Editorial: Fervour for the flag carries day

An array of prominent names and plentiful funding stood behind the campaign to change the New Zealand flag. This succeeded in generating a strong degree of public awareness. Yet, in the end, all the effort proved not enough to orchestrate even a citizens-initiated referendum on the issue. The NZFlag.com Trust has conceded defeat, even while continuing to contend that one day New Zealanders will choose a flag that uniquely represents their country.

Lloyd Morrison, the trust chairman, said apathy was to blame for his organisation's inability to collect the 270,000 signatures (10 per cent of eligible voters) required to force a referendum. In fact, the petition had, six months after its launch, been signed by just 100,000 people. What Mr Morrison attributed to apathy, others might view as the product of a considered judgment. Either way, most people were clearly unconvinced that the time was right to change the flag.

The petition's failure was somewhat at odds with opinion polls over the past 18 months, which showed 40 to 60 per cent support for a new design. But the polls did not pronounce on the depth of feeling on the two sides of the argument. Those opposed to change, many of whom had fought under the current Union Jack-dominated flag, were vehement. Their implacable opposition, when voiced as customers or shareholders of New Zealand Post and Telecom, forced those two organisations to remove their backing for a plan to post the petition to 1.4 million households. Logistically, this was a crippling blow for those advocating change.

They could never hope to match the fervour of their opponents. Quite responsibly, they never, in the main, tried. Their petition was pitched as the first step in a process that would, first, ask New Zealanders if they wanted the flag changed, and then, if the answer of a majority was in the affirmative, lead to the selection of a design that would run off against the present flag in a subsequent referendum.

Their aim was to treat the flag in isolation - as Canada had done some 40 years ago - and not see the debate entwined in the wider issues. It was not to be a major constitutional issue, the thin end of the republican wedge, and the trigger for a loosening of ties with the Commonwealth.

Somewhat inevitably, they failed. The petition was seized upon by opponents as the first step along an irrevocable path towards a republic. That was not a totally unreasonable link to make, given that the flag says so much about how New Zealanders see themselves and how they want to present themselves internationally.

The support of many of those who told pollsters they backed a new design was probably always lukewarm. When that depth of sentiment is assailed by passionate opposition, it can take little to wind it back to, say, a state of neutrality. The more so when much of the resistance came from returned servicemen, who value the heritage and tradition embodied in the present flag. The increasing attendance at Anzac Day services and the crowds attracted by the return of the Unknown Soldier illustrate the widespread esteem for that group.

Many people, respecting the heartfelt nature of the objection, clearly felt little inclination to split the nation over the issue. Others may have felt, like the Prime Minister, that New Zealand had more important issues on its plate. Most were happy to debate the matter. But they were not persuaded that the time was right for such a defining decision. That time may yet come, but not, it seems, in the foreseeable future.