Taking a leaf from Canada's flag debate
Will we get a political doodle for a flag, a celebrity-driven choice, or a timeless icon, asks Grant McLachlan.
New Zealand appears to be repeating what happened in Canada 50 years ago when Canada chose a new flag. What’s concerning is that I doubt that an iconic flag will end up as our new national flag.
In Canada during 1964, the initial designs proposed by a ‘special flag committee’ were rejected. Of the designs 3,541 designs submitted by Canadians, 2136 contained the maple leaf (their silver fern), 408 contained Union Jacks, 389 contained beavers (their Kiwi), and 359 contained Fleurs-de-lys (their Koru/Southern Cross). What their committee initially recommended contained the maple leaf, Union Jack and the Fleurs-de-lys. As one politician said, “A platypus was designed by committee.”
Canada’s popular opinion was as fickle as ours. It went from being strongly in favour of a flag change to being strongly against when their Prime Minister announced the process to consider alternatives. Prime Minister Pearson even rallied against adopting a red flag during the Cold War. After the committee announced its preferred design, he beavered away in the background to push for a red, white and blue flag with three maple leafs on a white background flanked by blue pales.
The ‘Great Canadian Flag Debate’ was vicious. There were riots, vitriolic letters to editors, and The Royal Canadian Legion (Canada’s RSA) mobilised boisterous opposition. In New Zealand, we have seen the same, with social media being the main avenue to vent.
Ironically, George Stanley’s design – which was eventually chosen as the new Canadian flag – was based on the Royal Military College of Canada flag. That simplified design was a last minute submission allowed due to his earlier memorandum. That memorandum provided a detailed history of Canada’s emblems, traditions, and vexillology – something the debate up to that point lacked. He also warned that designs must “avoid the use of national or racial symbols that are of a divisive nature.”
After considerable political manoeuvring, the final decision by the cross-party special committee surprised everyone – 15-0 vote in favour of Stanley’s design.
The rest is history. Canada’s flag is so popular their simple iconic flag has its own national day.
In New Zealand, however, we find ourselves in a similar bind as Canada. The greatest problem with the process here is that it is political, regardless of how hard John Key tries to make it appear independent. The Flag Consideration Panel are technically advisors in his department, much like his spin doctors.
John Key’s inconsistent public comments are the result of internal party rumblings. Key’s original ‘doodle’ was a silver fern on a black flag. He then strangely surrendered his support for a black flag due to ISIS also having a black flag.
Key could have come across as tough, like when he told Andrew Little to “get some guts” but instead surrendered our national colours to terrorists he was so-called being gutsy against.
What I suspect really happened was that the National Party hierarchy protested the removal of the Southern Cross from the flag, which appears on their party logo, at the expense of a silver fern, which appears on Labour’s.
The greatest flaw in the process is that, of the 40 flag designs selected by the Flag Consideration Panel, only a handful meet the criteria of their design guide and their video describing ‘What makes a good flag design.’
Of major concern is the disproportionate inclusion of new and racially-based symbols in the long-list. More than half of the long-list contain uniquely Maori symbols, whilst only half that number contain the universally recognisable and iconic silver fern. That contradicts the Panel’s aim for a flag to be “timeless” that “should speak to all Kiwis.” Some of the designs are just unreasonable and irrelevant.
Those in the ‘change the flag’ camp have had to ride the political rollercoaster since National came to power. More recently, with the Flag Consideration Process, they have had to endure the unpredictability of consensus decision making.
Kyle Lockwood – who has five designs in the long-list – submitted many slightly different ‘platypus’ designs as insurance against missing out. Overall, 628 entries contained Kyle’s designs.
Kyle expressed to me how disappointed he was that several popular designs by long time campaigners did not make the long-list, including John Ansell’s classic silver fern on a black field – which he described as “the best of the black and white designs.” Fortunately, Kyle’s original silver fern design has made the list – the only white fern on a black field.
The one thing the Panel said must be done is due diligence on those designs they have long-listed. The Panel clearly hasn’t done basic homework when several long-listed designs are licenced trademarks, according to their campaign and company websites. One licensed silver fern selected even appears as the Intellectual Property Office logo!
One also has to ask what happens between the decision making process that led to their long-list of 40 designs and the narrowing down to only four designs. Without any further consultation announced, are they relying on celebrity endorsements to base their decision for the final four? Is this another example of their abandoning their goal for a timeless icon for something topical and trendy instead?
This reminds me of what happened in Australia when a Melbourne newspaper ran a competition and the chosen Commonwealth flag was (surprise, surprise) largely based on the existing Victorian flag.
So where does this leave us? Effectively, the Panel and the government can design their own flag, much like what happened in Canada. In their own words, “The Panel and the Crown each reserve the right to consider other flag designs suggested before, during or after the Suggestion Period.”
Under the New Zealand Flag Referendums [sic] Bill, any group of 200 members can challenge the conduct of the referendum if it “could have altered the outcome of the referendum.” So, if an excluded design gains popular support, a High Court judge may rule that it be considered as an option in the first referendum. Such a decision would be like when Peter Dunne went to court to be included in a televised leader’s debate.
I expect the flag debate to go from the silly and nasty to celebrity-driven and murky. Here are my predictions:
One of the final four designs will be redesigned by the Panel;
The campaigning machines of the major political parties will get involved;
We will most likely see fiddling of the dates for the first referendum based on the All Blacks’ Rugby World Cup performance, much like the election timing for the 1999 election (which backfired on National); and
Similarly, the second referendum will be timed so to not be influenced by ANZAC Day next year, which Cabinet documents reveal is a major concern.
Will we get a celebrity-driven platypus for a flag, a political doodle, or something iconic and timeless like Canada’s?
Where is someone like George Stanley when we need him?