Much heated, impassioned and patriotic debate is going on about the New Zealand flag.
It's one of those debates where there are not wrong or right answers - just opinions.
Any decision made to retain the old flag which harks back to New Zealand's colonial heritage or to find a new one will be deemed right or wrong depending on the opinions held.
The old flag has particular relevance to New Zealanders of British descent.
To them it represents not just the history of the British in New Zealand over the last 200 years or so but also the heritage of hundreds of years of their ancestors.
It represents to all New Zealanders our common history with Britain and as part of the Commonwealth though only four former British colonies use the Union Jack as part of their flags.
That common history is not just one in which many New Zealanders are of British stock but one where the two countries have stood together in world affairs.
Old soldiers of both European and Maori origin fought together under the flag in various conflicts from the Boer War to Vietnam.
Modern soldiers have proudly flown the flag during peacekeeping duties around the world.
However, some Maori see it as a symbol of colonial oppression and it is quite valid and appropriate for them to hold and express such a firmly held belief.
It is healthy for the nation to debate the issue.
Does New Zealand want to be seen as a country clinging to the apron strings of its former mother country?
Should it keep the flag simply because it does symbolise where it has come from as a nation and therefore shows the basis of modern New Zealand?
On the other hand is there any relevance today to keeping a flag which pays homage to another country which left New Zealand to fend for itself when it turned its back on the colonies in terms of trade when it joined the European Community?
Perhaps the debate should be wider.
The flag could be reviewed as part of the bigger issue of whether New Zealand should retain the Queen as head of state and whether it should become a republic.
The drifting away from Britain has been piecemeal and the latest development has been the cutting of ties with the Privy Council and the setting up of New Zealand's own Supreme Court and before that the British Honours system was dropped in favour of a local version.
Perhaps it is time for the whole issue to be tackled or perhaps the mood is for continued gradual change.
The flag itself is not the really important issues. It is what it represents.
Is it a statement of national identity or of history? Would support for our sports stars overseas be any less vehement if the spectators were waving a different flag? Would a new flag better define New Zealand as a modern, multicultural Pacific Island society?
It is timely for New Zealanders to ask themselves where they stand in the world because if New Zealand does decide it needs a new flag then that, of course, opens up a new round of debate about what should be on it. That might not be a bad thing.
Horowhenua Kapiti Chronicle
© APN Media Ltd 2004