Housing Minister Clare O’Neil has declined to categorically rule out debate over changing Australia’s national flag at this week’s Australian Labor Party National Conference, after an influential union called for the removal of the Union Jack from the nation’s flag.

The issue emerged ahead of Labor’s National Conference in Adelaide after the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) included a proposal in its policy blueprint urging Australia to remove what it described as colonial symbols from public life, including the Union Jack featured in the upper-left corner of the Australian flag.

Appearing on Channel Seven’s Sunrise, Ms O’Neil repeatedly attempted to steer discussion away from the proposal, saying her focus remained on housing affordability rather than symbolic constitutional debates.

“I’m the Housing Minister. I spend my time thinking about the housing crisis,” she said.

Pressed repeatedly on whether she supported removing the Union Jack, Ms O’Neil eventually replied that her personal position was “no”, while declining to speculate on what might be discussed during Labor’s conference.

She also stated that changing the Australian flag had “never been contemplated” by the government, while insisting Labor’s priorities remained focused on cost-of-living pressures, home ownership and housing supply rather than constitutional symbolism.

The comments came after the AMWU released a policy document calling for Australia to distance itself from what it described as enduring symbols of colonial rule.

The proposal argues that Australia should remove “constant reminders of the old ruling class and colonial empire”, stating that symbols such as the Union Jack and colonial-era statues should no longer occupy prominent places in Australian public life.

The proposal forms part of a broader package of recommendations promoting stronger recognition of Indigenous Australians alongside a range of progressive economic reforms.

Although the AMWU has significant influence inside the Labor movement, proposals submitted to the National Conference are debated by delegates and do not automatically become government policy.

Labor’s National Conference serves as the party’s highest policy-making forum, bringing together federal and state parliamentarians, affiliated unions and party members to debate policy directions for the coming three years.

The conference frequently considers proposals that ultimately are amended, rejected or adopted only in part.

Opposition politicians were quick to criticise the proposal, arguing that Australians are more concerned about inflation, housing affordability and household finances than redesigning the national flag.

Nationals Senate leader Bridget McKenzie said Australia’s flag represents both the country’s British constitutional heritage and its uniquely Australian identity through the Southern Cross and Commonwealth Star.

She argued Australia’s democratic institutions and parliamentary traditions were closely linked to its British foundations and said the proposal sent the wrong message about Australia’s history.

Independent MP Dai Le also rejected calls to alter the flag, describing it as a national symbol that represents opportunity, migration and shared citizenship for millions of Australians from diverse backgrounds.

Supporters of the AMWU proposal argue the presence of the Union Jack continues to reflect Australia’s colonial past and fails to fully recognise Indigenous history or Australia’s increasingly multicultural identity.

Critics counter that the existing flag reflects Australia’s constitutional development and honours generations of Australians who have served under it during conflicts, humanitarian missions and national emergencies.

Debate over the Australian flag is far from new.

Since Federation in 1901, Australia’s national flag has prominently featured the Union Jack alongside the Southern Cross and the Commonwealth Star. Calls for redesign have periodically emerged over several decades, particularly from republic advocates and organisations seeking greater symbolic separation from Britain’s colonial legacy.

Despite those recurring campaigns, no Australian government has initiated a formal process to replace the national flag.

Changing Australia’s national flag would almost certainly require extensive public consultation and would likely become one of the country’s most closely watched constitutional debates.

While there is no constitutional requirement for a referendum solely to change the flag, previous governments have indicated that any significant alteration to one of Australia’s most recognisable national symbols should involve broad public support.

The current debate also reflects wider discussions about Australia’s evolving national identity.

Questions surrounding Indigenous recognition, the Voice referendum, Australia’s relationship with the Crown and ongoing republican discussions have all contributed to renewed interest in national symbols over recent years.

However, polling over many years has generally suggested Australians remain divided on whether the national flag should change, with support varying depending on question wording and political circumstances.

The latest debate arrives as Labor prepares for its 50th National Conference, where delegates are expected to discuss a broad range of issues including housing affordability, artificial intelligence, industrial relations, climate policy, economic reform and Indigenous affairs.

Party insiders have consistently indicated that cost-of-living pressures, housing and productivity are expected to dominate conference discussions rather than symbolic issues such as the national flag.

Ms O’Neil repeatedly reinforced that message during her television interview.

She argued Australians were focused on practical concerns including paying rent, buying a first home, reducing homelessness and managing household bills.

“That’s what Australians are talking about around their kitchen tables,” she said.

Whether the AMWU’s proposal ultimately reaches the conference floor or gains significant delegate support remains uncertain.

Even if debated, any conference resolution would represent the Labor Party’s internal policy position rather than an immediate commitment by the Albanese government to pursue legislative or constitutional change.

For now, the government continues to insist that altering Australia’s national flag has not been part of its governing agenda.

Nevertheless, the exchange has highlighted how questions surrounding Australia’s identity, history and constitutional symbols remain capable of generating significant political debate, even as governments continue to emphasise more immediate economic priorities.