Ray Carran: Hands off the flag, it's fine

Opinion

Influential but misguided people are asking the public to sign a petition that calls for a referendum on changing the national flag.

This petition offers no alternatives but, of course, the media have jumped on the bandwagon and offered competitions and the like to find something to change to.

One example will suffice; a prominent newspaper had no less than 16 submissions, and told us all that an overwhelming 45.4 per cent of the people surveyed wanted a change. I take from this that 54.6 per cent do not want to change, so the bias is immediately apparent.

Of the 16 submissions, the one that was most favoured got only one in five of the votes, and one man submitted four of the others.

It is unfortunate that so-called celebrities are encouraged to lend weight to arguments for or against proposals such as this. In fact they have no greater knowledge of most matters than you or I.

The difference is that because they have succeeded at sport or in commerce or in other walks of life, they either have the ear of the press or are sought for comment.

But they seem to think their opinions actually do matter to people. The tragedy is that theyare unable to grasp the importanceof history as a force for politicaland social stability.

Some of them want change, and that is their right. But their reasons are fatuous. A sporting commentator thought there should be a black and white flag that would stand out in the grandstand and contrast with Australian green and gold sporting flags.

Perhaps he's right, but he is talking of a sports flag - one which has a place in the grandstand but not flying proudly on top of the grandstand.

This commentator and his supporters are making a fundamental mistake in mixing sporting symbols with a national ensign. Proposals such as silver ferns sit very well alongside the rose of England, the Irish shamrock or the Scottish thistle, but none of these symbols are national flags, nor do they purport to be.

Similarly, the entrepreneur will argue that he wants a brand or marketing logo to sell his products overseas. Again, he is talking of something that should be - and so far has been - put on our butter boxes or stamped on sides of lamb. But brands and marketing emblems are short-lived and sponsored by fickle-minded folk. Who calls a kiwifruit a zespri?

As with sport, there is room for another emblem that complements but does not replace our ensign. Our flag should be very much above insensitive commercialism.

Nor should we grovel and use the weak excuse that our ensign is too similar to that of Australia. We don't hear the Australians similarly confused.

It used to be a requirement that schools would fly the flag often so that the children should be able to recognise it. That citizens of this country cannot recognise their own national ensign is a sad commentary on our education system and of parents, and is a blight on our heritage.

There is also evidence that those on foreign soil have no difficulty recognising our flag. Cast your minds back to the cycling arena at the Athens Olympics and the victory ceremony for Sarah Ulmer's triumph. Remember how the New Zealand ensign flew proudly beside but above the Australian flag.

Yes, the two were similar but there was no difficulty in observing the differences - the rest of the world certainly saw those differences. The chef de mission of the New Zealand contingent, while entitled to his opinion, was well and truly out of order when he raised the subject of a change to the flag, giving the impression that he represented an official stance.

As for suggestions that flora or fauna be incorporated, there are only two flags that have symbolic representations of nature, Lebanon's and Canada's.

Lebanon's tree comes from the ancient reference to the cedars of that country, and Canada's maple leaf was a neutral symbol selected to help unite a divided nation.

The remainder, some 190, are derived from inanimate objects and use colours and shapes.

Our national ensign has been flown since 1869, its durability unquestioned. New Zealand must not try to disguise its historical origins as a nation.

The Union Jack in the top left quarter identifies the origin of our law and culture. It represents what we are, whence we came and our heritage.

The Irish Cross of St Patrick, the Scottish Cross of St Andrew and the English Cross of St George make up the Union Flag and are significant in their symbolism; some would say back beyond Magna Carta. The name of our country remembers the Dutch navigator; the stars identify where we are in the great Southern Ocean.

Both European and Polynesian navigators used the stars to find our home, and therein lies an enduring bond.

Those who wish for change seem incapable of even the most basic research, given that a Maori flag was adopted 12 years before our current ensign. The design of 1857 centred on a variation of red crosses on a white background, but nowhere has such a design been offered in the plethora of submissions.

It is foolhardy to want to change something, especially when the people who are driving for change have no idea or collective agreement on what they want in place of the status quo.

So the question then becomes: are we not really listening to talk about change for the sake of change by people who are no better informed or more entitled than you or I?

In the mid-17th century, Lord Falkland wrote: "When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change."

That just about describes our present situation, and reminds us that the historical threads woven into our flag have not and can never change.

* Ray Carran is the president of the North Shore Brevet Club.