‘flag’ ask yourself this

If we were to change the flag, what difference would it actually make to your life.

Would you live longer?
Would you eat better?
Would you be a more humane or charitable person”
Would you be able to do greater things?

If you answered ‘yes’ to any of the above, then you might have a case to change it.

However, if you answered ‘no’, I guess the old adage applies

If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.

Dear Austin,

Thank You, and I fully agree
with your suggestion.
I've been thinking along the exact same lines.

Dear Cherry,

Thanks for your input.

What is logical and sensible is to have
our flag reflecting the image we see at night
above Australia as a symbol for us all.
That is the Southern Cross, and a few large stars.
Which gives unity to us all below the Ssouthern
Cross and people of all cultures can identify
with that.

The Indigenous people of Australia have been
under that Southern Cross for the past fourty
thousand years.

Dear Col,

"If it ain't broke don't fix it?" Perhaps a more apt
statement would be, "Is it still relevant to us today?"
This is not a question of fixing something that's not
broken. It is a question of relevance and National
Identity - we need to look to the future, not remain
in the past.

I agree with Ludwig, in that the flag shouldn't change unless we have some kind of new 'era' in Australia, without all this deceit and lying we have to put up with.

As Ludwig try to point out, we live under a British "ACT of the Australian Constitution" Why else are the Gov.Reps. sworn in by the Queen's representative? If we had our own Constitution, present Gov. would represent Foreign agents.
I reckon the Southern Cross mixed with Australian Aboriginal colours and design would do just fine!
Not to forget our own (not borrowed) Constitution put in place!

That Union Jack in the corner of our flag represents a very large piece of OUR history, and it is every bit as much OUR history as it is modern Britain's.

If people find our flag too similar to Britains, then it seems to me the better course is to tell the British to find a new flag. I don't intend giving up any part of my nations heritage to Britain or anyone else.

Think about it a little. Whilst Australia is no doubt more culturally diverse than modern Britain, the ancestry of many perhaps most Australians, is British. It makes no more sense for us to give up the Union Jack than for any one of us to give up our surname because we move house. As for relevance, if our ancestors aren't relevant to our flag, then what is? Of course not every Australian shares a British heritage, but that's why the Union Jack should only occupy a portion of the flag.

For me, seeing all those other countries with the Union Jack on their flag reminds me of how Australia shares considerable common history with many other countries. Far from making me cringe, it makes me proud to be linked by history, to so many other countries. I certainly am not concerned that nobody knows who we are. Concerns like that are for small countries clamouring for recognition. I don't feel Australia is one of those any more. Australia's position on the Olympic medal tally ought to show you that we have nothing to feel inadequate about.

I love my sun burnt country, pretty much the way it is, and while there are few things that do need changing, the flag isn't one of them!

Well Kalin, The Union Jack could be altered slightly while retaining some of the elements. The US flag has many references to the British flag and British colony flags in it's colours and colonial structure You could even take most of Union Jack away and you would be left with the red cross on white, which I think represents England proper, or the important central UK at least, anyway. I would also like to see some aboriginal recognition in such a new flag, even if it was a single colour introduced.

Please keep the ideas coming.

This is great.

Perhaps we can have a National competition on
the design of a new flag?

Mixing in the old heritages with the new, and
Aboriginal colours as well.

We could end up with something very Australian.

Watching the Australian Olympians I am very sure they are proud to display the recognised Australian flag at this time and they will cherish that moment forever. I am sure they would not want to fly another that has no history, meaning or heritage - not one of them would wear an unknown pseudo substitute.

Dear Foxy,
Thank you for that. Yes, that does make sense. It is true, we are all under the Southern Cross and those other stars. That symbol definitely includes us all. And thank you as well for the suggestion that Aboriginal colours could be included in a new design for the flag,with those beautiful stars.

Our Republican Flag must have part of our Colonial connection to Britain just as the United States still have the red, White and Blue of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Most Convicts were convicted for their Trade Union beliefs so the working people of Australia have to honour that. I admire the flag of the Eureka Stockade with the fight against the Red Coats. Green and Gold is not a bad uniform for our Sports Representative but not on our flag. Aboriginal recognition has to be included. It is about time the Labor Party requests ideas from the Public to have the flag ready before the referendum is called.

I think the referendum is a different issue. I for one do not support Australia becoming a Republic under a committee of fascists and socialists, who would imprint their authoritarian agenda and principles onto the New Republic

Dear Philo,

You're right, the Olympics are today,
but we're talking about the future.

Canada's sporting prowess hasn't suffered
as a result of the re-birth of their
National Flag and Canadians are even prouder
today then they were last century.

This thread is to discuss the idea of a
unique Australian flag which would unite us
all, under the Southern Cross.

Dear Cherry,

Thank you for liking my suggestion of the
Southern Cross. But it is only a suggestion.
Hopefully, a National Competition will
bring out even better ideas.

Dear Steel,

The type of Government that wins the day in this
country is elected by the majority. It's the
people's choice. You may not always approve of
the choice, but that's how a Democracy works.

How about something like the logo of Sustainable Population Australia as the main feature of our new flag?

