Flag change nuts

Three bills were introduced when Parliament resumed at 2pm on Wednesday. Acting Prime Minister Bill English then moved a motion without notice congratulating the Queen on becoming Britain’s longest-reigning monarch. The motion was approved on a voice vote. Outside of Parliament, however, the biggest topic of conversation was whether the Union Jack should be removed from our national flag and, if so, what should the new flag look like.

A change in a country’s flag tends to follow a fundamental change of regime and constitution in the aftermath of a civil war, revolution or some such. Kiwis are thinking about changing their flag largely because Prime Minister John Key fancies a change and has instigated a costly process to persuade people that they should fancy change, too.

Defending the $26 million budgeted for this exercise, Key said the cost was worth it for such an important constitutional issue. But economist Brian Easton observes that expert guidance on the characteristics of a good flag (which might be costly) was bypassed. Instead, ‘‘a panel of celebrities’’, each successful in a narrow sphere of activity, was ‘‘endowed by government fiat with the task of making decisions outside their limited expertise’’. Easton supports public participation in making the final decision. But the Government did not begin with expert advice to provide preliminary guidance and jumped directly to uninformed opinion.

More critically, the Government didn’t establish if there was a strong public appetite for change. It counted on overcoming public apathy, indifference or general satisfaction with the current flag through the opinionmanipulating process it adopted and the wellpublicised reduction of hundreds of designs to 40, then four.

Significant support has emerged for a fifth option, the ‘‘Red Peak’’ flag, and debate rages around its merits. Right-wingers regard this as a left-wing conspiracy to make mischief for the Government. Another fuss has focused on whether removing the Union Jack from New Zealand’s flag will magically give the Key Government absolute power.

Attorney-General Chris Finlayson pitched in on this, although the gravitas he brought to bear is encapsulated in one four-letter word: He said this idea was ‘‘nuts’’.

But much of what has happened because of a prime ministerial itch to unfurl a national flag, preferably featuring a fern, is nuts.

Let’s be grateful he doesn’t fancy stars and stripes.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR