Individually they are positive developments but collectively they are unsettling, because we don't really know how to resolve them. The only official mechanisms we know are elections, referendums, plebiscites and the recent postal survey on same-sex marriage. They are cumbersome and demonstrate how messy democracy can be in trying to deal with issues such as national days, anthems, flags and awards.

Public opinion surveys can play a role. Recently public opinion polls reported on our attitudes towards whether January 26 is a suitable day for Australia Day, and whether Australia should become a republic. On both occasions only a minority supported change and opposed the status quo. But these debates will continue. The 2017 postal survey confirmed that a clear majority of Australians supported marriage equality. That then opened up the continuing debate about freedom of religion.

Arms-length bodies can play a role too, in awarding Australian honours and choosing Australians of the Year. These bodies are appointed by governments, made up of relatively anonymous mainstream figures, and left to get on with the job. But we know from current experience that this approach doesn't satisfy everyone by any means. It can mean decision-making in silos and a tin ear to community concerns. Still the Prime Minister claims they are decisions independent of government, meaning particular awards are not his business.

The distribution of Australian honours is highly controversial, to the extent that even the Governor-General has criticised the continuing lack of equality for women in the awards. Individual honours can also be contentious, none more so than the recent appointment as Companion in the Order of Australia (AC) to tennis great Margaret Court. Prominent Australians have returned their own awards in protest. Other debates surround the level of awards, the number of politicians given awards, and the matter of awards for "doing your job" compared to selfless community volunteers.

Australians of the Year regularly become controversial. Some, like AFL champion Adam Goodes, an advocate for Indigenous Australians, are controversial from the moment they are chosen, while others are uncontroversial until they begin to contribute to national debates. The 2021 Australian of the Year, Grace Tame, an advocate for survivors of sexual assault, immediately stepped into the Australia Day debate to advocate a change of date, and will routinely be fiercely criticised.

Party politics and representative democracy don't provide easy answers either. Party politics handles national identity issues awkwardly. Sometimes it takes numerous elections to settle such issues, like the national anthem and knights and dames, as conservatives like Malcolm Fraser and Tony Abbott mount a rearguard action against Labor changes by reversing previous decisions. Eventually reforms can settle down, but they are always vulnerable to an incoming government because they are not enshrined in the constitution.

Another process is executive action without consultation. Prime Ministers can take such executive action, as Abbott did over knights and dames and the awarding of a knighthood to Prince Philip. Scott Morrison has done the same with his small change to the national anthem from "young and free" to "one and free". The reception has been mixed, partly because it raised larger issues of substantive change, such as constitutional recognition for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

Another problem with party politics is that parties can be out of tune with the electorate, lagging behind community attitudes, when the advocates of change are too timid. This was the case with same-sex marriage. The culture wars surrounding national identity can scare off parliamentary advocates of change because they fear retribution from powerful lobby groups for minority interests.

The inevitable consequence of this situation is that the community finds its voice. Individuals and groups take issue with the government of the day, and increasingly that is happening. Corporations and sporting bodies led support for marriage equality, and are now doing the same on matters like Australia Day and the national anthem.

READ MORE:

Indigenous sporting icon Cathy Freeman rejected Scott Morrison's remarks that seemed to compare the experience of convicts with Indigenous Australians. The Black Lives Matter movement has led to many sporting codes, like the Big Bash League, supporting symbolic gestures like kneeling before games and not advertising Australia Day matches. When the Prime Minister intervened to defend the status quo, he was criticised by cricket authorities and leading Indigenous cricketers like Dan Christian.

The Australian Rugby Union introduced the national anthem sung in an Indigenous language before a Wallabies game to wide community acclaim, but also criticism of its impracticality as a long-term solution.

It seems like just about everything to do with national identity is up for grabs. Increasingly this uncertainty is widespread. Some reasonable alternatives are offered, including new days, new words and new titles.

One of the positives, as Grace Tame notes, is that the proposed changes won't cost us anything, at least not in a financial sense. They can't be shot down, as some other reforms are, by the need for economic recovery post-pandemic.

Every Australian has the right to have their say, including those who either actively support the status quo or are part of the anti-change brigade whatever the issue. The days of ruling some community voices out of order and leaving it to the government and opposition are long gone.

But we all need to consider not just the issues themselves but also the best processes to move us forward. The tools at our disposal, like elections and formal consultative processes, have proven to be ill-fitted to national identity issues.