People and environment in balance http://www.population.org.au/

Perhaps with the Southern Cross above it.

Foxy, you have mistaken Australia's political system and "democracy". At least 70% of Australians never wanted to invade Iraq, for example. Special interests carry more weight than the opinions of citizens. So it's simplistic and crude to describe the rule of the majority in this way. What use is Democracy if we live in a prison or a police state? Hitler was elected by a majority of the German population.

If a nation expects to be both ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be. - President Thomas Jefferson.

Foxy “It is a question of relevance and National
Identity - we need to look to the future, not remain
in the past.”

“Our national identity” is a result of being a collection of ex-British colonies, it is the identity which we are influenced every day by interaction with the “State” we live in.

Like Philo said “I am sure they would not want to fly another that has no history,”

Change for change sake is the favoured pursuit of the malcontent and inadequate.

It is simple to tear up the past and reinvent everything from day one.

Pol Pot founded a political tyranny on it, destroying the Cambodian heritage and no one would suggest he achieved much good at all.

But if we were to try another flag, based on ignoring and denying Australian history

We should ignore those who live here and satisfy the aspirations of those who are not even living here,

The next wave of detention refugees.

For them I would suggest a flag depicting

a dunny surrounded by razor wire

I am sure we can all find irony in that and no nasty "history" at all.

We can have a two sided flag.

Side One.

Strayan:

Mateship. Strayans are the only people who have true friends. It's uniquely Strayan! Like the special Aussie spirit that's better than any other country's..... Oi Oi Oi....... We're better at sport than you!

Side two.

Un-Australian:

Wogs.

:-)

Not sure how you'd present this accurately with symbols. Perhaps on the front a boxing kangaroo holding a can of VB with it's arm around the Bundy Bear. On the back some kind of 'We grew here you flew here' slogan.

With what bronco said, with all that colourful back grounds, you may as well change it to a rainbow and call it Greenpeace.

Leave the bloody thing alone! I you put every-one's involvement on to it, it will more resemble a pizza!

The flag is just fine the way it is, thank you foxy.

But thanks for thinking about it.

EVO

Scratch what I said above, a pizza flag it is. I could really go for that.. especially if its a Ham and Pineapple. Mmmmm.

Red represents the sacrifice to achieve our values
Blue represents the highest aspirations of a nation as the sky
White represents purity and honesty in justice for all people as white light incorporates all colours

The union jack represents the union of three crosses trom our heritage, language and culture
(Dinners ready more later)

we certainly do not live up to those principles as a nation.

What's all this about Union Jacks, Southern Cross and whatnot?

I thought this was the Aussie flag:

http://www.xoospace.com/myspace/graphics/16222.jpg

Nah Steven, it's only the Poms and tourists who drink Foster's.

Seriously, I don't see any point in changing the flaag until we grow up and become a republic.

CJ Morgan, Could you please outline exactly what you mean by the comment, "until we grow up and become a republic". What do you identify by national maturity? Also what type of republic

I saw an interesting concept awhile back and the new flag had every nation from around the world on it.

I think that shows the country we are.

EVO

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I maintain that as the Framers of the Constitution stated that the Union Jack would be used on all official occasions and so also God Save the Queen.
.
HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
END QUOTE
.
PERSONALLY I AM NEITHER A MONARCHIST OR A REPUBLICAN BUT DO TAKE THE VIEW THAT FOR FAR TOO LONG POLITICIANS HAVE STUFFED UP OUR RIGHTS.
.
If you want to really change something then lets do it in the appropriate manner. Not that pending who is in power and who is sitting at the bench of the Courts we get contemporary explanations which can change from day to day.
.
Like it or not being an Australian citizen is because you reside in the continent named Australia nothing to do with nationality!
.
See also my website and blog.

Oi, Oi, Oi, Onja Folks!

Thanks for all your interesting commentary
so far. Keep it coming, we're only just
beginning...

I hope that you all realise that the day we
become a Republic, and we will in the next
four to eight years. A new flag will be on
the agenda - no matter what anybody says on
this Forum. The only question will be - what
design will the Government of the day approve.

Anyway, I'll leave you all with these two
quotes:

"We must be the only country in the world that
marks its national day not by celebrating its
identity, but by questioning it."
Ken Boundy - Managing Director of the
Australian Tourist Commission.

and

"Australia began her political history as a
crouching serf kept in subjection by the whip
of a ruffian goaler, and her progress, so far,
consists merely in a change of masters.
Instead of a foreign slave-driver, she has a
foreign admiral; the loud-mouthed tyrant has
given place to the suave hireling in uniform;
but when the day comes to claim their independence
the new ruler will probably prove more dangerous
and more formidable than the old. 'Rather than
'the day we were tagged,' Australia's national day
should be December 3, the anniversary of the
Eureka Rebellion, "the day that Australia set her
teeth in the face of the British Lion.'"
- Bulletin, 21 Jan 1888.

Does anyone remember the referendum we had on changing the national anthem? We voted for 'Advance Australia Fair' OK we got the tune but they changed the words. It is not what I voted for!

For those of you that want a change of flag or a republic take note.

