Keeping open mind on flag

THE challenge to front up with a column as "punchy" - some would say reckless - as preceding weeks is not easy to meet.

Being of a fairly sunny disposition, I am not constantly brassed-off with the world sufficiently to find a worthy platform each week. I hope readers are not disappointed.

I have just attended the unveiling of a plaque commemorating the World War I winners of the Victoria Cross, which will be placed in Parliament's grounds near the top of the new steps leading to the cenotaph. At least two of those VC winners came from the Whanganui electorate.

It struck me on my recent visit to soldiers' cemeteries in France and Germany, where New Zealanders are laid to rest, that the country they were representing when they died is vastly different from the New Zealand of today.

In Caterpillar Valley in France, where I led a small ceremony, we reflected on the fact that the mihi poroporoaki and karakia that was offered would probably never have been in the contemplation of my great uncle, buried in the cemetery.

If he was aware of what we were doing, he would not recognise the significance. But the legacy of the winning of that war for us, as New Zealanders, has been to be able to exhibit the freedom to be unique in identity and to stand apart from other nations and Commonwealth countries.

We are no longer clones of the English but have put our own stamp on the world, and we have jumped out of the shadow of colonialism without forgetting our roots, at least for Pakeha.

The discussion or argument around the referendum on the New Zealand flag seems to provoke conflict. There is an innate sense of pride that we Kiwis have cut our own track and do not tug our forelocks to England and yet, at the same time, there is a strong voice for retention of the flag which makes that colonial connection.

I guess the strongest argument in favour of change is to reflect what New Zealand has become since we took on the ensign as our flag, and also to differentiate us from the Aussie flag.

I have to accept that differentiation is important. In travelling in motorcades in Europe recently, there was marked interest from pedestrians in all the areas where the motorcade stopped with motorcycles, police cars and limousines.

The only emblem signifying who we were was a small flag on the bonnet of the vehicle carrying the Speaker and ambassador. I got sick of hearing the murmurs of the crowds as we disembarked saying: "Oh, it's the Australians."

Nobody makes that mistake with the Canadians since they adopted the maple leaf on their flag and discarded the flag which closely resembled what we use today. That step by the Canadians was hugely unpopular at the time, but nobody wanted to revert to an ensign incorporating a Union Jack.

I start my consideration from a standpoint that I quite like our current flag and as we had it first, so let the blimmin' Aussies change theirs. But I am now leaning towards keeping an open mind until I see the alternatives.

I sure won't be voting for any option for the sake of change. A nation's identity is bigger than a flag. At least in the process we have, the government can only be in trouble for giving people the option to change as the alternatives will be chosen by an independent group and the whole voting age population will get to choose between the current flag and the most popular option.

In the end, at least half the population will have voted for the winning flag. The issue raises its head once every couple of years and we have had this flag for about a century so once settled, it will stay settled for a lifetime - thank goodness. The debate will get hotter before it is over. I am already flooded with correspondence with threats as to what will rain down upon me should I vote for change - ignorant as they are that the only vote I get is the same as theirs: in the referendum.