Uploaded March 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
The vast majority of independent countries use a single national flag to represent themselves. This makes sense from both a diplomatic and a practical perspective. Of course, there are often variations of the national flag for specific uses—for example, the Australian Red Ensign flown by Australian registered ships, or the Royal Australian Navy Ensign. But in general, these variations are clearly recognisable as an Australian flag.
“One country, one flag,” right?
Well, Australia is in the unenviable position of having not just one official national flag—which by definition represents all Australians—but also two Indigenous flags: the Torres Strait Islander flag and the Aboriginal flag. Although it is somewhat debatable who is Aboriginal, what is clear is that the Aboriginal flag only represents a small subset of Australians. Despite this, it is often flown alongside the ostensibly universal Australian national flag.
According to the 2021 Census, there are actually more people with Chinese ancestry in Australia than people who identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. Does this mean we should be flying the Chinese flag alongside the national flag as well? I mean, following that logic, why doesn’t the Prime Minister have the flag of every person’s ancestry at every press conference? Imagine hundreds of flags vying for space in the frame.
Or, we do the sensible thing and have a single national flag for a single nation. If people want to fly their own flags in their own time, that is their prerogative; but at official proceedings, the national flag is it. If people don’t like it, well, that’s something for democracy to solve.
And this brings us to the Federation Council in southern New South Wales, which was in the news late last year. As the ABC put it: “NSW council votes to stop flying Indigenous flags and enforce permissions for Welcome to Country.” Oh, that caused a stir! Apparently, you’re not allowed to insist on a single symbol of national unity. That’s not ‘inclusive’ anymore—even though, by definition, a national flag is the only thing that actually includes every single person in the country. Apparently, a single, shared identity is seen as a radical act of division.
As The Guardian proclaimed on Australia Day: “A regional NSW council voted to remove the Aboriginal flag to promote ‘unity’ – it did the opposite.” Yes, the rule in Australia is that you’re not allowed to upset people—especially certain minorities. Ironically, upsetting the majority isn’t just allowed; it’s practically seen as a civic virtue.
Well, the council has been in the news again, just a couple of days ago—and thank you to the viewer who highlighted this to me. The ABC reported: “Federation Council to remove Indigenous flags from chamber.” Wait, a council actually doing what they said they would do? Clearly, someone forgot to tell them that in modern politics, you’re supposed to backflip the moment The Guardian writes a sternly worded op-ed.
The article notes there was “overwhelming community support” to keep the Indigenous flags, citing more than 800 submissions where three-quarters urged the council to back down. But statistically, that’s a textbook case of self-selection bias. Submissions are voluntary; simple common sense tells us that people only write in when they’re angry and want a decision reversed. People who are perfectly happy with the council’s move have zero incentive to spend their afternoon filling out a form to say “carry on.”
Interestingly, even The Guardian had to admit that “most of the submissions were made by people living outside the region.” So, people who don’t even live there—who don’t pay rates there and don’t walk past the council chamber—were apparently the ones providing this “overwhelming” community support. It’s easy to be outraged on behalf of a town you’ve never visited.
The ABC reported that Mayor Cheryl Cook was verbally abused and personally intimidated over the decision. She said: “Whilst I did expect some fallout… what I didn’t expect was the extreme vitriol from some of the activists. The verbal and written intimidation to me personally told me I was a disgusting person… that I’m a racist, I’m a bigot, I’m a neo-Nazi — none of which are true.”
The Guardian noted that four councillors supported removing the flags while three opposed, with one councillor abstaining—which counted as a vote against the motion, resulting in the draft protocols being rejected. But the flags were still removed anyway, because there had never been a formal resolution to certify their installation.
And finally, The Guardian reported that “the meeting was cut short after members of the public gallery chanted ‘shame’ and ‘stolen land’ as Mayor Cook was trying to speak.”
