The March 2016 referendum pitted the existing flag against Kyle Lockwood\u2019s black, white and blue silver fern design that voters had chosen from a field of five in an earlier referendum held the previous year (Red Peak was added to that original shortlist after a public outcry at its exclusion). In the final referendum, we narrowly retained<\/a> our current flag, and ended up with unresolved questions about process, identity and politics that still resound today.<\/p>\n Did we approach the flag question the right way?<\/p>\n If given a time machine to redo his vision, former prime minister John Key says he\u2019d \u201cjust change the flag\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIn hindsight, a referendum was a big mistake because referendums aren\u2019t very effective. They\u2019re always better for a no campaign than a yes campaign. It\u2019s really easy to articulate the things people might hate.\u201d<\/p>\n He\u2019d replicate Canada<\/a>, South Africa<\/a> and Minnesota<\/a>, where elected representatives initiated change to now-iconic and inclusive flag designs. \u201cWe convoluted ourselves with too much process, 20-odd million dollars of it. All I had to do was change the act<\/a> and I could\u2019ve gotten 61 votes [in parliament] to do that. There\u2019d be a lot of moaning from certain people and three months afterwards, everyone would like it.\u201d<\/p>\n Malcolm Mulholland, who was one of 12 members of the cross-party-appointed Flag Consideration Panel, maintains the process was ideal: the first referendum narrowed down finalist designs to Lockwood\u2019s alternative design, and the second pitted that against the current flag. \u201cI don\u2019t know that we could\u2019ve done it another way.\u201d<\/p>\n He is countered by Ted Kaye, American vexillologist (flag expert) and author of Good Flag, Bad Flag<\/a>. Around the same time as New Zealand was considering changing its flag, he chaired Fiji\u2019s national flag committee and exchanged thoughts with ours.<\/p>\n \u201cThe process was fundamentally flawed,\u201d says Kaye now. \u201cThe people involved were just trying to make the best of it. I wish I\u2019d had a chance to advise the government.\u201d<\/p>\n To explain, he displays the final ballot asking whether to adopt Lockwood\u2019s design. \u201cPeople who don\u2019t want to change vote no. People who want to change but don\u2019t like the alternative design vote no. So, there are two no votes to every yes vote.\u201d<\/p>\n Even its designer has reservations, pinpointing the colours. \u201cAt the time, a lot of people didn\u2019t like the black.\u201d Revisiting the panel\u2019s choice, Mulholland reflects, \u201cIt felt like a compromise at the time \u2013\u00a0a bit of old and new\u201d, as people had come to desire \u201csomething more bold and distinct\u201d.<\/p>\n Key now believes we were \u201covercomplicating\u201d designs. \u201cIf you\u2019re going to get everyone to chip in on design, it\u2019s like how a camel is a horse designed by a committee.\u201d<\/p>\n What design should a future campaign pick? Many people spoken to for this story recommend a stylised silver fern on black, emphasising appearances beyond sports: businesses, products, backpackers and Air New Zealand<\/a>.<\/p>\n Key appeals to universal recognition. \u201cIf I hold up a silver fern to 1,000 people, whether they\u2019re New Zealanders or not, what do they say? \u2018New Zealand\u2019. It\u2019s simple, like the maple leaf.\u201d Mulholland appeals to history: \u201cWhen you look at symbolism<\/a> in the [world wars], it tended to be the silver fern or kiwi, not so much the New Zealand flag.\u201d<\/p>\n Lockwood also identifies a resurgence of M\u0101ori imagery. But for anyone considering the tino rangatiratanga flag<\/a>, its last living co-designer Linda Munn remains strongly opposed to adopting it as the national flag. \u201cWe\u2019ve sold off enough of our culture,\u201d Munn says. \u201cIt will always stay in the hands of M\u0101ori.\u201d Recalling a government offer to include it in the referendum, she says now that she flatly refused, responding, \u201cWhy don\u2019t you design your own flag?\u201d<\/p>\n Design and process aside, some recognise a wider issue: partisan politics.<\/p>\n Key laments that \u201creferendums become politicised. Labour and the Greens had a policy to change the flag. I just took them at face value. Then they got all their people to vote against it.<\/p>\n \u201cA lot of people said it\u2019s a legacy project for me. I never saw it as that. If I wanted a legacy project, I would\u2019ve built some big building.