Talk:Flag of Australia/Archive 1

Archive created by A Y  Arktos 10:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of things that I would change about this article, which I find to be partisan. Wikipedians ought to be mindful that this article is about the flag of someone else's country. A totally disspassionate approach is called for.

My comments are in square brackets.

HEADING: History

The flag was proclaimed by the monarch in 1904 after a design competition.

[Couldn't we hear more about this unique design competition? When Australian schoolkids celebrate Australian National Flag Day this is one of the key things they learn about. Also the date 1904 is wrong - the King made his decision in 1902. On 20 February 1903 the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. 8 published a copy of the proclamation which notified Australians that King Edward VII had approved design for the Flag of Australia. Source: http://www.australianflag.org.au/concepts.php]

This flag was mainly intended for naval use. Throughout the first fifty years of Federation, the Union Flag was widely used, as was the "Red Ensign" (the same design with a red background), as the unofficial national flag. On 14th April 1954 the "Blue Ensign" flag became the official Australian flag, though it was not until well into the 1960's that the national flag usurped the Union Flag completely in public consciousness. The blue ensign design was adopted over the red ensign design due to the fact that red was the symbol of communism and the rise of anti-communist feelings in Australia at the time.

[Introducing the Flags Bill into parliament, Prime Minister Bob Menzies explanied that: "The bill is very largely a formal measure which puts into legislative form what has become almost the established practice in Australia." House of Representatives, 20 November 1953.

The red ensign was always intended for use by merchant ships - the theory that it was skiped over for selection as the Australian flag because of its 'communist' connotations is wild and woolly indeed. The only way we would know for sure if Bob Menzies really had this in mind is to find a document, in his own handwriting, held at a public record office in Australia where he explains that he 'changed' the colour of Australia's flag because of his hatred of communism. No such document or cabinet record has ever been found; Wikipedia insults Australians by repeating what some of them could see as an outrageous, baseless claim.

Also, research by the Australian National Flag Association has shown that the blue ensign was being extensively used prior to the passage of the Flags Act: Government buildings; Olympic games (since 1904); flown from the bow of all Royal Australian Navy ships and from the mainmast as a 'battle flag' during combat (since 1911, see Banjo Patterson's poem 'We're all Australians now'); saluting flag of the army (since 1911, source: Australian Army Military Orders: M.O.135); the great Australian explorer Douglas Mawson used the blue ensign to claim the Australian Antartic Territory in the name of King George V and the Australian Commonwealth on Christmas Day 1912.

The Flags Act did not result in the blue Australian flag being flown anywhere it wasn't already being flown or displayed in any circumstances it wasn't already being displayed. What it did do in practice was require the 'Australian national flag' to be flown in the 'prime' position in Australia. The days of the British empire as one integrated national unit were gone.

If Wikipedia was fair dinkum it would have a little section on the history of Australian National Flag Day as well. See here: http://www.australianflag.org.au/flagday.php]

HEADING: Arguments against flag change

[One of the key arguments for keeping the exisiting Australian flag is missing from here - that abandoning the existing design would be an insult to the country's 102,000 war dead. See here: http://www.australianflag.org.au/anzactradition.php

I find it strange that this argument dosen't feature here. It is possibly the most compelling and convincing argument AGAINST change there is.]

HEADING: Progress of the debate

No official proposal has ever been legislated to precipitate a change in the status quo. Defenders of the flag have in the past supported its addition to the Constitution, to no avail. In 1996, however, the Howard government passed an amendment to the Flags Act so that the national flag could not be changed except by means of public referendum, angering some proponents of change. Some however have questioned the constitutional validity of this legislation, since it involves Parliament acting to bind its own legislative power.

It seems certain that the flag debate will not be resolved before the question of an Australian republic is settled. It remains a low priority for most Australians.