See, that’s modern-day inclusion for you: trying to silence anyone who dares to disagree with the narrative.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
The vast majority of independent countries use a single national flag to represent themselves. This makes sense from both a diplomatic and a practical perspective. Of course, there are often variations of the national flag for specific uses—for example, the Australian Red Ensign flown by Australian registered ships, or the Royal Australian Navy Ensign. But in general, these variations are clearly recognisable as an Australian flag.
“One country, one flag,” right?
Well, Australia is in the unenviable position of having not just one official national flag—which by definition represents all Australians—but also two Indigenous flags: the Torres Strait Islander flag and the Aboriginal flag. Although it is somewhat debatable who is Aboriginal, what is clear is that the Aboriginal flag only represents a small subset of Australians. Despite this, it is often flown alongside the ostensibly universal Australian national flag.
According to the 2021 Census, there are actually more people with Chinese ancestry in Australia than people who identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. Does this mean we should be flying the Chinese flag alongside the national flag as well? I mean, following that logic, why doesn’t the Prime Minister have the flag of every person’s ancestry at every press conference? Imagine hundreds of flags vying for space in the frame.
Or, we do the sensible thing and have a single national flag for a single nation. If people want to fly their own flags in their own time, that is their prerogative; but at official proceedings, the national flag is it. If people don’t like it, well, that’s something for democracy to solve.
And this brings us to the Federation Council in southern New South Wales, which was in the news late last year. As the ABC put it: “NSW council votes to stop flying Indigenous flags and enforce permissions for Welcome to Country.” Oh, that caused a stir! Apparently, you’re not allowed to insist on a single symbol of national unity. That’s not ‘inclusive’ anymore—even though, by definition, a national flag is the only thing that actually includes every single person in the country. Apparently, a single, shared identity is seen as a radical act of division.
As The Guardian proclaimed on Australia Day: “A regional NSW council voted to remove the Aboriginal flag to promote ‘unity’ – it did the opposite.” Yes, the rule in Australia is that you’re not allowed to upset people—especially certain minorities. Ironically, upsetting the majority isn’t just allowed; it’s practically seen as a civic virtue.
Well, the council has been in the news again, just a couple of days ago—and thank you to the viewer who highlighted this to me. The ABC reported: “Federation Council to remove Indigenous flags from chamber.” Wait, a council actually doing what they said they would do? Clearly, someone forgot to tell them that in modern politics, you’re supposed to backflip the moment The Guardian writes a sternly worded op-ed.
The article notes there was “overwhelming community support” to keep the Indigenous flags, citing more than 800 submissions where three-quarters urged the council to back down. But statistically, that’s a textbook case of self-selection bias. Submissions are voluntary; simple common sense tells us that people only write in when they’re angry and want a decision reversed. People who are perfectly happy with the council’s move have zero incentive to spend their afternoon filling out a form to say “carry on.”
Interestingly, even The Guardian had to admit that “most of the submissions were made by people living outside the region.” So, people who don’t even live there—who don’t pay rates there and don’t walk past the council chamber—were apparently the ones providing this “overwhelming” community support. It’s easy to be outraged on behalf of a town you’ve never visited.
The ABC reported that Mayor Cheryl Cook was verbally abused and personally intimidated over the decision. She said: “Whilst I did expect some fallout… what I didn’t expect was the extreme vitriol from some of the activists. The verbal and written intimidation to me personally told me I was a disgusting person… that I’m a racist, I’m a bigot, I’m a neo-Nazi — none of which are true.”
The Guardian noted that four councillors supported removing the flags while three opposed, with one councillor abstaining—which counted as a vote against the motion, resulting in the draft protocols being rejected. But the flags were still removed anyway, because there had never been a formal resolution to certify their installation.
And finally, The Guardian reported that “the meeting was cut short after members of the public gallery chanted ‘shame’ and ‘stolen land’ as Mayor Cook was trying to speak.”
See, that’s modern-day inclusion for you: trying to silence anyone who dares to disagree with the narrative.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
