We can do better with our new flag

Red, white and blue ... it's so 1915. Photo / Christine Cornege

Everything about our flag is wrong, starting with the colours. Red, white and blue are not a great part of our natural heritage unless you count the inspiring vision of a KFC silhouetted against a cloudless summer sky. They belong instead to the colonial heritage we are trying to grow out of.

"But the Southern Cross is ours. We should keep the Southern Cross because we can see it all year around because we're, like, southern".

Talk about accidents of birth. Yes we are, but that doesn't give us a special relationship with the constellation. Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, Chile and other countries can also see it all year around.

"But the Union Jack - our British heritage. Gallipoli, Anzac Day."

Surely that disaster, noble though its sacrifices were, is reason enough not to remind ourselves that we once had close ties with a very strange country at the other end of the world. You don't even need to bring up Are You Being Served? or Simon Cowell.

Many have suggested a return to some colonial era flags, such as that of the United Tribes, which has design merits but is still part Union Jack, Southern Cross and red, white and blue.

Then there are proposals that try to do too much at once, such as the one that replaces the traditional Union Jack in the corner with one composed of koru in red, white and black. It looks as good as it sounds.

The central symbol of a new flag should reflect our heritage, but does it have to be political, cultural or ethnic heritage? Won't favouring any of those cause dissension by excluding some group or significant facet of life? We want a flag for 2015 and the future, not 1915 and the past.

Many proposed new flag designs are black and white, which might go down well in High St, but most people like a bit of colour. That's why so few hung on to their black and white TV sets when we changed over in 1972. Also, flags need to be suitable for celebrations as well as mass burials.

A flag that reflects our natural heritage would be truly inclusive. In that respect, there's been a lot of support for the silver fern. But, symbolically, it's a disaster - the silver being the side of the fern leaf that hides itself away from the sun and tries not to be seen. Is that the message we want to send?

Are we going to be comfortable with a great flag? We have an awkward relationship with national pride. We're happy to sit around our own homes congratulating ourselves for our remarkable achievements but reluctant to share to a wider audience lest we get slapped down.

But a flag has to be something we can look up to with pride - that's why they are put at the top of poles rather than at ground level.

To sum up: the symbol on our flag should be unique to us, natural rather than culture, about past, present and future, embody positive national qualities, unite rather than divide, and look good.

So it has to be the kauri.

Kauri, as a potentially mighty thing that grows in a small place, symbolises our ability to achieve remarkable things. Kauri are also under threat - as are we with our sovereignty being sold off. It is immediately recognisable. And it can be appreciated by all New Zealanders no matter where they were born or for how many generations they have been here.

Also, the most important examples are in Northland, so selling the idea is a gift for Winston.