If you vote for a new flag or a republic, you may just get what the politicians decree. "We have a mandate from the people" they will say.

Do you really trust politicians to act in our best interests?

One advantage of becoming a republic is that we wouldn't have the appalling Charles as nominal head of state.

This would be my choice for a new flag:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/images/baggy_green_400.jpg

or maybe this:

http://www.midlandcycleclub.com/area/au/wa/midland.nsf/4cb5998bf89f17ce69256f3c001f9694/28f8546f373e49cfe9256f9a007968bb/$FILE/Bolshi31.jpg

But it'll probably be something that looks like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3f/Australian_Aboriginal_Flag.svg/750px-Australian_Aboriginal_Flag.svg.png

or this:

http://geoffreport.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/800px-flag_of_australia_with_aboriginal_flag_replacing_union_flagsvg.png

But you know what?

I don’t much care.

Probably indicative of a deep character flaw.

There are NO indigenous human spices to the Australian geography! Play with words as you will, but the bottom line is, THE WHOLE WORLD IS HERE! Again! The pizza flag rings out!

The image that I saw, was the hard working WOG community doing all the dirty stuff, while the convict imports still rule this as if its their there own. WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!

But the cost of changing the flag, well! I think you know about the maths.

This is a very good time to reflected! Don't you think?

EV

Dear Banjo,

The last Referendum for the Republic
was twisted to represent the views
of a conservative monarchist Government.

It was defeated. Even though over 70% of the
population wanted a Republic, but not under
the conditions of that Government.

I have every confidence in the will of the
people prevailing under just circumstances.

As for the National Anthem, the words may not
be quite to everybody's taste, but at least
we now have our own National Anthem and not
one borrowed from the British.

The first US flag was a red and white-striped
background with the Union Jack in the corner.
They took out the Union Jack and replaced it
with the many stars of the States. On our
Australian flag we have the Southern Cross
and one star representing the States. Take out
the Union Jack and move the one star to replace it.
If the US could do it a hundred years ago, why can't
we do the same today?

If you refer to any encyclopedia on "British Flags,"
you will note that our flag is a copy of the
British blue ensign used by British Public Servants
with the mere addition of a few stars. So are we
British Public Servants under the Southern Cross,
because that's the way our flag is represented?

Dear Steven,

I don't believe that you don't care.
Look at all the sites you've given.
As for a character flaw? We all have
them.

Dear Evo,

Thanks. And you're right. This is a good
time for reflection.

Philo: << Could you please outline exactly what you mean by the comment, "until we grow up and become a republic". What do you identify by national maturity? Also what type of republic >>

I guess it'll be the moment when sufficient Australians vote in a referendum to rewrite our Constitution such that it's not an Act of another country's parliament, which enthrones an hereditary monarch from the other side of the world as our Head of State. My guess it'll be around the time when Lizzy either carks it or is wheeled off to the Royal nursing home.

The mere prospect of having Prince Charles as our technical Head of State will be enough to sway sufficient voters, methinks :)

Foxy

Why not a comparison with Canada which is still a part of the British Commonwealth like Australia.

As recently as 1965 was the inauguration of the maple leaf flag that Canada had its own national flag. In the early days of Canadian Confederation the Union Jack was flown in British North America.

In his speech at the national flag inauguration ceremony, Prime Minister Lester Pearson said:

"Under this Flag may our youth find new inspiration for loyalty to Canada; for a patriotism based not on any mean or narrow nationalism, but on the deep and equal pride that all Canadians will feel for every part of this good land."

Australia could do that as well; unite ALL Australians, the original, the new, the enforced (convicts), the colonists (mostly Brits). All of us

Dear Fractelle,

Canada is a brilliant example.

And of course, Australia could follow
suit.

My idea for this thread was to simply
have people think about a flag
that would unite us all, one with
our own identity.

Still, it will ultimately be up to
Australia to decide what it wants to do.

But again, if Canada and others could do it,
why can't we?

Foxy

"But again, if Canada and others could do it,
why can't we?"

Every time there is an international event, but most particularly the Olympics, I ask myself the same question.

I would love a flag that is both instantly recognisable (like the Canadian) AND inclusive.

I also believe that we will have a representative flag eventually, just not so sure if it will be in my lifetime.

Please identify a universally accepted symbol / s of our history, aspirations, committment and culture. This is what a National flag represents.

The call for a total change in our form of government based in minimal links with Prince Charles is no reason for change. We have a very sucessfull balance of powers that has served us well. Any change must deal with the real issues - balance of powers in government. Please identify a better system. Current Governments ore eroding former existing powers

Dear Philo,

Please don't take offense, but
this thread is about ideas for
a new Australian flag. One that we
all could identify with.

It's not about our system of Government.
If you want to discuss that or
the question of a Republic,
start your own thread on that topic.

And if you like the flag the way it is
currently, that's your choice.

Dear Col Rouge,

I've just been scrawling through some of
the earlier posts on this thread and came
across yours - which I hadn't initially
read properly.

What on earth prompted you to come up
with, "the dunny surrounded with razor wire,"
as a flag for refugees coming to Australia?

