02 February 2005
In politics as in many other things, timing is key. With the long run-up to the general election now in first gear, the Government's priority will be to steer clear of controversy - hence the haste to deal with civil unions, the Privy Council and the seabed and foreshore last year, an editorial in the Nelson Mail says.
That makes launching a national petition as part of a campaign to change the flag something of a gamble, if only because the issue itself is one few politicians want a bar of due to fears it might alienate those whose support they will be hoping for come September.
The petitioners' target is for 300,000 people, or 10 percent of those eligible to vote, to sign by May, thereby forcing a referendum on the issue in this year's general election. Organisers, wary of treading on sensitive toes, want the referendum to merely ask: "Should the New Zealand flag be changed?" If a majority of voters say yes, the organisers are calling for an independent committee of prominent New Zealanders to be appointed to choose an alternative from a range of suggested designs. This would then be put up against the existing flag in a second referendum.
The petition was launched in Auckland and Wellington by the nzflag.com trust last week, after a website-based campaign began just over a year ago. Among the prominent speakers at the petition launch was former Governor-General Dame Cath Tizard, who likened the current flag to a Model T Ford. The analogy is a good one. Though some people certainly see the New Zealand flag as being well past its use-by date, there are others who view it as representing an important link with our past that is worth clinging to and should in fact be increasingly valued. Calls to change the flag are nothing new. Rather, it is one of those issues that keeps flapping away like a windsock at an airport - hardly the most vital of matters in this day and age, but of some importance, nevertherless. Former Prime Minister Jenny Shipley backed the call for change and a junior minister in her government proposed a black flag with a silver fern five years ago. However, there was insufficient public enthusiasm for change back then.
This is odd. New Zealand likes to present itself as being proudly independent. Its foreign policy, particularly under the "no-nukes" Labour government of David Lange and the current administration's position on Iraq, reinforce this point, as do the growing trade and diplomatic links with Asean and other Asia-Pacific countries. This is a vastly different nation from that of 1902 when the present Union Jack plus Southern Cross design was adopted. It is time to reflect that with a more appropriate image of nationhood. Clearly, Prime Minister Helen Clark sees little political mileage in pushing the issue, regardless of how she and her government might privately feel about it. The possibility of a pending referendum may offer a convenient excuse for the Government to keep its head down on the issue, but the calls for change are growing.
Perhaps it is time to ask what if. What sort of design might emerge if we had no flag but were looking for an appropriate one today? Would we settle for anything like our current one - looking as it does like a symbol of colonial servitude? Of course not. Why, then, is this the image we persist in showing to the world? The issue is not about denigrating the past, but looking to the present and future. Hopefully, there will be sufficient enthusiasm for the petition to at least take the debate to the next stage.
The Nelson Mail
© 2004 Fairfax New Zealand Limited