Click photo to enlarge
Flagging it? The New Zealand flag flies at half-mast at the
Wanaka War Memorial cenotaph after an Armistice Day
commemorative service, last year. Photo by Matthew Haggart.
Should we flag the traditional flag away in
favour of something new? Not on your nelly, suggests John de
Bueger.
In most years, the silly season confines itself to the
Christmas parliamentary recess, and with readers in
switch-off mode, editors scramble to find front-page stories.
Unless there is a convenient overseas disaster - like the
Haitian earthquake or Aceh tsunami - readers get treated to
pictures of car smashes, or are informed why one aspect of
the weather is the most extreme since records began.
Traditionally, the silly season ends when the kids go back to
school, but not this year.
Last week, The New Zealand Herald, appeared so short
of copy that it was reduced to covering the front page with a
dreary regurgitation on why the country needs a new flag.
Let us be clear on this.
There is no overwhelming demand or need for one; it was just
that the Herald couldn't find a more newsworthy topic.
Over recent years, attention-seekers fascinated by the sound
of their own voices, or idle dreamers bored by
window-shopping, have periodically called for a new flag.
Change for change's sake is pathetic, really.
Apparently, our flag resembles the banner of the Aberdeen
Drainage Board, or some such dreary institution in Bonnie
Scotland, and surprise, surprise it's got a Union Jack in the
corner.
There is nothing to be ashamed about over our British
heritage.
Not everybody was so lucky.
The Maori leadership back in the 1830s showed serious wisdom
in spotting the lesser of colonial evils, by asking Queen Vic
for help to avoid becoming a French, Dutch or American
colony.
Flags are not about trade or filthy lucre, nor are they are a
fad to change at whim when you feel a bit bored.
Flags float on a higher plane.
They are about who we are, and where we have come from.
A long-serving, dignified flag emphasises stability and
steadfastness of national purpose, and pride in our roots,
and in that respect we have little to be ashamed about.
A strong reason for not changing the flag is to impress on
new migrants that they are not coming to a directionless
multicultural society, but to a bicultural one that requires
a cultural shift on their part - and if they don't like the
mixed Anglo Saxon/Maori heritage as epitomised by a
long-serving flag, then go home.
Our cringe-churning national anthem certainly needs the boot
(its sole redeeming feature being that it is marginally less
trite than Advance Australia Fair), but there is nothing
wrong with the flag.
There is also the major stumbling block about choosing a new
flag that just won't go away; namely, what would it be
changed to? With total disagreement over the multitude of
proposed designs, this hurdle seems insurmountable.
About the only thing the pro-change brigade seems to agree on
is that after his latest foul-mouthed outburst, Hone Harawira
can flag away any prospects for his Tino Rangatiratanga
design.
The point is that the current long-serving blue ensign is
particularly attractive.
While originally intended for maritime use, it has the
advantage that the white and red ensigns naturally lend
themselves to other branches of the armed services.
On Anzac Day, all three ensigns fly side by side, and all
being variants of red, white and blue - the colour
combination of the world's most attractive flags - they all
look dignified, and totally appropriate for such a solemn
occasion.
Who cares if our flag gets confused with the Aussie one? It
is just a matter of time before they change theirs to a
jumping roo or burrowing wombat - leaving us with one of the
world's best.
About the only sense to have been uttered on this trivial
non-subject has come from John Key and Phil Goff.
The former said change was "not on the agenda", and the
latter that he did not believe that most New Zealanders
supported the change.
Quite right.
- John de Bueger is a New Plymouth writer and
engineer.