For someone who supposedly espouses to "Higher
Ideals," and worships the Grand Dame herself,
Margaret Thatcher - that comment takes me
totally by surprise. It's so crass. So
low, so repulsive, so ungentlemanly.

Well, you learn something about people every
day. But that has taken me totally by surprise.
I may not have agreed with you in the past,
but you've completely gobsmacked me on this one.

I'm totally seeing you in a different light.
And it's not a very flattering one at all.

What the US did with its flag is not relevant to the Commonwealth of Australia as there are totally different legal positions.
The republican campaign was lost as so it should be and so every other referendum that is deceptive and misleading.
.
There is no constitutional powers to amend the Constitution to turn the Commonwealth into a republic, and if you lack any understanding about this then why not first educate yourself to what really is applicable.
.
Likewise, there is no constitutional power in the Constitution to amend the preamble.
The is no constitutional power either to naturalise any alien to become Australian citizen, only to subjects of the British Crown!
And on and on it goes.
Why would you want to amend the Constitution if you already fall for the garbage the politicians and the courts are showing down your throat?
.
Citizenship since federation remained to be a State legislative power and on 19 July 2006 the County Court of Victoria upheld this submission as it did with all other submissions I made regarding constitutional issues without any Attorney General and for that any other lawyers of the Crown (State/Federal) filing even a single piece of paper to make submissions to challenge these submissions I made.
.
The got you with hook, line and sinker following whatever they fed you of nonsense over the years well aware that in Court they are exposed.
.
Like it or not the so called Australian Flag or the so called Aboriginal flag are in my view utterly worthless as if you consider them to be applicable then any flag design I made can be as much applicable, at least constitutionally. Likewise with the anthem.
.
Either we have a Constitution or we don’t, and it is not that the Constitution stands for what you may make of it and for whatever anyone else desires to make from it.

You may not like certain parts of the Constitution but then if within constitutional powers the electors (not judges/politicians) can amend it and until then stick to what we have.

Whilst this is your topic Foxy, I think you're being a bit hard on Philo in suggesting his comments are out of place in this thread. I'll grant you they are tangential, but isn't that how we may obtain a fresh insight into, or a different perspective on, an issue?

It is all very well to call for ideas for a new flag, but in doing so there is an implicit putting of the cart before the horse.

A flag symbolises something, indeed maybe many things. To change, or propose to change it, is to indicate that the things it symbolises are no longer relevant, if in fact not positively repudiated, on the part of those proposing the change. By your own admission you see the existing flag as symbolising Australian links to the Crown, links which are intimately entwined with our whole system of governance. A change in the one implies or reflects a change in the other. No such change has been approved.

You happily discuss with Banjo the meaning and significance, in your view, of the 1999 Republic referenda outcome, but you rebuke Philo for relating the symbolism contained within the flag to prospective changes to a republican form of governance.
Yet it is not that Philo has posted off-topic beforehand: Philo offered information on what may be symbolised by the existing flag. Surely that's relevant to the discussion?

With respect to what you said to Banjo about 70% of electors wanting a republic, that is just not backed up by the two fully formal electoral results on record. The first, that held to determine the composition of the Constitutional Convention, was voluntary, and a clear majority of electors chose not to vote in it at all! It is reasonable to impute to those who did not vote therein a recognition that voting itself amounted to perticipation in a seditious enterprise. Your 70% was on its head, and in fact was in the opposite direction.

What's the idea? To say "We've already changed the flag: why not have a republic?"

Dear Forrest,

I in no way meant to be "hard" on Philo,
that's why I asked him not to take offense.
I simply did not want to get into a discussion
about the pros and cons of a Republic.

It's not a case of putting the cart before
the horse, we've discussed the Republic on
previous threads I didn't want this one
to be one of them. My intention was not to
look at what we have today, but look to the
future - regarding the design of a new flag.

However, after your post, and that of Mr Hvalka's
I'm beginning to realize that perhaps you're
right, perhaps the flag can't be separated from
the system of Government - and it was naive of
me to think it could be.

Foxy,
I agree with Forrest and neither Phillo or myself were not the first to mention a republic. Incidently the republic we voted on was the one the republican supporters wanted. There was no manipulation by the conservatives in fact some very prominant conservatives were republicans.

I mentioned the national anthem to illustrate the deceptiveness of politicians. We got the tune but not the original words.

Just because we may vote to change does not mean we get what we want.
That could well apply to a flag.

Banjo that is rubbish.

I am pro-Republic (under conditions), and the referendum -with it's "two-third majority of elected officials" - was unquestionably and deliberately designed to only offer one choice, when Australians wanted direct election of the head of state. This is a fact. This is precisely why I and others voted against it and taking away this choice from us is theft of our power as the Australian people.

Here's a cast-iron guarantee.

If we were to adopt a new flag:

20% would oppose it simply because they would prefer to retain the current flag, with all its symbols of the past.

20% would oppose it because it didn't incorporate the aboriginal red yellow and black design.

20% would oppose it because it did.

20% would oppose it because it was not green and gold

20% would oppose it because it was

20% would oppose it because it didn't show the southern cross

20% would oppose it because it did

20% would oppose it because it didn't incorporate the Eureka flag

20% would oppose it because it did... etc etc.