\u201d<\/p>\n Mulholland, who consulted the public nationwide, agrees that people \u201clooked at their decision along party political lines\u201d and many voted against change \u201cto get back at [Key]\u201d.<\/p>\n Accusations of personal bias were amplified when two variants of Lockwood\u2019s design were selected as finalists after Key publicly endorsed it. Lockwood comments, \u201cIt confuses me to this day. They could\u2019ve just chosen one.\u201d<\/p>\n The perils of design endorsement are affirmed by former Canadian PM Stephen Harper, who shared his first-hand experience of Canada\u2019s national flag change in the 1960s with Key during our effort. Comparing both countries for lessons again, he reckons that Canada\u2019s Pearson Pennant<\/a> flag proposal wasn\u2019t adopted \u201cbecause it was the choice of the prime minister. If people think the leader is trying to impose his own flag, that will be the one not picked, and I think that\u2019s part of what happened in New Zealand.\u201d<\/p>\n The most remembered design wasn\u2019t even an official contender \u2013 the famous \u201claser kiwi<\/a>\u201d gag. \u201cSome of us jokingly said, \u2018let\u2019s just include it\u2019, Mulholland reveals. \u201cBut knowing the public, it could\u2019ve become the design people voted on to have a laugh or make a mockery of the process. Can you imagine that? Luxon shaking the hand of Albanese, and behind is bloody laser kiwi! Fantastic!\u201d<\/p>\n It has now ripened<\/a> beyond an inside joke to reach international saturation. Imitations abound \u2013 most recently, as The Spinoff reported<\/a> last month, a laser-eyed loon submitted to Minnesota\u2019s 2024 redesign of its problematic state flag<\/a>.<\/p>\n Luis Fitch, chair of Minnesota\u2019s flag commission<\/a>, recalls a \u201cbig smile\u201d on first seeing the laser loon and thanks us for our influence. \u201cI didn\u2019t know the full backstory at first, but I soon learned about New Zealand\u2019s laser kiwi flag and realised we were seeing a kind of \u2018second-generation\u2019 meme design. Even though it was never a serious contender as an official flag, it played an important role.\u201d The laser loon now adorns public library cards and anti-Ice protest<\/a> flags.<\/p>\n Insiders judged 2016\u2019s result (44% for change) narrower than expected. Key reflects, \u201cThere was real desire to change. Even the Queen was sympathetic.\u201d<\/p>\n They agree it\u2019s even more relevant now, citing our burgeoning global profile<\/a>, social divisions<\/a> and multiculturalism.<\/p>\n Research shows colonial ideologies have gradually declined<\/a>, and Wikipedia\u2019s referendum article attracts more than 200 daily hits<\/a>. Lockwood remains surprised at continued interest. \u201cI thought it would all die down a couple of weeks after the result. I\u2019m still selling [flags] a decade later.\u201d He hopes a future flag \u201ctruly resonates with and represents all New Zealanders\u201d, even if it\u2019s not his.<\/p>\n Some suggest waiting for other constitutional changes to revisit the flag. Key is more decisive: \u201cMy advice \u2013 just do it. Without a referendum, it could be done tomorrow.\u201d<\/p>\n Mulholland says his panel functioned well, but a future one should appoint members from design and vexillology backgrounds. Channelling international experience, American vexillologist Kaye also stresses expertise: \u201cA public vote on flags is like voting on how much steel you should put in a bridge. When it comes to designing it, that should be left to the experts.\u201d He praises George Stanley and Jacques Saint-Cyr<\/a>, the specialists behind Canada\u2019s iconic design.<\/p>\nThe leaflet attached to the first referendum explaining the two-stage process (Image: Flag Consideration Panel)<\/p>\n
Malcolm Mulholland (Photo: Supplied)
\nWas the flag alternative chosen the right one to offer?\u00a0<\/p>\nKyle Lockwood with his flag design in March 2016 (Photo: Mark Mitchell\/The New Zealand Herald via Getty Images)
\nWas the referendum even about flags, or Key himself?<\/p>\nAn exhibit on the Great Canadian Flag Debate at the Canadian Museum of History, with the Pearson Pennant, the favoured design of the prime minister at the time, in the centre (Photo: Wikipedia\/CC BY-SA 4.0
\nWhat flag really won the referendum?<\/p>\nLaser kiwi, bottom left, recently inspired laser loon, top right
\nDoes the flag question remain relevant?<\/p>\nLeft, laser kiwi spotted flying proudly on a house in Dunedin last week. Right, NZ flag graffiti seen at an Auckland mall earlier this year (Photos: Tara Ward, Brian Cham)<\/p>\n