THE FLAG referendum has been giddily swept away by a popularity contest, more akin to a TV talent show than a serious discourse about who we are as a nation.
That's no surprise, given the way the referendum was set up. It was specifically devised to titillate and excite the most interest in what any new flag might look like, rather than considering the merits of the existing one. Or whether there needed to be a change at all.
The $25 million casting calls to replace our 1902 standard appear to have been called to make an ex-factor of our adaptation of the maritime British Blue Ensign and Southern Cross.
All that's missing is the forced applause, whistling and whooping from a "live studio audience".
So why this crass circus? Why wasn't the flag referendum combined with local government or general elections, lending it some dignity and gravitas by being aligned with a stately and significant democratic event?
According to the official Flag Consideration Project: "Combining the referendums with other elections could be confusing for voters. Also, previous referendums held with parliamentary elections have cost at least as much as running a stand-alone postal referendum, so after careful consideration a decision was made to proceed with a two referendum process." We're so easily confused, it seems we could have ended up voting to have John (Carter or Key) run up a flagpole. Silly us.
But more importantly, why not a referendum on whether we should change the flag first?
The official line goes: "The two referendum process means that New Zealanders will know what the alternative flag would look like before they decide whether to keep the current flag.
"You should still vote in the first referendum, even if you don't want the flag to change. You should still rank the alternative flags to have your say in the first referendum as others may choose to change the flag." Ho. The citizenry is being advised to choose a preferred alternative, even if they'd rather watch re-runs of NZ's Got Talent elimination clips than consign the current ensign to the dustbin.
And there be the ringmaster's ruse. A selection process for an alternative flag (wanted or not) inevitably plays out like a one-sided primary.
Image if the race for a US president was automatically one-sided only. If only the Republicans held a travelling roadshow across the States, deluging stadiums with balloons, hype and hoopla? The Democrats, meanwhile, were tucked in a backroom out of sight? Who would vote for those wowsers when you have ticker-tape canons firing out Republican confetti and promises?
That's exactly how the flag referendum has been stacked.
When the vote finally comes down to the second part of the referendum, which design will have all the momentum?
Will it be the "people's champion", selected by a multi-million dollar, tax-paid, roadshow? Or will it be the staid-at-home, status quo?
Only one will start the final race in pole position.
Almost all recent coverage of the flag consideration project has shown the public FOUR options for the New Zealand flag. Sorry? Last time I checked, there were still FIVE options.
Or is it SIX? Symptomatic of the dissatisfaction with the process, is the growing support for yet another flag design - the so-called "red peak" by Melbourne-based Aaron Dustin.
On Sunday, a spokesman for Flag Minister (yes, that really is a thing) Bill English said there would be no changes to the shortlist.
"A lengthy process was followed, the panel has made its recommendations and the referendum is proceeding." This should have put an end to the "red peak" sideshow. But it hasn't. Apparently unaware of the rather rigid rules, many members of the public have continued to handclap and chant for the rejected candidate to be reconsidered. While this is illegal as the selection of the four alternatives is final, it's entirely in keeping with the TV talent show atmosphere around the issue.
After all, Fletcher Mills was called back to series one of the X-Factor New Zealand show after being kicked out by the judges. Said the delighted young singer at the time: "Leaving the competition and then given the opportunity to come back has me realise what a big deal this.
"I am going to take it and run with it and see how far I can go. A massive thank you to all my supporters - I'll do my best for you!" One could imagine the "red peak" flag making similar declarations, if it could talk. Sadly, Fletcher Mills returned to the show only to be eliminated again shortly afterwards as the public's heads were turned by the lovely, girl-next-door, wholesomeness of Jackie Thomas.
It is the insatiable appetite for the next-new-thing which the flag consideration debate appears to focus on. What will be the new top of the pops, sorry, top of the post?
Is it still possible to vote for a reigning champion who, not so long ago, swoll our hearts? Anyone remember the catch in the breath, the lump in the throat, the glisten in the eye, as our flag shifted in the morning breeze at the 100th commemorations of Gallipoli?
How could we fail to remember? Could a popularity contest so easily sway us?
A recent Herald Digipoll survey showed 23 per cent supported change in principle, a further 24 per cent said it would depend what the proposed new flag was. Fifty three per cent were opposed to change in principle.
This time last year, a onenews.co.nz poll of nearly 1000 people over two days showed two-thirds were against the idea. To the question "Are you in favour of changing the New Zealand flag?" 65 per cent ticked "No" and 35 per cent clicked "Yes".
Will the slide in fortunes for our existing pennant be complete in five months' time? You be the judge. The second referendum, when you choose between the current flag and preferred design, will be held next year from March 3-24.
- Edward Rooney
Kāinga Ora halts 40 housing projects in Northland amid $12.3b debt