On the monarchy and the flag

The British monarch cannot do for us what Mary Robinson, the head of state of Ireland during the 1990s, did for her country. Robinson, much admired on the world stage, came to symbolise and stand for Ireland internationally, and she was able to lobby other heads of state on Ireland's behalf. She could support Ireland's stances in world affairs and advance its business and trade interests.

The Governor-General, as a mere representative, could not do the same for Australia even if he or she were given a role on the international stage. The position lacks international clout.

Sure, emotional attachments to the Crown remain strong here. The joy at the wedding of William and Kate attested to it, as did the reaction to the birth of Prince George. Many women, in particular, seem to adore monarchy, as has been shown by the images on TV lately of Princess Mary of Denmark (and Tasmania!) at the Sydney Opera House and in the Blue Mountains. New Idea and the Women's Weekly reflect and keep alive the flames of royalist adoration.

So what should we do? We need to wait until the Queen departs the scene, at which point the causes of the republic and a new flag will rise again. The simplest and best way to redesign the flag would be simply to remove the Union Jack: it would be left with the Southern Cross, which looks over the Great South Land to which all Australians belong, as the unifying element. Such a flag would convey a central reality about what we are. It would be 'of' all of us. And a link to the past would be retained, because the Southern Cross has always been on the flag.

No other flag design which has been put forward has got close to capturing the national imagination. And New Zealand bids fair to adopt the Silver Fern as the emblem on its flag, so there will be no more confusion.

And the head of state? Nobody, surely, doubts that in due course we will cut our constitutional ties with the monarchy and have an Australian in the position of head of state in his or her own right, not merely as a representative of somebody of higher status. All that is uncertain is the timing and the means by which we will get there. The change will not mean that we will leave the Commonwealth or be excluded from the Commonwealth Games, or that British kings and queens will not visit us and be warmly welcomed when they do. Why would we not welcome the head of state of the United Kingdom? We are no longer British and we should not appear to be ruled by Britain, but we are still a close ally.

Our national identity will be better served by the arrangements described here, and the practical benefits of making the changes should not be under-estimated. And we will still be able to dominate the Commonwealth Games while New Idea and the Women's Weekly continue to lead the royalist commentary!