The maximum number you could satisfy will be one in five of the population

Dear Banjo,

This is simply a discussion on the
"idea" of a new flag. Whether we get
it or not is something that history
will determine in the future.

Take cricket for example, It was always white
uniforms. But today competing nations
and state teams have coloured uniforms despite
the fact that everybody insisted that "white"
was the true colour.

People don't want change. But change is an
inevitable constant in our society.

Pericles, that's 180%. Talk about an expanding population :)

Salute the Southern Cross!

Going back a bit, CJ don't faint, but I agreed with your comment, 'Seriously, I don't see any point in changing the flaag until we grow up and become a republic.' Imagine that, we shared an opinion.

Dear Pericles,

You forgot the 20% who won't have an
opinion...

Foxy,
I do not wish to change the focus of this thread but there is one aspect that needs clearing up.

The Peoples Constitutional Convention, held in Old Parliament House, was top heavy with republicans and it decided on the type of republic that we would vote on, by referendum. This is exactly what the republicans wanted. It did not require a two thirds majority to get this, nor did the referendum require a two thirds majority to get up.

It is now history that the people voted a resounding NO.

To say the people would have voted yes for a different proposal is pure speculation.

Funny how those that chose the game, and players, seek to blame the referee and/or rules when they loose.

Austin: << Going back a bit, CJ don't faint, but I agreed with your comment, 'Seriously, I don't see any point in changing the flaag until we grow up and become a republic.' Imagine that, we shared an opinion. >>

Now that I'm vertical again, let me just say that I appreciate you saying that. We probably agree on more real issues than either of us would care to admit :)

Here's to finding out how much.

Isn't the first steps, the most frighting of them all. This is were we all fail!

EVO

Dear Banjo,

You're right. No one can predict exactly
how people will vote, they can only
speculate. As we all know, polls are only
good for the time and place in which
they are taken.

Anyway, it's late, I'm tired,
so I'll say good-night.

Take care.

The Australian flag!, "too be kepted in the keeping"!, and with the up most to dates of thinking, "with the definition of its collective self's", sounds the NO_GO signs of the people that are not ready yet!

Anyone see the words of religion holding us back! I do.

EVO

Part 1 of 2
Those who pursue some republic should first comprehend what the Framers of the constitution stated as quoted in this post the the following post.
.
Hansard 31-3-1891
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
QUOTE
There must be some method, and we suggest that as a reasonable one. With respect to amendments of the constitution, it is proposed that a law to amend the constitution must be passed by an absolute majority of both the senate and the house of representatives; that, if that is done, the proposed amendment must be submitted for the opinion of the people of the states to be expressed in conventions elected for the purpose, and that then if the amendment is approved by a majority of the conventions in the states it shall become law, subject of course to the Queen's power of disallowance. Otherwise the constitution might be amended, and by a few words the commonwealth turned into a republic, which is no part of the scheme proposed by this bill.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
Mr. BARTON:
QUOTE
Our purposes of government may be national while we preserve the utmost loyalty to the monarch whom the constitution sets over us. As the hon. member, Sir George Grey, has expressed it, we have constituted the Queen a member, and the highest member, of our parliament. The association of the Queen with the action of the commonwealth is distinct, and is firmly embedded in the whole bill. If that is done, there can be no association of the idea of republicanism with this bill.
END QUOTE
.
As I stated previously, I challenged the Crown (both State and Commonwealth ) in court and they were defeated totally because they could not disprove the quotations I used as not being applicable.

We, the people, not lawyers/judges/politicians, are who have the power to amend the constitution itself not other parts which are not part of the Constitution. The flag, the preamble and the right of the Crown are not part
To be continued

Part 2 Continued from Part 1

of the Constitution and never can be amended, neither the right of any child born in the Commonwealth of Australia to its British nationality, as the Commonwealth never had constitutional powers to define/declare the nationality of a child born.
Check out the Constitution and you find it can “naturalize aliens” but there is no power to declare/define nationality of a child born in the Commonwealth
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
QUOTE
In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth-that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create under that Union. The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE
.
The Commonwealth of Australia is not a country but a “Political Union” as like the European Union!
.
As the Framers of the constitution made clear the constitution did not allow for a republic!

Foxy,

'Take cricket for example, It was always white
uniforms. But today competing nations
and state teams have coloured uniforms despite
the fact that everybody insisted that "white"
was the true colour.
'

Not in real cricket. Pyjama cricket is but an abomination, the clothes just being the start of the problem. It's akin to fast food.

Mr Hlavka,

Even the Queen stated that it was up to
the people of Australia to decide on
the question of the Republic. And at
the last Referendum they voted against
one. What the future holds - Australia
will decide. And if Australia does vote
for a Republic, there will be amendments
to the Constitution and possibly a new
flag.

You can argue all you want but many Australians
have expressed their desire for a Republic including
the following politicians: Kevin Rudd, Malcolm Turnbull,
Peter Costello, to mention just a few.

Which means that under their Prime Ministership
a Republic will be on the agenda.

Dear Usual Suspect,

Not in real cricket?