[If Wikipedia must go into details about the criticism leveled at the Flags Amendment Act (1998) then the following criticisms should also be mentioned:

(1) Australia extends the franchise to a significant number of British subjects who are not Australian citizens. Some supporters of flag change strongly resisted attempts to prohibit flag change other than by a referendum for this reason.

(2) Some proponents of flag change point to the Canadian example, where the Canadian parliament enacted that country's flag without taking a vote on the issue. (The parliamentary committee that examined the flag issue in Canada specifically rejected a resolution calling for the issue to be put to a referendum.)

It is important to note that supporters of flag change leveled both technical as well as the above 'in-principle' criticisms at the Howard government's decision to put the future of the Australian flag in the hands of the Australian people.]

HEADING: Flag trivia

[Wikipedia could also point out that the Australian flag is the only national flag that flies, or has ever flown, over an entire continent. Indeed, until the independence of New Guinea in 1975, Australia's flag flew from the south pole to the equator.]


 * As far as this point goes, this is more about Australian geography/geopolitics than the flag itself, so I wouldn't be putting that in this particular article.Lacrimosus 03:22, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I think you'll find that the majority of this article was in fact created by Australians. Certainly I'm one. I think your points are largely valid, and encourage you to be bold and make the relevant edits yourself. But note that matters of the flag's historical development (eg. red vs. blue ensigns, the exact requirements & nature of the design competition) are typically disputed between proponents and opponents of change. Be careful, therefore, to cite the views of ANFA, a partisan organisation, as such. There is an excellent, non-partisan volume on the history of the Australian flag, The Australian Flag - Colonial Relic or Contemporary Icon?, by Carol A. Foley, that I will be checking out to read again as it contains much useful information. Lacrimosus 03:22, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Foley's book is a rare and thoughful analysis of the 'flag debate' but it has been shown to contain many errors. For instance she thinks that a green and gold flag would be unique and distinctive, yet many more nations than she apparently knew about at the time use these colours in their flags.

---

I'd question whether ANFA are a partisan organisation. They have something like 20,000 members across Australia (including Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, and parliamentarian and former republican leader Malclom Turnbull) and they have organised public celebrations of Australian National Flag Day at public places since 1984. Indeed, the official Flag Day is their baby.

Australia's official flag of state, the centenary flag, was devised by ANFA and presented to the Prime Minister. http://www.australianflag.org.au/centenaryflag.php. In 2002 the Federal education ministry gave every Australian elementary school a copy of ANFA's Australian flag video, which I understand has now been officially incorporated into the 'Discovering Democracy' civics program.

There are also far more militant 'keep-the-flag' orgainsations in Australia, such as the Australian Flag Society. www.flagsociety.org.au.

I'd call ANFA an 'educational charity' these days.

I know really hard-core supporters of flag change won't appreciate me saying this, but it does seem to me that recent historical discoveries have fairly comprehensively routed some of the more damaging claims put forward by the Ausflag organisation over the lasy 20 years.


 * Appreciated. It's still necessary to cite ANFA's views as belonging to it, and Ausflag's views as belonging to it, and let readers make up their own minds as to their credibility (Cite sources). ANFA, having a stated ideological position opposed to flag change, has a theoretical bias towards presenting the flag in a certain light (exactly of course, as Ausflag has in the opposite direction). Lacrimosus 04:02, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

The flag on the Flag of Canada page is a lot more accurate than the flag on the Flag of Australia page.

The colour of the Australian flag is wrong - so are the stars.

Regarding arguments to keep the flag, a lot of folks think the argument that the Australian flag looks too much like the New Zealand flag is not a strong enough reason to change. There are an awful lot of look alike flags in this world, go and look up the flags of Indonesia and Poland and see.

If the people of Poland and Indonesia have similar flags and do nothing about it then that is their problem - it doesn't mean that Australians have to do the same thing.


