The Albanese government has refused to rule out removing the Union Jack from the Australian flag after one of Labor’s most powerful union affiliates labelled it a symbol of ‘oppression’.
The Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) has called for the Union Jack to be stripped from the national flag as part of its campaign to remove colonial images from public life.
The proposal appears in the organisation’s Union Blueprint for Action, released ahead of Labor’s national conference in Adelaide this week.
Under a section titled ‘Solidarity with First Nations Peoples’, it urges the party to eliminate ‘symbols of oppression’, including the Union Jack and so-called ‘offensive colonial statues’.
The proposal led to a tense exchange on Sunrise on Wednesday, with host Nat Barr pressing Housing Minister Clare O’Neil on whether she supported removing the Union Jack from the Australian flag.
Instead of giving a direct answer, O’Neil repeatedly shifted the focus to Labor’s legislative agenda.
‘Nat, sorry, it’s not something that I’ve had a moment to think about,’ O’Neil said in one response.
‘I’m telling you, as Housing Minister, I don’t spend my time thinking about the national flag.
Clare O’Neil (left) was grilled by Nat Barr (right) over the AMWU’s proposal suggesting the Union Jack be removed from the Australian flag
The AMWU said in its proposal that the Union Jack is a symbol of ‘oppression’
‘I spend my time thinking about the fact that we’ve got home ownership rates plummeting through the floor for young people, and our government is making really major steps to address that situation.’
Barr asked several times whether Labor would reject the proposal if it came before the party conference.
She then suggested the government’s refusal to directly reject the proposal gave the impression it remained under consideration.
‘This feels like the Albanese government is not ruling out a change in the flag this morning,’ Barr said.
‘That literally has never been contemplated, Nat,’ O’Neil said.
However, the minister again stopped short of expressly declaring the proposal was not government policy before offering her personal opinion.
‘My personal view is no, Nat, but I’m not going to get into a debate about that,’ O’Neil said.
‘The government’s focused on the things that people at home are caring about.’
Ms Le (pictured) said the proposal was unbelievable and called the flag an ‘important symbol’
Nationals Senate leader Bridget McKenzie defended the existing flag, arguing it reflected Australia’s democratic traditions and British heritage.
‘We should be very proud of our British heritage,’ McKenzie said.
‘If it wasn’t for our British heritage, we wouldn’t be in a parliamentary democracy where our constitution guarantees that the people can throw Clare and [me] out, or vote us in according to the job we do.’
Speaking later to the Daily Mail, Senator McKenzie doubled down on her stance.
‘Australians are sick of being told they should be ashamed of our British heritage,’ she said on Wednesday.
‘It is the basis of our free and fair society, our democracy and the very language we speak. These are the very reasons people from around the world want to come to Australia.
‘[It is a] sad state of affairs when a party of government, the Labor party, is ashamed of our heritage. The irony is the [British] gave us trade unions too.’
Independent MP Dai Le, who arrived in Australia as a refugee from Vietnam, condemned the proposal as ‘unbelievable’, saying the national flag represented hope, opportunity and a second chance for many migrant families.
Le said the flag held deep personal significance for her and countless refugees and migrants who had built new lives in Australia.
‘It’s a flag that welcomed me and my family, and for families here in Fowler there are many refugees and migrants who have come here,’ she told Sunrise.
‘It’s a flag that represents a country that has given them a second chance. So it’s a very important symbol.’
Le, who famously wore a dress made from the Australian flag during her maiden speech after being elected in 2022, argued the debate was disconnected from the everyday concerns of Australians struggling with rising living costs.
