I am in complete agreement with Barry Soper, political editor at Newstalk ZB, when he says the right flag got chosen in the first referendum.
Kyle Lockwood's "black" silver fern flag option narrowly beat his other "red" option at 50.58 per cent of the vote, and Mr Soper is spot
on - they were the only two that really had a chance of succeeding, out of more than 10,000 designs and the final five. The much-hyped Red Peak flag, pressured into the referendum by a social media campaign, did make a respectable third place.
It is hard to know whether the definitive choice will kill the arguments that changing the existing flag is hurtful to the memories of those who served in two world wars. It's an argument I have never agreed with because as a nation we can never hope to progress, and make worthwhile societal choices, if we linger on what our ancestors might or might not have wanted.
Our war dead are powerfully honoured, no question, and we all have our ways and means of doing it. I have just spent a very long evening remounting my grandfather's medals to complicated Defence Force requirements. I suspect Bill Smith, from Gore, hardly gave the flag a thought when he went off to war, and probably even less thought when he returned. I'm capable of honouring my family's war service. I think it is presumptuous of others to tell me a change of flag deflects that honour.
It is a better argument around the cost of the process, which at $20 million is eye-watering. We are not a wealthy country. In fact, it's fair to say with only about three million taxpayers, we can't generate much for our coffers, $20m is a hit, no question. But how much money is spent every three years on the general election?