 * And a lot of folks who do. I think you're missing the point here: Wikipedia reports arguments and discussions, it doesn't make judgements on their validity. With no false modesty, I think this is a reasonable entry on the subject. If you want improvements in it, I encourage you to add them yourself. Lacrimosus 08:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Somebody with more skill as a writer than me could try to add this to the article.

I went to quite a bit of trouble doing research about Australia's centenary flag of state but somebody keeps on deleting what I have wrote. The first time that the centenary flag was flown was not at Hyde Park in London. That was the first time it was used to represent Australia overseas as our official flag of state.

The head of state was present on that occasion.

recent deletions
While I don't get on that well with the person/people who originally contributed this information, I wonder whether it was necessary to completely remove: Unless there are objections, I'll add something about the Centenary flag, but I'd like some suggestions on how to word the historical significance bit. JPD 15:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * the paragraph on the Centenary Flag. The flag definitely started as a political stunt, but that's not a reason not to report its use. Maybe in the history section - it's at least as relevant as John Anderson's proposals about flagburning.
 * the argument against flag change about the flag's historical significance because it was the flag Australia grew up under etc. The wording was a bit corny, but it does seem to be the most successful argument for keeping the flag, or at the very least, the reason people are attached to it.

Proposed Changes
Is this important? Why not include it?

"Federal Parliament passed a resolution on the 2 June 1904 to fly the flag 'upon all forts, vessels, saluting places and public buildings of the Commonwealth upon all occasions when flags are used' giving it the same status as the Union Jack in the UK."

Instead of this:

"The new flag came into use slowly and was often flown alongside the Union Flag. In 1908 it was used to represent Australian athletes at the London Olympics, and by 1911 it was also used as the saluting flag for the Army."

I would use this form of words:

"The new flag came slowly into use: in 1908 it was used to represent Australian athletes at the London Olympics, and by 1911 it was also used as the saluting flag for the Army. As a member nation of the British Empire, Australia retained the Union Jack as the flag for use on official occasions." (This comes from the teachers notes of an Australian flag video put out by the Australan government: http://www.curriculum.edu.au/democracy/download/natflag.pdf)


 * The Union Flag was not simply "retained for use" - it was flown alongside the Red and Blue Ensigns in practically all occasions of significance and oftentimes would supersede them in prominence. Australians flew the Union Flag not only because they considered themselves members of the Empire in a political sense, but culturally and ideologically they viewed themselves as being British.

Well - that's apparently not what school kids in Australia are being taught anyway.

"On 14 February 1954, Elizabeth II gave the royal assent to the Flags Act (Cwth, 1953). This the first piece of Australian legislation to receive the monarch's assent in person, timed to coincide with the Queen's visit to the country. Section 3 of the Act officially confirmed the Commonwealth blue ensign (first flown on 3 September 1901) as the Australian national flag."

I propose something a little bit more grand:

"On 14 February 1954 Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II gave Royal Assent to the Flags Act (Cwth, 1953). This was an historic occasion of some importance in that it was the first Australian legislation to which a reigning sovereign had ever assented in Australia.


 * The current wording already says this, only more succintly. Why does it have to be more grand?  The aim is simply to give a factual overview, not a historical pageant.

Well then - what about this from the eureka flag article:

"According to the Ballarat Times, at "about eleven o'clock the 'Southern Cross' was hoisted, and its maiden appearance was a fascinating object to behold. The flag is silk, blue ground with large silver cross; no device or arms, but all exceedingly chaste and natural."

That's rather colourful. From what I recall the Ballarat times was very pro what the miners were trying to achieve.

Why not put this into the Australian flag article?

"As Lady Hopetoun entered, a huge Blue Ensign with the prize design of the Southern Cross and a six pointed star thereon was run up to the top of the flagstaff on the dome and breaking, streamed out on the heavy south-westerly breeze, a brave and inspiring picture." (Age, 04/09/1901)

Well - we should at least mention that the Flags Act was the frst legislation to receive the Monarch's personal assent. And we should call the Queen "Her Majesty" because it is polite.


