Editorial: Sensitivity needed on issue of flag

Opinion

The campaign to change the New Zealand flag has taken a step forward with the official launch of a nationwide petition. Quite understandably, its organisers sought to extract the maximum publicity from the occasion, particularly in Wellington where alternative flag designs were flown outside Parliament as a group of prominent people lent their support. Equally understandably, but rather unfortunately, the occasion prompted an excess of enthusiasm, and comment ill-befitting such a sensitive issue.

Jo Coughlan, a spokeswoman for the nzflag.com trust, set the ball rolling by contending that changing the flag would be "a defining moment in New Zealand's history". In Auckland, former Governor-General Dame Catherine Tizard was equally zealous, likening the present flag to a Model T Ford. The point was clear: altering the flag would be a momentous decision, and, by implication, the forerunner of other changes. Furthermore, only old fuddy-duddies would oppose a new flag.

These were jarring and not necessarily relevant notes to strike. Changing the flag may not, in fact, be a matter of huge constitutional importance, with all sorts of significant ramifications. It need not, for example, be the precursor of republic status, or trigger a dramatic loosening of ties with the Commonwealth. Forty years ago, Canada removed the Union Jack from its flag, and introduced the highly successful maple-leaf design, without any such consequences.

Nor should this campaign indulge in divisiveness and dismissiveness. Dave Currie, New Zealand's chef de mission at last year's Athens Olympics, learned all about the sensibilities of the issue when he suggested a banner boasting the silver fern held greater appeal for team members than the national flag. There was the strongest of responses from those who value the heritage and tradition embodied in that flag.

The depth of sentiment has again been apparent to petition-gatherers in Auckland, who received insults and abuse as well as gestures of support. While many who support the present flag might be elderly - as opposed to a more youthful backing for change - it is demeaning, rancorous and potentially counterproductive to be making Model T-type pronouncements. New Zealand should be debating its flag. "We are not," also according to Dame Catherine, "the country we were 100 years ago. [It] is a very different country now." But that debate should not be conducted in an atmosphere of bitterness and resentment.

If such were to develop, it would be a blot on what until now has been a methodical campaign. The organisers are not seeking overnight change; indeed, they have no chance of getting it, given the extreme reluctance of politicians to become involved. What is proposed is a two-step process, rather like that which delivered MMP. The petition started this week seeks 300,000 signatures - 10 per cent of eligible voters - by May to force a referendum at this year's general election. This would put the question: "Should the design of the New Zealand flag be changed?"

If the answer from more than 50 per cent of voters is yes, the campaign organisers want an independent group of prominent New Zealanders appointed to choose a new design. That would run off against the present flag in another referendum. Such a process allows plenty of time for the issues surrounding the flag to be thrashed around. The likes, for example, of whether a Union Jack-dominated image is the one we wish to present to the world today. And whether we are, in fact, a different country, with a different culture and a different perspective on our place in the world.

To discuss such matters is not a measure of disrespect to those who fought and died under the present flag. But nor should their sacrifice be blithely dismissed. The tenor of the debate, as much as its outcome, will be defining. It will illustrate just how far we have come.