Patrick O'Farrell in The Irish in Australia recalls the dismissive attitude of the Coalition parties in particular, after World War II, towards the desire of Ireland, which they regarded as a tiny pip squeak of a country, to be an independent republic outside of the Commonwealth.

More generally Ireland was regarded as a poor, socially conservative country held back from the modern world by being in the clutches of a hidebound Catholic Church. These attitudes carried over towards the role of Irish-Australian Catholics within Australian politics. They too were regarded as socially conservative and a drag on progressive social reforms.

Within the Labor Party, the traditional political home of Irish-Australian Catholics, progressives regarded Catholics, usually found in the party's right wing, as holding back social reforms such as equal representation for women within the party's ranks. It was Catholics, for instance, who demanded conscience votes within the party on matters such as abortion rights.

The largely Catholic breakaway party, the Democratic Labor Party, also held socially conservative positions against the various modernising law reforms of the 1960s and 1970s, which they condemned as evidence of a sexually permissive society.

At the same time Australians generally have always bragged about being a socially progressive country even if the evidence was often pretty thin. In particular, we boasted about how progressive Australia was in political matters such as giving the vote to women. We were actually beaten to the punch by New Zealand, but we have always talked about the fact that we led the world in extending the franchise to women. And we were certainly up there in the vanguard.

In both our own eyes and the rest of the world Australia was a "social laboratory", leading the world in the emergence of the Labor party, egalitarian social reforms, the "Australian" secret ballot, trade unionism, fair wages, and the like. We rejoiced in our own publicity and were very proud to be seen as a world leader. We laughed at those countries that lagged; and there were definite laggards, including the Swiss, who only granted women the right to vote at the federal level in 1971. Even in Britain, universal franchise only occurred in 1928. The Irish Free State had universal franchise when it came into being in 1922. Australia was well ahead.

The shock that has followed the Irish vote stems from the fact that it now means that Australia is very much a worldwide laggard on gay marriage in the Commonwealth and in the Western world. The overwhelmingly referendum result has also been a blow to those opponents who believed that the views of the community had been overlooked when similar decisions were taken by parliaments or courts in other countries, such as New Zealand, Canada and Britain.

Australia is not a leader any more. What's more there is a growing suspicion that Australia is now a laggard in other spheres as well. Certainly we are no longer willing to move boldly and bravely into a new world. Instead we are dragging our heels. We are moving at a snail's pace on Indigenous constitutional reform, for instance. A referendum proposing limited constitutional change may now take place with bipartisan support in 1917. Let's hope there are no more roadblocks.

We are also out of step with many other countries in our determination not to allow boat people to reach our shores whatever the circumstances. Jack Waterford has argued passionately that future generations will condemn our generation for our lack of compassion. Europe is rejecting the Australian "model". On foreign aid and on our taxation treatment of young foreign backpackers we are insular and mean-spirited.

On the matter of gay marriage Australia doesn't have to follow the rest of the Western world of course. But we do have to have a persuasive explanation of where we stand and why. Leading is good when you are going in the right direction, but lagging may be all right if you are doubtful or if you are sure that the rest of the world is heading in the wrong direction. Is Australia just slow or timid or is it really convinced that the rest of the world is moving in the wrong direction?

History will be the judge. Australia can be proud of being a world leader on votes for women and other social policies around the turn from the 19th into the 20th century. History has judged that those initiatives made us an immeasurably fairer and more egalitarian country and our international reputation was boosted as a consequence.

Opponents of same sex marriage will not agree, but in my view history will judge that Australia was strangely reticent to embrace this popular social reform in the early 21st century. At the end of this century we certainly will not be looked upon as a world leader. Rather we will have demonstrated to the world that we are a socially conservative laggard.

Just why Australia has been so reticent is not at all clear. Perhaps our early leadership on democratic reforms concealed an innate conservatism that is now prevailing. There can be no one convincing answer, such as the power of the churches or particularly old-fashioned political leaders. These are not unique to Australia. But the answers do lie somewhere in the constraining mixture of our party system, our political leadership, our social composition and our political culture.

John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University. John.Warhurst@anu.edu.au