 * Please read my comment above, and the article text. The current article already mentions that it was the first such piece of legislation.  And we don't call her Her Majesty because encyclopedias have an obligation to be factual, not polite.  Slac  speak up!  02:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Current text: On 14 February 1954, Elizabeth II gave the royal assent to the Flags Act (Cwth, 1953). This the first piece of Australian legislation to receive the monarch's assent in person, timed to coincide with the Queen's visit to the country. Section 3 of the Act officially confirmed the Commonwealth blue ensign (first flown on 3 September 1901) as the Australian national flag.

Section 3 of the Act officially confirmed the "blue ensign" (first flown on 3 September, 1901) as the Australian National Flag. Then Prime Minister Robert Menzies explained that the Act was "very largely a formal measure which puts into legislative form what has become almost the established practice in Australia".


 * Menzies' assesment of the Act is disputed: flag change advocates typically allege that the Act was in fact designed to remove the Red Ensign from public use, given that Red was no longer such a laudable colour on the international scene. "First flown" is accurate, but also slightly misleading: it was a long time after September 1901 - probably not up until the 1950's - that the Blue Ensign was thought of as the primary Australian flag in the popular imagination.

(The Queen is the ruler of 16 countries and Her Majesty is the right title I would think.)


 * It's simply not good encyclopedic style to include stylings like this in articles and it has now been generally agreed by editors that they will not appear, except in separate style boxes within biographical articles only. Slac  speak up!  22:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"In 2002, the leader of the National Party of Australia, John Anderson proposed to introduce laws banning desecration of the Australian flag, a call which attracted support from some parliamentarians both in his own party and the senior coalition partner, the Liberal Party of Australia. However, the Prime Minister, John Howard, rejected the calls, stating that "...in the end I guess it's part of the sort of free speech code that we have in this country." [1], and no legislation banning flag desecration was put to Parliament."

Why not leave this out? it was not the first time this legislation has been proposed - won't be the last.

If wipedia must cover the "Great Australian flag debate"
 * And it must.

then how will we deal with the fact the Ausflag organsation specfically does not want the Eureka flag and a lot of nationalists do? We must deal wth ths issue if we deal with the debate at all.


 * We mention that some flag change advocates want the Eureka flag, but Ausflag does not. Simple.

Even if the Centenary flag - Australia's ceremonial flag of state - started as a politcal stunt wikipedia must deal with it like Australians who come into contact with it: respectfully and seriously.


 * I hate to say it, but the Centenary Flag is an order of magnitude more obscure than the flag debate itself to the Australian people. As a person interested in vexillogical affairs, I can't even remember a single news article or press report in relation to the Centenary Flag.  Even government information on it (and remember, the government should be treated with caution just like any other source, especially when it has a vested interest in emphasising the importance of the flag and other national symbols) is hardly prominent.  Regardless of whether it's a stunt or not, the fact remains that in the court of public opinion it's about as significant as the many forgotten alternative flag designs that languish after their one brief outing. Wikipedia should treat everything seriously, but nothing with deference - ie. "without fear or favour".  Slac  speak up!  22:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I propose a separate secton for the Centenary flag and we fill it in with information out of the "Australian national flag" brochure put out by the Australian government which has a section about the country's offcial flag of state - recognised by warrant of the Governor-General.


 * Forking the article is probably not a good idea: perhaps there could be a page on "Australian national flags" which covers all the Ensigns etc, and information on the Centenary Flag (no more than a paragraph) could be included there. Again, an extensive reliance on government sources when dealing with this sort of thing is undesirable. Simply put, the government has a vested interest in presenting a certain type of information and we should make the effort to find other views and materials as well.  In the case of the Centenary Flag these are severely limited.  Slac  speak up!  22:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The ensigns already have a pages of their own. As you say, the Centenary Flag doesn't deserve more than a paragraph, and since it really is just one flag which is a slightly modified national flag, it probably belongs on this page. I agree with you completely on the lack of significance in the public opinion, but disagree with the implication that Wikipedia should only describe things that have such significance. I also agree with you about relying on government sources in general, but since in this case the only topic to report is the status the government gives a particular flag, it is hard to see why government sources aren't sufficient. JPD 10:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing the content of this page remain stable. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.88.184 (talk &bull; contribs) 19:33, 18 August 2005.


 * Given the design of Wikipedia, this desire I'm afraid isn't going to be fulfilled. I invite you to compare how much a popular article such as George W. Bush changes on a daily basis.  Slac  speak up!  22:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Why would somebody remove this "keep the flag" argument?

"The flag is signifcant for emotional reasons and because of tradition. It has been the flag that Australia has grown up under and the flag that has been associated with all of her achievements on the internatonal scene."

Frankly it is the main argument - it strikes a chord with people.

i have heard pro-flag activists on the TV news use exactly this form of words - it's an argument they are mounting right or wrong. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.229.220.47 (talk &bull; contribs) 11:56, 18 August 2005.


 * Because (a) it's redundant - the existing points cover it quite clearly, and the one it replaced said essentially the same thing; (b) it's vague: what are "emotive and traditional reasons" and how exactly are they distinct from the reasons already given? (c) its phrasing is a bit coloured - the whole article needs a neutral reworking. It's better to report views as the newsreader rather than the interviewee; and (d) what proof can be offered the the flag is associated with "her" achievements anyway?  Is the point that the UK or the USA only got to where they are today because they had good-looking flag?  Slac  speak up!  22:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Most of these words come from offcial sources i note.

no "proof" is required - the bald fact is that it is an argument advanced by the pro flag movement. See here: http://www.flagsociety.org.au/Society.htm

We should be blind to the fact that this argument has been successful in convincing many thousands of Australians there is no need to change their flag.

That is why the pro flag will keep saying it indefinately.

"The flag is signifcant for emotional reasons and because of tradition. It has been the flag that Australia has grown up under and the flag that has been associated with all of her achievements on the internatonal scene."

i say again: it would be strange to leave the main argument for keeping the flag out.


 * I don't believe these points have addressed the objections I've placed above. Do you suggest that it's better to phrase a claim in emotional, coloured terms or in neutral language?  Can you state exactly why you think the existing text doesn't adequately reflect the anti-change arguments?  Slac  speak up!  02:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I hear pro-flag activists literally say: "The flag is signifcant for emotional reasons and because of tradition. It has been the flag that Australia has grown up under and the flag that has been associated with all of her achievements on the internatonal scene."

It is literally one of ther arguments and the one I seem to hear the most.

That's why we should cover it - no "proof" is required.


 * Can you state why we have to use those words, and not a neutral rendition? Would you be happy if a flag change activist said "The flag is an outdated relic of colonial oppression and a shame and disgrace to Australia" and the same was put into the article verbatim?  Slac  speak up!  22:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Because many Australian people when they think about the flag debate are of the opinion they want to keep the existing flag because they would miss it if it was gone. They do not like the thought of life without the old "stars and jack" after all these years, some of them who have joined patriotic groups opposed to change obviously can't imagine the thought at all. It is a widespread feeling in Australia but I can't find a corresponding argument in the flag debate section of the article.

I just feel that this form of words best encapulates this feeling, this argument for the status quo.

That and the fact that it is literally one of the arguments I hear these people advance. On Flag Day 2002 I heard a young bloke use this exact statement word for word to defend the flag on WIN TV news in Canberra.

Could i be so bold as to say that the Ausflag organisation has had some of its assertions routed in recent times? i.e. some of their theories have been disproved.

All the kids in Australian schools are being taught their country's flag dates from 1901 for example. Australian National Flag Day is widely celebrated especally in the elementary schools.

Folks are even going to parks and raising flag on the day. it all leaves a sour taste in the mouths of republicans but it is in fact what is happening.


 * I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what part of the article this remark is in reference to, and I'm not precisely sure what course of action you're suggesting. If you're stating that the article should seek to debunk or disfavour Ausflag claims but not ANFA ones, then I'm afraid that would be exhibiting rather egregious bias.  Slac  speak up!  02:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

For example - there is absolutely no evidence that Australia's flag had its colour "changed" in 1953 let alone because of the communist issue. This informaton should never appear in the history section of the article. See the image on this page: www.australianflag.org.au


 * I will not respond to your comments and concerns unless you can show that you've actually read and processed the article. The article does not mention anything like what you are referring to.  On the discussion on this page about the Flags Act 1954 - by the way, it'd be handy if you could try to keep responses close to the points they're responding to - you will notice that what I said was: Menzies' assesment of the Act is disputed: flag change advocates typically allege that the Act was in fact designed to remove the Red Ensign from public use.  I reiterate, to arbitrarily dismiss any viewpoint that doesn't coincide with your own historical views is displaying a serious and unacceptable bias.  Slac  speak up!  22:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

There are other Ausflag claims that don't stack up - have been destroyed. A "neutral rewording" of the article can only be achieved if the text comes from Australian government sources.


 * Please take note of the two comments I have already made regarding government sources and their reliability. An official source is not a neutral one - do you think that only the Chinese government should be allowed to be sourced for a biography on Mao Zedong?  Please also note even though you think what Ausflag says is wrong, that doesn't mean that it can be removed from the article or dismissed.  Slac  speak up!  22:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Republicans have to understand that not everything that comes out of their republican mouths is gospel.


 * Please don't be disingenous. Nobody (I hope) is suggesting that this article be rewritten as a propaganda piece.  One point I would make is to think for a second: as a person who obviously has strong opinions on the flag and the flag debate, would you agree with everything that you read in the article?  If you do, it's probably a good indication that the article possesses a bias that you're not picking up.  Slac  speak up!  22:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

No. i am an academic seriously trying to advance the view that some of Ausflag's assertions have been routed. Ausflag Limited is just a private company with a website: Australian people don't hold a lot of the views Ausflag espouses.

A lot of Australians think the Union Jack should be taken out of their country's flag but Ausflag's attempt at revisionist history is just that.

Wikipedia should accept the fact that the Australian government has established certain facts about the Australian flag and its origin and history.


 * Some government organs have presented certain views about it, certainly. These viewpoints should be reported, as viewpoints, not conclusively demonstrated facts.  Slac  speak up!  01:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Australian schoolchildren and being taught these facts in very large numbers if you can see what i am trying to get at.


 * As an academic I am sure you understand the need to present various different scholarly and popular views accurately when subjecting them to analysis. Wikipedia stops at this step: it doesn't subject them to analysis in order to argue a single definitive interpretation. Slac  speak up!  01:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I see the Ausflag entity having two debates: over the Australian flag design and over its origin and history. Australian people have only joined in the former debate.

If bet if a dissdent group of 50 citzens in the US was trying to revise the history of old glory wikipedia would not give them the time of day.

For an example of the dangers of listening to Ausflag see here: http://www.flagsociety.org.au/Henry-Reynolds.htm This claim also appeared in some of the early Ausflag literature as well! Even the FIAV affiliated Flag Society of Australia which includes many Ausflag sympathisers and even a board member has now conclusively said: "The evidence is clear - there were no official conditions placed on entry to the 1901 flag design competition."

Australians have the right to ask questions of organisations writing things about their country's flag. I wouldn't write anything about the American flag for example without paying the people who own and are represented by it the respect of consulting many sources.

In rewriting this article Wikipedia should turn the page on some of what Ausflag has to say.

i agree that ths fact is important:

"Federal Parliament passed a resolution on the 2 June 1904 to fly the flag 'upon all forts, vessels, saluting places and public buildings of the Commonwealth upon all occasions when flags are used' giving it the same status as the Union Jack in the UK."