Then I suppose the revolutionary sleeveless
new uniform that was specifically designed
to turn heads for the ICC World Twenty/20
Tournament in South Africa doesn't count.

Even Rick Ponting praised the contemporary design,
"The ICC World Twenty/20 Tournament will involve
fast games with short recovery periods. This new
uniform has been specifically designed with the
players comfort and performance in mind."

The game of Twenty 20 cricket is powerful, fast
and exciting according to the experts. I don't think
your classification of "pyjama cricket," fits
in with their description of the game.

I'm agnostic on the topic of flags.

And I agree with Foxy that if we want a republic, a republic is what we will have. If we have to overthrow the Constitution in order to have one, then that's what we'll do.

Politely, of course.

But when it comes to cricket...

>>I suppose the revolutionary sleeveless new uniform that was specifically designed to turn heads for the ICC World Twenty/20 Tournament in South Africa doesn't count.<<

Foxy, the place to check out cricket "uniforms" is not Cape Town or Mumbai, but your local oval on a Saturday afternoon. There is where you find the backbone of the sport, and while folk continue to turn out there every summer weekend, cricket will stay alive.

These cricketers - women as well as men - wear whites.

Note the plural.

>>The game of Twenty 20 cricket is powerful, fast and exciting according to the experts.<<

Yes indeed, the pajama crowd will continue to experiment with increasingly dumbed-down versions of the game, whose popularity will wax and wane, requiring continuous "renewal" to keep the crowds coming through the turnstiles.

It is cricket.

Of course it is cricket.

In much the same way as "Pride and Prejudice" is a book, and "Where's Wally" is a book.

Foxy you'll find genuine cricket lovers think only of Test Cricket as genuine cricket, the pinacle of the game. The rest is as I say, comparable to fast food.

Ricky Ponting would praise the design when he's getting paid $450k for a months work. But the players are pretty close to unanimous in their opinion of Test Cricket as the premier form of the game.

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-06-26-players-in-favour-of-maintaining-status-test-cricket

'Eighty-six percent rated traditional Test cricket as the most important form, significantly ahead of the World Cup (ODI), while 98% wanted Test cricket to maintain its premier status.
'

Hell will freeze over before Test Cricket involves coloured uniforms. Much of it has to do with the Ball. The optimum lasting cricket ball uses a red dye, and is easiest to see where it hits a batsman wearing white clothes, and a bowler wearing white clothes provides the most adequate backdrop for the batsman to see the ball.

That and the fact that cricket is a sport for traditionalists, and the reason for ODI's and Twenty20 existing is because changing Test Cricket itself would be sacrilege. They exist for woman and kids to watch because they cant concerntrate for 5 days. Cricket for non-cricket lovers as it were.

Talk to Gideon Haigh or Peter Roebuck, Ian Chappell or Richie Benaud about what is real cricket.

Dear Pericles and Usual Suspect,

Ok, Guys, I stand corrected on cricket.

Now, let's talk about tennis...

Just kidding.

I'm obviously out of my depth on the
subject of cricket.

But books, well that's a different story.
"Pride and Prejudice," compared with
"Where's Wally?" Good analogy.
Point well made. And just the mention
of Benaud made me realize - what was I
thinking?

Mea culpa...

I'd like to Thank everyone for their
inputs into this discussion.

It's been interesting.

However, I do feel that it's probably
run its course.

For those of you who'd be interested in
getting a range of responses
google:

Do We Need a New Australian Flag?

There's quite a few websites to choose from,
including various flag designs.

Cheers.

Foxy,

You obviously do not comprehend how important a constitution is. A constitution is to keep politicians within certain limits as to protect the general public, and is for the good of the people.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be amended in any way that the Ministries of the
several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this provision for a
referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to occupy a few minutes in discussing it.

The Queen has no powers to override the constitution and as such it is not material what she stated as to a flag and anthem.
Neither is it relevant if the people want a republic because they are conned to vote for something they do not have a clue what they actually validly can vote for.

In my published books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series I have actually canvassed how one can validly get to a republic, but forget about ignoring the constitution as the moment you do so for your reasons politicians will be quick to use it to ignore your constitutional rights when it suits them.
WE EITHER HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T.

A republic without a constitution is a DICTATORSHIP!

As such be careful as to what you ask for because it may turn into a disaster!.

Mr Hlavka,

I fully realize the importance of a Constitution.
But that's not the point here - (what I think).
Australia will decide as to what amendments have to
be made if any, when (and if) it chooses to have
a Republic or not.

As I keep repeating over and over again. The topic
of this thread is ideas for the design of a new flag.
Should Australia want one in the future.

Anyway, I'm bowing out of this discussion because I'm
beginning to sound like a broken record.

Mr Gerrit Etc: << In my published books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series... >>

Speaking of broken records... Gerrit, did you have anything to do with the TV series as well?

I really like INSPECTOR-REX.

