The flag debate threatens to overshadow the refugee crisis and, ironically, highlights a quality of a nation's flag -- that it can be a symbol that creates divisions within humanity. Them and us.
The refugee crisis has stirred conservative concerns about the ability to absorb more people and the need for countries to be properly equipped to integrate a new and traumatised population. Others say the causes of the calamity need to be addressed by confronting Isis, addressing the civil war and ensuring that those who seek to be repatriated at a later time will be able to do so.
Compelling, too, are questions about the need to "look after our own first".
This includes the need to ensure our infrastructure is not overloaded, that existing problems such as child poverty and domestic violence are addressed, and to respond to forecasted demographic changes.
Discussions over both refugees and the flag are essentially like discussing how to deal with different parts of the same elephant in the room.
Grasping an annoyingly flapping tail and pushing away a probing tusk has preoccupied us so much that we fail to try to comprehend the elephant as a whole. We need to think of responses to prevent humanitarian crises in the first place.
So in addition to increasing the refugee quota permanently, which was publicly shown to be embarrassingly low, New Zealand needs to address the more structural problems.
New Zealand was voted on to the Security Council in large part because of promises to help those less powerful than us in international affairs.
We could, for example, focus on increasing our official development assistance internationally to 0.7 per cent of our gross national income to help prevent conflicts, develop infrastructure and uphold human rights. It means rethinking the relevance of borders at a regional and global level, to experiment with more labour migrant schemes and to consider how the system for the movement of people might be made more just.
At home this means ensuring the rich-poor gap narrows rather than widens and that tolerance and a respect for difference is learned in our schools, universities and homes.
The New Zealand Political Science Association is looking at how politics and civics can be discussed in secondary schools and Massey University is bringing in a new bachelor of arts degree to emphasise critical thinking, citizenship and engagement. Two of its papers -- one in the first year -- ask students to reflect on their roles as citizens of New Zealand, and a second-year paper asks students to consider their role as global citizens. This brings us back to the flag. The values of sharing and tolerance should be central to the creation of a new flag. But how do we want to represent those values? Can we adopt a flag that is somehow less about nationalism and more about humanity? Does Red Peak point us in this direction or should we be looking to replace the Union Jack with a symbol of the United Nations? As the world becomes more globalised, and we become more entwined in each other's affairs, the obligation we feel should be extended beyond borders. As a small, relatively wealthy country we have the luxury to be innovative with our flag design, while remembering what flags represent, especially amid a humanitarian crisis. We also have the responsibility to do so.
* Beth Greener is an associate professor in politics in the School of People, Environment and Planning at Massey University.
* Business and civic leaders, organisers, experts in their field and interest groups can contribute opinions. The views expressed here are not the newspaper's. Email: editor@hbtoday.co.nz
