I am sceptical that these people will be able to elicit the right answer from our population about what we actually do stand for as a country. That's in part because there's no one there who appears to work directly with those at the bottom of the socio-economic heap. But it's also because we are a country almost evenly divided between those who think we are headed in the wrong direction, and those who think things couldn't be better. For us all to be evenly represented on an eventual new flag, we'd probably need some unappealing mashup between a thumbs-up sign and Edvard Munch's The Scream.
As others have pointed out, in any case, this is an exercise in diversion, pure and simple. It seems to me more time, energy and devotion has been spent devising ways to focus the mind of the country on the issue of whether we need a new flag than almost any other subject of immediate import to us all.
Over issues that need urgent consideration - especially those with an ethical dimension - we are not asked with such vigour, "what do we stand for?" The death of Lecretia Seales and her push in her last days for a legal path to euthanasia, for example, has invigorated conversation around assisted suicide - something a majority of New Zealanders would like to see come to pass. It's been shut down, outright. Same with medical marijuana.
But the shutting down can also take a more subtle tone, with those wanting answers cast as unreasonable. For example, if it's pointed out we face possible trouble with our inability to urgently diversify our economy away from low-cost commodity products, we're reminded times have never been so good. And a surplus is now an "artificial target" anyhow. But we may get one. Or not. Does it matter?
We are facing dangerous times in Iraq, with our "trainers" in possible imminent danger and an almost naive faith in that country's ruling regime to get things right. But when the hard questions come, we're shut down with, effectively, "it's the right thing to do - if you don't agree, you're a coward". End of story.
Our most vulnerable citizens are at risk from a radical new revamp of social services and the sell-off of state assets - not just actual assets but also bits of our healthcare, education and other social services, including housing. Details are - and remain - vague, and proof non-existent, but we're told this new path will "better target" those that need help the most - with the proof of that the fact it's being lauded as a great idea in America. As if that is great comfort.
There are so many more issues for glossing over. Christchurch: stop your whining, and let us decide who runs your region. Murray McCully: almost a national hero for saving a terrible situation in Sheepgate, created by Labour. Maori land claims: I haven't been briefed on the details. But what I can tell you is ...
Some dislike being fobbed off this way - others think it's perfectly fine. Some think the country is fantastic, others think it could be so much more. I think that if a genuinely inclusive conversation was started - one that gave more weighting to people "at the coalface" of issues - we could come up with a truly representative view of what the country stands for. And a new flag may eventuate from that.
But that's not what happens when a facile question, addressing an issue that few engage in, is asked by a group of people with too much connection to the elite, with the relatively easy task of tackling an issue that hardly needed attention in the first place.