Foxy,

the surname is Schorel-Hlavka not Hlavka.
.
You do not seem to get it that the flag and the anthem are embedded in the Constitution and regardless what the Queen and/or politicians may other wise pretend it cannot be changed. Section 128 does not permit a referendum for this either.
.
Keep in mind that laws that are unconstitutionally enacted are of no legal value. I proved this in court when the court upheld on 19 July 2006 that the Commonwealth has no constitutional powers to force anyone to vote.
I am not against voting but I am against being unconstitutionally force to vote! And again the court upheld my rights in that regard.
.
Good luck on you if you can get around the constitution in a lawful manner but I for one do not see how you can do this unless you follow what I did already publish.

Dear Mr Gerrit Hendrick Schorel-Hlavka,

According to the following website:

http://www.peo.gov.au/students/cl/constitution.html

And I quote:

" The Australian Constitution can be changed
by referendum according to the rules set
out in Section 128 of the Constitution.

If a majority of people in a majority of
states and a majority of people across
the nation as a whole vote yes (called a
double majority), then the part of the
Constitution in question is changed. Otherwise
the Constitution remains unchanged.

Since 1906, when the first referendum was held,
Australia has had 19 referendums in which 44
separate questions to change the Australian
Constitution have been put to the people.
Only 8 changes have been agreed to. Covering
such topics as Senate elections, Aboriginals,
and the retirement of judges."

In other words only the Australian people can
amend it (by referendum).

I now politely request that you do me the courtesy
of considering this subject closed.

Foxy,

Like Pandora, you may well have figuratively owned the box, but once opened .....

The Constitution is something in which all Australians have a stake. It is not a subject upon which anyone can just close off discussion once discussion has been effectively invited.

I can understand that the words you have quoted from the website to which you have provided a link would appear to determine the matter as to the conditions required to be met for alteration of the Constitution. The problem is that they are not the words of Section 128 of the Constitution itself. And therein lies the problem.

That part of Section 128 that expresses what the linked website refers to as the "double majority" requirement for passage of a referendum question says something subtly different to what you have (quite faithfully) quoted. The words of Section 128 of the Constitution, with respect to the "double majority" provision, actually say:

"And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent."

And if you think there is no difference between the words of the Constitution itself and those rehashed on that government website, let me assure you that it seems you are not alone. It would seem that the failure to note the differences has gone right to the very top of the Australian Public Service. ( I deliberately disregard the entire elected political establishment's view in this respect, for it seems pretty apparent that for quite some time it hasn't had one.)

But the difference is very real. Electors VOTING!

For nigh on a century the public service has been pushing the erroneous view that those who may have voted informally at referendums somehow haven't voted. Even though it's a secret ballot and the informal voters cannot be identified! You have voted when your name is crossed off and you have been issued with a ballot paper.

Foxy,

I actually feel a little bit guilty that I failed to tie my previous comment back to your topic in relation to the flag. Trust me, it was due only to the word limit.

I also felt guilty about not being able to thank Gerrit, not so much for his opinions as given on OLO (for as we all know, talk is cheap), but for the research and work at his own expense that has clearly been behind them. For someone who's native language is unlikely to have been English to competently discourse upon Constitutional matters represents a commendable achievment. Pity his passion for Constitutional truth is not shared by greater numbers of Australians who in all likelihood will have had a longer familial history of benefit under the British heritage the Constitution represents and entrenches.

Gerrit effectively put out the challenge, that to even canvass the idea of changing the flag may be against the law, outside of such proposal being made under proper Parliamentary privilege in debate. (The point being that in such context, electoral retribution can be taken upon members pushing change that may be genuinely unpopular or Constitutionally improper.) I think that proposition is one we could all do well to dwell upon.

In his fourth post Gerrit says: "Check out the Constitution and you find it can “naturalize aliens” but there is no power to declare/define nationality of a child born in the Commonwealth". Indeed. Not only have I, as a native-born Australian been robbed of my true Constitutional status, but perhaps as many as a million British subjects, long permanently resident in Australia and prviously entitled to vote, have been stripped of their vote since 25 January 1984!

An illegal immigrant, properly lawyered-up at taxpayer's expense, can be voting within a couple of years after having taken out Australian citizenship. An English-speaking British subject originally from the UK, coming here legally thirty years ago, and having resided permanently in Australia ever since, is stripped of the vote!

I was wrong. I should have suggested the black flag!

Dear Forrest,

You and Mr Gerrit... are quite welcome to
discuss the pros and cons of the Constitution
to your hearts content.

Cheers.

Something I learned was that when you lack a proper skill in a language you more then likely will question the meaning of words more then those who have learned since birth. As such my lack of education in the English language is in fact a benefit to me, but not to those who have to read my crummy-English.
Still, in the end, the misconception surrounding Section 128 and for this also 123 is a clear example. Section 128 deals with what is under part 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution act 1900 which is the part of the Constitution and does not apply to the monarchy, the flag, etc.

Also, no federal referendum can cause the robbing of any State legislative powers unless first a State referendum approved of this. Say for example that all States other then Western Australia desired to give federal powers over all Western Australian uranium, steel and other mining industries. All states other then WA might vote in a referendum for this but the referendum itself would be unconstitutional if not first WA had held a State referendum to approve of this. The Framers of the Constitution made clear that unless the State concern first approved of it no federal referendum could otherwise rob the State of its legislative powers.

