Floating on higher planes

[1]

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.

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.