Something To Be Remembered For

The desire to leave a legacy seems to be hardwired into humans. For most of us it might be as humble as raising well-adjusted children, planting trees or building something. For others it’s knowing that their kindness has touched the heart of someone and somehow made the world just that tiny bit nicer or an act of bravery or dissent has resulted in achieving equality somewhere.

For the leader of a country the legacy probably includes something that they’ll be remembered for in history books. No leader wants to be a mere line entry with dates and party affiliation. They want a paragraph, a sound bite, an account of something remarkable they achieved for the country. How well the country fared under their charge counts, but what really sticks in minds, especially for a young country like New Zealand is something that gave their citizens a sense of identity.

Rob Muldoon, owner of that sinister chuckle, left us with a sound bite that we’re happy to trot out whenever we want to claim intellectual superiority over Australia: ‘New Zealanders who leave for Australia raise the IQ of both countries’.

David Lange monstered a debate, telling his opponent that he could smell the uranium on his breath and took a moral stance on nuclear weapons that gave New Zealand something to stand for and the beginnings of an international identity that extended beyond rugby prowess.

Helen Clark slapped sanctions on Israel when Mossad spies attempted to steal New Zealand passports to travel on. It was a giant ‘screw you’ to a country many western nations pander to, and a stern message that New Zealand wasn’t going to tolerate the besmirching of the good reputation of those who do have a New Zealand passport.

And then there’s John Key. Key lacks the over-bearing charisma and ready-wit of Muldoon or the loquaciousness and sense of delivery of Lange. He doesn’t have the steely conviction of Clark and is unlikely to take an international stance on anything that will make a New Zealander’s chest swell with pride. He’s unremarkable, more a CEO than leader of a nation. At best he might be remembered for his tenacity holding the Prime Minister position and ‘Teflon John’ ability to engineer the sliding of controversy off his skin. At worst, his most memorable moment may involve the repeated invasion of a ponytail’s personal space. In the absence of charisma, wit, oratorical skills or the desire to stand up to bullies this ‘vanity project’ of a new flag is his chance to leave New Zealand a legacy. Whether you like or loathe the man, creating the opportunity to define who we are as a nation and create a symbol to go into the future under is laudable.

The discussion over the past week around our values, our past and our identity has been one of the most riveting national conversations since the nuclear free debate. For the first time in decades a national pride has emerged and it turns out there are plenty of kiwis who are deeply patriotic about the country for a variety of reasons. Unfortunately for Key what propelled the conversation has not been the awkwardly forced ‘What do we stand for?’ Government attempt at including the populace that resulted in a word cloud and a collective yawn. It’s how the panel then interpreted every value as being able to be represented by a fern. Equality = Fern. Freedom = Fern. History = Fern. Family = Fern. We’ve been dished up a menu of spam, spam, and spam with spam. It’s little surprise social media erupted in a cacophony of hash tags and an epidemic of changed profile pictures.

Some people have pondered whether such a mediocre short list that contains two nearly identical designs is a conspiracy to ensure the current flag stays. It’s unlikely that National would have bothered with the referendum if that was the case, nor would they have structured the order of the two votes in such a topsy-turvy way. Asking people to emotionally invest themselves into the selection of a design first and then asking them if they want to change the flag second ensures that more voters will choose to change. Other people suggest that the flag debate is a tool of distraction, diverting attention away from the TPP or growing refugee crisis. That it may well be but even people with a below average IQ are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Others even credit the Cabinet with being very crafty indeed and putting out a mediocre shortlist selection as a way of stirring us out of our collective ‘laser kiwi is cool’ apathy and whipping up a bit of righteous indignation and passion. I’m of the opinion that Cabinet aren’t that crafty. I think they, the process and the panel have messed up, creating a complete cluster fern of a result.