Section 123 actually applies to any reference of legislative powers within Subsection 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution. No State Parliament can give away legislative powers to the Commonwealth without approval by State electors.

With my crummy-English (and proud of it) I happen to comprehend the Constitution better then most if not all so highly educated constitutional and other lawyers!

The flag is part of the monarchy and no section in the Constitution provides legislative powers to change it. Neither is the purported Aboriginal flag of any constitutional standing.

“Citizenship” is not a legislative powers for the Commonwealth as in fact on 2-3-1898 the Framers of the Constitution specifically refused to give this power to the Commonwealth.

This post limit does not allow me to set out all relevant matters

Where is the constitutional powers for the High Court of Australia (Sue v Hill) to declare the Commonwealth of Australia to be an independent country? There was never such judicial power as if it had it could declare us to be a state of the USA by implication that we seem to follow whatever they dictate.

Are we next going to have that the High Court of Australia decides that all Aboriginals can de deported as non-citizens because since the 1967 con-jo0b referendum constitutionally Aboriginal lost citizenship rights?

Lets make it clear the High Court of Australia can make whatever declaration it wants but it does not mean that it will be constitutionally valid!
.
We have had judges who admitted to hand down judgment where they held the legislators failed to legislate so they did it for them. This in breach of the separation of powers.

Like it or not but constitutionally the Commonwealth of Australia is nothing more but a POLITICAL UNION which had certain specific legislative powers transferred from the colonies to the commonwealth and no more.

Being an Australian is because you reside in the continent of Australia! If for example New Zealanders were to join the federation they would not be Australians as they are not residing within the continent of Australia. Mexicans, Brazilians, etc are all Americans because they reside in a continent of South or Northern America! Europeans are because they reside in the Continent of Europe. A Brit is a European if residing in Europe. A Brit residing in the Commonwealth of Australia is an Australian. As such the Brit retains his nationality but is a citizen of a continent and can refer to this also. The constitution does not provide for an Australian nationality as it is not a country but a POLITICAL UNION.
The High Court has no constitutional powers to amend the Constitution! If you do not even know your identity then what are you on about a flag?

Dear Mr Gerrit...

Your last sentence, "If you do not even know your
identity then what are you on about a flag?"

Again, you've missed the point Sir.
We are seeking a common identity,
that's why we are "on" about a flag!

It seems you missed the point that we have a flag (constitutionally) being the Union Jack and there exist no constitutional powers to amend this either!
.
Either we have a Constitution or we don't.
.
The moment you accept to ignore what is constitutionally appropriate you play in the handsof politicians to abuse their powers more and more as they for one don't like constitutional constraint and soon would rob you of other rights also.
No use then to complain about what is constitutionally appropriate if you sanction politicians to ignore the Constitution when it suits you.
.
Uually a flag is to define independent nation, which the Commonwealth of Australia is not, and never was!
We are and remain under a British constitution and so by this under their flag and national anthem.
.

Dear Mr Gerrit,

This is not about what you or I think.
This is not about Australia's current status.
You Sir, keep repeating yourself.
This is about what Australia will decide
regarding her future. And that is something
you can't prevent from happening no matter
how much you protest.

We once had the National Anthem as, "God
Save the Queen." Today we have, "Advance
Australia Fair." We once had a British
male Governor General. Today we have an
Australian, a female.

The only constant in life is change.

You can carry on about the legalities of
the Constitution, but it won't change a
thing - if Australia votes for a Republic.

And that may not be a palatable fact to you,
but its not something that you (or I) will be
able to change.

Thank you for all your inputs into this thread.
I admire your tenacity and resolve.

Take care

You do not seem to get it.

What is however relevant is that I have rights under the current Constitution and anyone seeking to interfere with this better make sure to do it in a legal manner as permitted under the Constitution!
The moment you accept the mob rule to ignore what is constitutionally appropriate then forever will have the mob rule!

If however you desire to follow the legal path then accept that in regard of the Constitution there is no way within Section 128 to create a Constitution, amend the flag of the Union Jack or the national anthem.

Keep in mind that over a 5-year period the Crown litigated against me at huge cost and were defeated comprehensively by me. This, because I presented my submissions regarding constitutional matters backed up by records, including that we still have the Union Jack and t God save the Queen as our national identities.

If you are happy to pretend otherwise then that is your business but if you contemplate to rob me of my constitutional rights by way of mob rule to pretend to change the Constitution then you have another thing coming.

If you are willing to persist to ignore the rule of law as permissible by the Constitution then keep in mind that there are others willing to go along with you and they will ignore the rule of law and do whatever may suit them regardless then the harm to you, as you have squandered your constitutional rights.

Anyone who proposes to pursue a Republic must keep in mind that unless it is done in a proper legal manner it is a waste of time. Section 128 referendum is not the tool for it. My published books extensively have canvassed this and the post would not allow me to set this all out.

What benefits do you really seek to achieve with becoming a republic or a monarchy in any event? Is it some idiology without any reality as to the consequences?

Dear Mr Gerrit...,

Your argument is not with me, but with Australia.

And if you want to take Australia on, you're more
than welcome to do so in the future.