A $26 Million Flag Story
New Zealand’s Flag Referendum
There was a unique national phenomenon that occurred in New Zealand in 2015 until before the 2017 election: the idea of changing the national flag. This notion came from Prime Minister John Key in 2014 because of some political and historical considerations. The referendum was held through two steps: the determination of alternative motives that will become the replacement flag and the final decision to change the flag or not. This referendum project involved all New Zealanders through public deliberation by voting.
Shortly after the return of a National-led government, the referendum started. The government appointed 12 New Zealanders as members of the Flag Consideration Panel, which will engage with the public about a possible New Zealand flag (Beehive, 2015). After the four final shortlists were decided by the Panel -from around 10,000 design suggestions from the public, the citizens were asked, “If the New Zealand flag changes, which flag would you prefer?” The results showed that the black, white, and blue silver fern flag gained the highest voters and were entitled to advance to the second referendum. The second referendum was to decide whether the New Zealanders wanted to keep the old national flag or change it to the new selected alternative. In the end, the final decision was to keep the current flag. Such a fantastic story.
Using the IAP2 model
New Zealand’s flag referendum, which spent a total of $ 26 million without any results, was severely criticized. Various questions regarding public engagement arise, one of which is how the deliberation process can actually be carried out to be effective and not just waste taxpayers’ money.
The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) model provides clear steps for public engagement and helps mitigate problems from the outset. The framework has three parts: clarity about the decision, the IAP2 spectrum, and the IAP2 core values. Besides planning step, the IAP2 structure can also be used to assess the effectiveness of a deliberation process. Below we will examine the use of this framework, to determine the effectiveness of public engagement that has been carried out by the New Zealand Government in the flag referendum .
Clarity about decision
Based on IAP2, decision statements are essential -it’s a vital component of the engagement planning foundation (Delaney, 2016). In the flag referendum case, the public participation process was already done in the right way. The decision process, on the report, has involved public officials, experts, and also affected parties. Government identifies the issue that Kiwis want to change the flag –because the design of the current flag of the colonial era symbolises, and gather information, establish the decision that we should have a change, develop options of designs, which was involving the citizens, and then make a final decision based on the real voting.
At first sight, everything seemed on the track until we realized that there was an odd order of the change process. If we wanted to change the flag, why didn’t we ask the audience first to make sure how many percents of them wanted a change? Or both questions compacted into one referendum, which could potentially save millions of dollars (Claire, 2015).
IAP2 Spectrum
From the picture above, we can see that the New Zealand government has already at the empowering stage, where the final decision of the replacement of the flag was fully passed to the citizens. I mean, if we look at the start of the project, the public has already informed, be a consultant, involved, and collaborated with the government by sending the flag designs and voting for the alternatives.
IAP2 Core Values
From Quality Assurance Standard (IAP2 Australasia, n.d), there are three levels of quality in the implementation of core values, which are elementary, emerging, and exemplary. From the indicators given by the IAP2, I think that the flag referendum were still on the second stage, emerging because, in the design of the process, they will participate (the first and second-order referendums), the people did not seek for inputs (core value number 5).
We know that this proposal was politically charged and submitted by leaders who are currently facing elections. The referendum tends to be developed by some stakeholders, and then it is provided to the public. The results of the referendum itself can be proof that citizens did not become entirely legitimate this idea. I mean, if the government was pretty sure that the majority of the Kiwis were really wanted to change the flag, why didn’t the voting was just about “Which flag is the best option to replace the initial ones?” You dont waste your precious money on seeking alternatives and then go back to think if you want to change or not, right?
Conclusion
The New Zealand flag referendum was not a bad idea. Each country has the right to come out of the dark shadow of colonialism. The method used in decision-making has also involved the public, which in general has adopted the IAP2 approach. However, if examined further, in terms of the clarity of choices, the government is considered to have missed the sequence of questions that makes the referendum ineffective and inefficient.
If from the beginning the government was convinced that the people wanted to make changes, then the steps of the referendum would be shorter, just collecting design ideas and asking people to vote. And if the government was not too sure that the people want to make a change, the referendum should start with a question about whether they want to change it, not choosing a new flag first. This issue also relates to IAP2 core values, where the people should also be involved in the design of the referendum process, to produce more effective and efficient engagement.
References
Beehive. (2015). Flag Consideration Panel members announced. Retrieved from https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/flag-consideration-panel-members-announced
Claire, T. (2015). Flag change referendums come one step closer. Retrieved from https://www.nzherald.co.nz/flag-debate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1500876&objectid=11416337
Delaney. (2016). All About Decision Statements: Part 1. Retrieved from http://www.rmdelaney.com/blog/engagement-planning/decision-statements-part-1/
Quality Assurance Standard. (n. d.). Australia: IAP2 Australasia. Retrieved from https://iap2.org.au/
