This exercise in flag folly is stark waving mad

Silver Fern with Southern Cross Designed by: Kyle Lockwood

The big yawn greeting John Key's campaign to change the flag reminds me of the hippie graffiti of the Vietnam War era, "What if they gave a war and no one came?"

A month ago, a Herald -DigiPoll survey had only 25 per cent of New Zealanders wanting change. Tellingly, 80 per cent wanted the first referendum this November to be on this issue. As it stands, the referendum will ask voters to chose a new flag from a shortlist of four. Then next March, another referendum will pit the new design against the existing flag.

The widespread aversion to change is reflected on the Government's flag-change website. Asked to declare what New Zealanders "stand for", the dominant theme seems to be for the status quo. "I stand for stop wasting money on this exercise - use the money to aid the health system," writes David. "I stand for keeping the current flag. What disgraceful waste of money this whole thing is!" added Beth. Both entries from "1 hour ago".

As the "consultation" bandwagon wends its way up the country, New Zealanders are just switching off. The local newspaper reported rather forlornly three weeks ago that at the initial public meeting in Christchurch "hardly anyone turned up". A television report specified "fewer than 10," noting that representatives from the Flag Consideration Panel outnumbered them. On a stipend of between $640 and $850 a day plus expenses, not surprising.

A week ago at another Christchurch meeting, just 14 turned up. The Prime Minister said: "I don't think whether people turn up to the meetings is really that relevant." The real debate would occur "in the comfort of their own home in discussions with their family and workmates", once the four top designs are shortlisted.

With 70 per cent already decided they're against any change, the more likely scenario is they turn their noses up at all four options, fail to vote in November, then in March, back the existing flag in the second referendum.

Personally, I'm all for a new flag. But it has to be as part of the process of cutting all our constitutional apron strings with Mother England. Changing the curtains in the room under the family house and pretending we've gone flatting is just a joke. I suspect even those who want to retain the royal link see that.

This time last year, in launching his rebranding exercise, Mr Key argued "the design of the New Zealand flag symbolises a colonial and post-colonial era whose time has passed". So far, so good. Our flag, he complained, was dominated by the Union Jack even though we were no longer dominated by the United Kingdom.

His solution was "to take one more step in the evolution of modern New Zealand by acknowledging our independence through a new flag".

How wimpish is that. You signal your independence not with a new flag but by severing the links that keep you tied to your former master. It's almost as though this whole $25 million exercise is a devious ploy to ensure the existing flag survives triumphant. To start with, the design of our new national flag has been thrown open to anyone who can hold a pen or use a computer drawing package.

To choose the four flags to be shortlisted from this babel of designs, a committee of backbench MPs representing every party in Parliament, somehow conjured up a 10-member Flag Consideration Panel which looks like something Noah might have selected for his big voyage. We have a former All Black captain, a Maori academic, a former Chief of Defence, an Olympic gold medallist, a former mayor and the legendary Julie Christie of reality TV fame. Oh yes and Nicky Bell, chief executive of advertising giants, Saatchi & Saatchi.

At least the advertising boss will have some expertise in branding, which is what a flag is. But of a design expert, there is no sign.

The existing flag seems safe.

Debate on this article is now closed.