I have no strong views one way or the other about the Flag, but to criticise Ray Martin for being in the "anti-Flag lobby group" is a bit OTT. Ray Martin is not anti-Flag but pro-new Flag. There is a difference.

Was the program biased. Probably, I didn't see it but I imagine it might be given it was 60 Minutes and I can't see Ray Martin doing a story about keeping the Flag as it is. If the Flag goes to a referendum - we all have our own bias and can vote with our hearts on this one. What Ray Martin thinks will then be irrelevant.

While the Flag is an enduring symbol, times change. If we were to become a Republic, the Flag should ideally represent and recognise Australia's new independence and Head of State. There is no reason to believe we cannot recognise our English history just as the US did by retaining the colours and stars (although the stars represent the new States of the US and the Stripes those 13 colonies that repelled the British).

Other nations like South Africa and the US have made changes to their Flags. I believe Germany and Japan also made some changes.

Flags are not always used for high purposes and can even be damaging when used in extreme nationalistic campaigns such as Nazism, which does little for global cohesion.

The most offensive part of the Australian flag in this post-modern, post-Christian, post-rational era has to be the blatant reference to our Judaeo-Christian heritage, which some of us think we should jettison at all costs.
Three crosses!
St George, St Patrick & St Andrew.
No wonder it sticks in the craws of progressives.
We should also consider how offensive this must be to the adherents of other, more tolerant religions in our midst.
I suggest:
a green flag, which colour could be interpreted in whichever way the observer chooses,
the southern cross, which hopefully should offend as few people as possible (although it does seems somewhat southern-hemispherocentric)
with a sword, representing justice, to replace the Union Jack (which is very dead, white, anglo male).
We need to move with the winds of change, always hoping that we don't get shipwrecked.
http://theopinionator.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/05/recently-ben-sm.html

Pelican,why did you feel the need to put that last little paragraph in?
If you want to call people who have Australian or Southern Cross flags about their person Neo Nazis then cut to the chase and let the discussion flow from that point.
You support Flags and Nations but not Nationalism or Patriotism?
Why not just take a position?
If you don't support Nationalism or Patriotism you don't have to denigrate people who do to reinforce that view.
Furthermore if you're pro tolerance and pro multiculturalism then why do those ideas have to be hung on National Identity, it seems a tad askew to me.
Immigrants should come here and assimilate but not be urged to become Nationalists or Patriots, likewise people born here should be urged to assimilate the newcomers into an "Aussie" society in a non Patriotic and non Nationalistic way...even though most of the immigrants, from China are brought up to be highly Patriotic and Indians are steeped in Nationalistic propaganda from birth, so Civic Nationalism and Patriotism would be the path of least resistance.
Sounds silly when I put it like that doesn't it?

My preferences:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Anarchist_flags_and_stars.svg/300px-Anarchist_flags_and_stars.svg.png

I agree with Ray Martin that Australia's current flag is anachronistic and past its use-by date - particularly so since its recent appropriation by the xenophobic and racist minority, exemplified by Pauline Hanson and the Cronulla thugs.

However, I don't see much point in changing it until Australia becomes a truly independent nation by reconstituting itself as a republic. Of course, discussions about a new flag could be part of that process.

Current Affairs and Commercial Television are mutally exclusive.

Who cares about Ray Martins' view on our Flag.. I don't for one