Was it a decision that recognises the importance of Australia's Aboriginal history, or an insignificant gesture that shifts the conversation away from meaningful change?
Changing just one word in the national anthem - from "young and free" to "one and free" - drew mixed responses from Tasmania's Aboriginal community leaders, and clearly reflected the two schools of thought on reconciliation.
One sees importance in symbolic gestures, believing that removing "young" from Australia's national anthem takes away the colonial pretence that our country started when Europeans stepped ashore. It follows that changing Australia Day and the flag could be the next priorities to create national symbols that reflect our society as a whole, provided they have support from the wider public.
But do symbolic changes then flow into real-world policy? The other side of the debate would say, hardly.
After the historic Uluru Statement from the Heart was heartily dismissed by former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, any talk of genuine Aboriginal self-determination again vanished from the national conversation.
That was the opportunity for Aboriginal community leaders from across Australia to clearly articulate a vision to set in stone their rights to determine their own future - and it went well beyond symbolic gestures. As a result, these ideas were deemed too difficult to achieve.
It means we end up with policies like the NT intervention and the cashless welfare card that are imposed on Aboriginal communities from above.
Study after study indicates that we are either failing to overcome Aboriginal disadvantage, or only making minor incremental improvements. In 2020, the Productivity Commission showed we are going backwards in school attendance, incarceration rates, out-of-home care rates, obesity and poor nutrition, mental health and substance abuse.
Symbolic gestures are fine, but they aren't the end-point for reconciliation.