WfaAR was keen to make a submission to this Inquiry of the Federal Parliament but due to absences overseas we were unable to by the closing date. However, we certainly have some views on these subjects of keen interest to republicans for many years. The Inquiry has such a wide-ranging brief and issued such a confusingly broad discussion paper on 12 September that it is likely to sink in a mire of conflicting beliefs and overload while probably producing little of use other than recording many opinions at odds with each other. The tenor and scope of submissions published thus far (45 of 120) underscores this view.
We believe that national identity cannot be fostered, particularly by government, and comes from without rather than within. It is impossible to appreciate or articulate your national identity until such time as you leave the country of your birth or adoption, eg for a trip overseas, particularly ones as isolated as Australia or New Zealand. People in both countries immediately understand their national characteristics and recognise familiar symbols, lexical items and accents as soon as they quit their shores. They also know what makes them the same and different from each other at the same time. Interestingly, people from particular States, Territories, regions, towns and cities, rural areas also immediately recognise symbols, sounds, sayings and the built environment of the places that they identify with (some would say that these identifiers are stronger than their identity as Australians and applies particularly to Queenslanders and Western Australians and/or “country people”).
Post-colonial, essentially British societies with British laws and institutions, are in an ever-evolving flux in developing a national identity as academic studies have shown. How Australians understood themselves in the 1950s, 1980s, 1990s and at the present differs greatly. Many do not like the changes and challenge them or hanker for a return to the past. We see this reflected in our political landscape. Very often outsiders understand the components of national identity and national myths, together with the reasons for them, more clearly than those who self-identify as belonging to a particular race, culture, nation or country.
We share common positive qualities with people from nations the world over but what particularly binds Australians is their love of their land. This is not the same for everyone. Our First Peoples belong to and respect the land from which they are born. They have a spiritual relationship with it. European Australians cherish the sunshine, the space, the beach and our achingly beautiful landscapes as the backdrop to their freedoms, ambitions and ability to survive harshness. More recent arrivals from non-European cultures seek safety and opportunity, often under the “protection” of the British crown and all that embodies. WfaAR strongly rejects any notion that “mateship” is a national characteristic let alone a defining one being so male in essence as to exclude the lived experience of more than 50 percent of the population. We rejected the inclusion of “mateship” in the 1999 draft Preamble that was removed before it went to referendum.
Our common language is English, not any English but English as spoken by Australians with our instantly recognisable accents; own syntax, expressions and lexical items. It is the language we use to express our unique humour. We should also acknowledge the uniqueness and complexity of our Indigenous languages. They should be heard more often, not just in NAIDOC Week, for they are a unique “sound of Australia”, a true marker of our national identity.
The concept of Australian citizenship is overrated and has been inappropriately high-jacked for political purposes since the 1990s. It provides us with an Australian passport for right of passage and the protection of the Australian Government overseas but that contract has not always been honoured by government in the last 20 years. It is also gives us the right to vote and to serve in the armed forces. However, the right to vote should be conferred upon any person who pays tax in Australia, as it is in New Zealand. Australian citizenship is not a “status” that is hard to achieve, nor is it deserving of any concept of sacred possession because anyone born in Australia is automatically an Australian citizen so it is easy to obtain by birthright. Members of all parliaments, not just the national one, should be able to hold dual citizenship as long as they take an oath of office to Australia (as they do now in the federal parliament if not taking an oath of allegiance to our Head of State, the Queen of England). Alternatively, the citizenship provisions for members of the national parliament set out in s44 of the Constitution should be scrapped as ithey have little practical effect and, currently, do not apply to State and Territory parliaments, nor to Local Government.
The act of nationhood, although buried under a heap of misleading questions in the discussion paper, was straightforward and executed on 1 January 1901. From there, we have grown as a nation although progress and social development and landmark progressive laws. While our international reputation and prestige was strongest pre WWII, it has slowly declined since under the direction of unimaginative and inward-looking, punitive national(ist) governments. At present, our reputation in the international arena is rock bottom as Australia is no longer seen as providing progressive leadership plus highly skilled and practical negotiators and drafters able to command respect from other countries across the board through shared philosophies and common humanity. We have, in fact, forfeited our place and reputation in this regard to New Zealand.
There are no problems with our institutions, only the behaviour and narrowness of the people in them, many appointed for political reasons or nepotism rather than representing equality over partisanship and vested interests. The standard of public appointments should be very high based on a broad concept of merit. It does not help that both federal and state governments are resisting and/or narrowing the operations of corruption bodies, restricting freedom of information and privacy laws. National security laws, internally, are being used to stifle debate and the need to know. People are now fully aware that resistence to corruption bodies by politicans is based on self-interest and protection of mates and (financial) sponsors. They also understand the role of money in the corruption of our body politic and how it exercises influence and access well beyond that which any unconnected individual could achieve.
We also understand that the next step in forging our national identity will be recognition of our First Peoples in the Constitution. That should fully honour the Uluru Statement, the most critical constitutional document in our history since Federation. Even if it does not, the date of the passing the Indigenous Recognition referendum will rank, along with the apology to the Stolen Generations of indigenous children, as among the most significant days in our nation’s history. Recognition of slavery, particularly that affecting South Sea Islanders, and how that has benefitted and continues to benefit those who practised it and their descendants should follow.
After that will come the Republic, the event that will bring all the disparate parts of our society together – for the first time – to create government by the people as a fully self-governing nation having severed constitutional ties with the United Kingston and having our own Head of State however selected. The vote in favour will enable us to establish “the Flag of a Federated Australia…..the great Republic of the Southern Seas” (attributed to Louisa Lawson from the lead article in first issue of the “Republican” 4 July 1887) and to fulfil our destiny as a modern, progressive, socially inclusive, free country unbound from the shackles of the Old World.
Our national identity will ultimately derive from the cultures of our First Peoples which they so generously share with all who live in this nation. They will eventually bequeath us the rich and unique cultural heritage that makes us creatures of this land, Australia – and we will willingly and generously accept their gift, wisdom and knowledge.
We commend the submissions made by Professor Clare Wright (No 7) and Dr Benjamin T Jones (17), both historians and credentialed republicans as well as the one lodged by newDemocracy (45). We note the significant number of submissions urging the full implementation of the Uluru Statement. Submissions to the Inquiry can be accessed on the link below:
