A proposal by one of Australia’s largest manufacturing unions to remove the Union Jack from the national flag has reignited a long-running debate over national identity, colonial history and Australia’s constitutional future as delegates prepare to gather for the Australian Labor Party’s National Conference in Adelaide.

The Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) has called on Labor to support removing what it describes as “symbols of oppression”, including the Union Jack on Australia’s national flag and a range of colonial-era monuments and statues. The proposal forms part of the union’s broader Union Blueprint for Action, which outlines policy priorities delegates hope will influence Labor’s future platform.

According to the AMWU, modern Australia should acknowledge the legacy of colonisation by removing symbols that many Indigenous Australians associate with dispossession and historical injustice.

The union argues that while contemporary Australians are not personally responsible for events that occurred during colonisation, governments have a responsibility to address institutions and symbols that continue to reflect that history.

Its policy platform states that Australia should remove “constant reminders” of colonial oppression as part of a broader commitment to reconciliation and national renewal.

The proposal is expected to be discussed during Labor’s National Conference, the party’s highest policy-making forum where affiliated unions and party delegates debate motions covering economic, social and constitutional issues.

Although conference resolutions can shape Labor’s long-term policy direction, they do not automatically become government policy.

Any change to Australia’s national flag would require a separate political process and would almost certainly involve extensive public consultation, with many constitutional experts arguing that such a significant national symbol should ultimately be decided by the Australian people.

The proposal has nevertheless generated immediate political controversy.

Opposition politicians accused sections of the union movement of focusing on symbolic cultural issues while Australians continue to grapple with housing affordability, inflation and cost-of-living pressures.

Several Coalition figures argued the current flag represents Australia’s democratic traditions, military history and constitutional development rather than oppression.

Critics said removing the Union Jack would erase an important part of the nation’s historical identity.

The Albanese Government has sought to distance itself from the proposal.

Housing Minister Clare O’Neil was repeatedly questioned during television interviews about whether she supported removing the Union Jack from the flag.

After initially declining to engage with the hypothetical policy debate, she later said she did not support changing the flag and emphasised that the government’s priority remained addressing housing and cost-of-living issues rather than constitutional symbolism.

The proposal is only one element of the AMWU’s wider policy agenda.

The union’s blueprint also advocates wealth and inheritance taxes, expanded public investment, increased revenue from gas exports, stronger manufacturing policies, greater support for apprenticeships, universal access to essential public services and recognition of Palestinian statehood.

Union leaders describe the document as a long-term working-class reform agenda rather than a collection of short-term election commitments.

The debate over Australia’s national flag is not new.

The current design was first flown in 1901 following Federation and formally proclaimed in 1903. It combines the Union Jack, representing Australia’s historical constitutional links with Britain, with the Commonwealth Star and the Southern Cross constellation.

Supporters argue the flag reflects Australia’s democratic institutions, parliamentary traditions and military history, including the service of generations of Australians who fought under it during conflicts such as the First and Second World Wars.

Others contend the continued presence of the Union Jack no longer reflects Australia’s multicultural identity or the experiences of First Nations peoples.

For decades, republicans and some Indigenous advocates have argued Australia should eventually adopt a flag that more clearly represents the country’s independent national identity.

Previous debates have produced a range of alternative flag designs, but public support for changing the national flag has historically been mixed.

Opinion polling over many years has generally shown Australians divided on the issue, with support often varying according to age, political affiliation and views on Australia becoming a republic.

Recent reader polling published by some Australian media organisations following the AMWU proposal suggested a majority of respondents opposed removing the Union Jack, although such polls are not scientifically representative of the broader population.

Constitutional experts note that unlike constitutional amendments, changing Australia’s national flag does not legally require a referendum because the flag is established through legislation rather than the Constitution itself.

However, previous governments have indicated that any significant alteration to such an important national symbol would likely require a broad public mandate before proceeding.

The issue has therefore often been treated as one of political legitimacy rather than strict constitutional necessity.

The timing of the proposal is politically significant.

Labor’s National Conference serves as the party’s principal forum for determining long-term policy positions, with affiliated trade unions holding substantial voting influence alongside party delegates.

While governments are not bound to implement every conference resolution, debates held during the conference frequently attract national attention because they reveal the range of policy ideas circulating within the broader Labor movement.

The latest proposal also illustrates the diversity of views within Labor’s affiliated union movement.

Some unions have prioritised symbolic issues relating to reconciliation and national identity alongside traditional workplace concerns, while others have focused more heavily on wages, industrial relations and manufacturing policy.

That diversity often produces robust internal debate during national conferences before the government determines its own legislative priorities.

For supporters of the AMWU proposal, removing colonial symbols would represent an important step towards acknowledging Australia’s history and strengthening national reconciliation.

Opponents argue that preserving the existing flag respects Australia’s constitutional heritage and the sacrifices of previous generations while avoiding divisive cultural debates.

The Albanese Government has, at least for now, indicated that changing the national flag is not part of its policy agenda.

Nevertheless, the AMWU motion ensures that Australia’s national identity, colonial legacy and the symbolism of the Union Jack will once again feature prominently in public debate as Labor delegates gather to consider the future direction of the party and the broader labour movement.