As the details of the debacle become clearer it’s obvious the panel had no idea what they were doing, and ignored advice that might have resulted in a wider selection of short list options. Here’s how I understand the comedy of errors played out. A panel that contained no designers was appointed. Five principles of design that make a good flag were published on the Government’s website, these appear to have been ignored by the panel. New Zealanders were asked about what they stand for, a word cloud of values was published on the website that seems to have impacted nothing at all. An Advisory Group was thrown together to advise the panel, one of the design expert’s area of expertise was shoes and washing machines. These experts were consulted for a total of four hours and they suggested that the long list include designs that were more geometric and reductive. Again, this seems to have been ignored. Then the fern lobbying began. John Key published a video about how he thinks the flag should be a fern. Richie McCaw chimed in as well. Disconcertingly among the panel members was Julie Christie, whose job it is to promote the fern mark logo, she did declare conflicts of interest but the panel decided the conflicts were mild. A survey of 1000 people was conducted based on pictures but no descriptions of the flags. It’s unclear whether the respondents were asked to watch the ‘What makes a good flag’ video, or to take the word cloud into consideration. It is clear that they were shown only flat representations of the designs and were given no narrative about them. This survey appears to have heavily influenced the panel and the top scoring flags went through to the short list. The short list went through Cabinet and was approved by them despite all of the flags containing a fern of some type.

Sadly, if there’s no acknowledgment and redressing of the process issues that saw two almost identical flags put forward the referendum is likely to be sabotaged in the voting process. The pointless call for creating informal votes by writing ‘Red Peak’ on the first referendum is growing and should this occur, it’s probable that the second vote will result in the current flag remaining. At a cost of $26 million, it’s hard to imagine that any other leader in our lifetimes will have the bottle to float this topic again. Our chance to change the flag through a fair, democratic process is withering as Red Peak supporters and John Key are caught in a stand off.

To resuscitate the process John Key needs to add the Red Peak flag to the short list or send the panel back to the pre-long list selection, remind them of the task at hand and suggest that basing a final four on the results in a poorly framed UMR survey of 1000 people is like making policy decisions based on one night of listening to talkback radio.

Of course it’s not easy backing down from a stance. What John Key desperately requires in order for a legacy of flag change to succeed, is a public mandate he can’t be seen to ignore. If the numbers who have signed the petition to allow the Red Peak design to be included swell to over 50,000 he’ll have that mandate to step in and rescue the sinking ship of the flag consideration project. In true Teflon style he’ll no doubt be able to spin something to save face and the chance of more than a line entry in history books will again be within his reach.

Thanks to a media and social media frenzy, the current petition backers number over 40,000 and pushing that figure to over 50,000 is completely achievable. If you are at all interested in what flag we use to define our nation, signing the petition is something to consider. Backing the Red Peak design has nothing to do with political affiliation. It may be a vanity project, but your opinion of Key’s leadership or your level of care about whether he in fact leaves behind a legacy from his leadership needs to be put aside. This shouldn’t be about politics or personalities, it should be about New Zealand deciding as a nation what our rallying symbol will be now and for the next generation. For those leaning nonchalantly against that comfortable fence of apathy, now might be the time to think about your view on what symbolises your country and adding your name and email to a webpage if it’s something the current flag or a fern doesn’t capture. For those who prefer a fern option, you should still sign the petition so John Key can make this a fair choice and the ferns have a chance against those planning on sabotaging the vote. Heck, even if you would prefer to keep our current flag, you should sign the petition to have the peace of mind it’s a fair fight. For Red Peak supporters, keep campaigning, the time for action is now, and waiting until the first vote to submit a petulant ‘Red Peak’ informal vote will see a whole new wave of Red Peak inspired interpretations where the red triangle represents the bloody gash of the noses we’ve cut off our own faces. If you’re John Key, then fix the balls up. If you want to be a memorable name in New Zealand’s history then help make this referendum create change, otherwise you’ll be so forgettable students of the future will resort to memory tricks to recall your name for history exams. What animal rhymes with John Key?

Give New Zealand a chance at a fair process. Sign the petition here: https://www.change.org/p/prime-minister-john-key-red-peaks-for-new-zealand-flag

Previous article: Fern, Fern, Fern, Fern, Peak.