 * Can you explain why it is important? Slac  speak up!  22:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

it is an early authorisaton relating to the Australian flag. A natonalist MP succeded in having the resolution agreed to in the Australian parliament. From that time forward the country's distinguishing flag enjoyed the same status as the Union Jack had in the UK. This was the effect of the resolution or so i am told.

Of course as schools kids in Australia are taught on Flag Day the Union Jack was retained for use on ceremonial occasons relating to Empire. The article already covers this to my satisfaction.

if nobody objects i will put this information back into the article for the third time.


 * I do object, and we're obviously not reaching each other on my earlier point that a government source does not necessarily constitute a definitive one (children are taught a great many things in school, but I'd be surprised if you thought that everything taught to children in school either in the past or in the present day was an incontrovertible fact).  To me this edit could potentially advance the view that Australians thought only of the Blue/Red Ensign as "their" flag, when in fact they also thought of the Union Flag equally as being "their" flag - proudly so. As you yourself admit, the Australian Flag within Australia was not treated identically to the Union flag within the UK, since this country used two different flags to represent their nation on the one hand and the British Empire on the other, whereas in the UK it was the same single flag.  Slac  speak up!  01:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the blue ensign/Australian flag. it would be strange to omit the fact that it was granted the same status as the UK flag had Britain in 1904. The passage of that resolution resulted in the blue ensign being flown in places where it was not already being flown so this information must be included if you don't mind. The resolution sent real flags up real poles in other words. Can you see what i am saying? The authorities started treating the flag differently from that time forward. The British flag was for Australia a bit like what the EU flag is for Britain. Australia's situation between 1 January 1901 and 2 June 1904 is exactly like the British people having to fly the EU flag on its own over their public buildings in their own domain.

We must record how early Australian nationalists brought this situation to a head.

As you say the red/blue ensigns both symbolse the same thing - the Commonwealth of Australia - they are just employed for different purposes. This caused confusion as the article says.

Why not a separate paragraph on the UK flag? Among other things we could point out that it is still proudly and widely used in Australia today on Anzac Day. We'd have to decide how much do we want to write about the pommy flag in an article on Australia's.

Why not mention that Union Jack flyers have legal protection in Australia while we are at it?

If the article is reworded then i say this part stays no matter what:

"In 1996, the Governor-General of Australia, Sir William Deane, issued a proclamation from Government House, Canberra establishing 3 September in every year as Australian National Flag Day, to commemorate the day in 1901 on which the Australian National Flag was first flown (Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S321, 28 August 1996)."

Does ths make sense?:

"This the first piece of Australian legislation to receive the monarch's assent in person, timed to coincide with the Queen's visit to the country."


 * What problem do you have with it? Slac speak up!  22:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the problem i have with it is that readers need to understand that the Queen signing the Flags Act herself was and is considered an historic occasion of some importance. One of the mints in Australia even turned out a piece of memrobilla last year to mark the 50th anniversary of the Queen doing this thing. it is a beautiful collectable - it is on my wall.

i think i liked the original wording better.


 * You did mention that :). You're quite right that it was a significant event to Australians at the time and there was a fortune's worth of memorabilia produced.  But "of some importance" is an ambiguous weasel word - why not something like "a significant and celebrated event at the time?" Slac  speak up!  01:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Barraclough, Flags of the World (1971), pp.235

'It was not until the passing of the Flags Act, 1953, that legislative effect was given to the use of the Blue Ensign. When the Bill was being drafted, the question of the shade of the blue color was raised. After due consideration, it was decided to adopt the shade of royal blue. Australians are indeed very proud of the fact that H.M. Queen Elizabeth II gave her personal assent to the Act on February 15th 1954, during her visit to Canberra, the Federal capital. This was an historic occasion of some importance in that it was the first Australian legislation to which a reigning sovereign had ever assented in Australia.'