Following up on a previous post about the New Zealand flag debate, this post considers the outcome of the referenda held in 2015/2016.
The flag debate was settled by means of a general referendum held between 20 November and 11 December 2015, and a follow-up referendum held between 3 and 24 March 2016. In the first referendum, voters were asked to rank according to their preference five possible alternatives to the current flag. The five shortlisted alternative designs were nominated by a panel of twelve “high-profile New Zealanders” who compiled a longlist of 40 flags, which in turn were derived from a total of 10292 suggestions from the New Zealand public. The longlist flags are pictured below:
In selecting the five shortlisted flags, the panel were guided by the following criteria:
- It should unmistakably be from New Zealand and celebrate us as a progressive, inclusive nation that is connected to its environment and has a sense of its past and a vision of its future,
- It should be a ‘great’ flag, which means that it adheres to the principles of good flag design, has an enduring quality which will not become outdated, will work well in all situations from celebration to commemoration,
- It should be inclusive, in that all New Zealanders should be able to see themselves within it, and
- It should not have any impediments to use as the potential New Zealand flag
The panel initially only announced four alternative flag designs on 1 September 2015. A fifth design was added to the shortlist on 24 September 2015, after Deputy Prime Minister Bill English revealed that Parliament had voted by an overwhelming majority to have an additional, fifth option added to the first postal referendum ballot paper. The late addition took the form of the so-called “red peak” flag, pictured below (last) along with the four alternative designs selected by the panel:
Koru by Andrew Fyfe
Silver Fern (Black & White) by Alofi Kanter
Silver Fern (Red, White and Blue) by Kyle Lockwood
Silver Fern (Black, White and Blue) by Kyle Lockwood
Red Peak by Aaron Dustin (fifth addition)
New Zealanders were also provided with official visual representations of each flag in everyday settings to aid there deliberation, for example:
… drawn on the ground with chalk
… flying in front of a house
… face paint
This enabled New Zealanders to visualise each flag in its “natural habitat” as part of their everyday lives. It also emphasises the role of a flag as a symbol with which individuals may connect in different ways in expressing their national and individual identities, and it is to the New Zealand government’s credit that they conceptualised the debate surrounding a national flag (new or otherwise) in this frame of reference.
The outcome of the first leg of the referendum was that voters identified Kyle Lockwood’s Silver Fern with Black, White and Blue as their preferred alternative flag, with the Koru design by Andre Fife proving the least popular of the choices.
The next leg of the referendum, held in March 2016, sought to determine which flag New Zealanders preferred – the most popular alternative, or the current flag. The choice was therefore a simple one:
… versus the challenger
The incumbent …
On 24 March 2016 it was announced that New Zealand had voted to retain the current flag by a margin of 56.73% to 43.27%. Despite this result indicating an overall preference for the retention of the current flag, there were a handful of voting districts in which the majority favoured the alternative.
It appears as if the New Zealand flag question has now been settled for at least a generation. Throughout the referendum, it was evident that many New Zealanders still identify the flag as a link to their shared national history. This is particularly true of the flag’s association with the armed forces, which had fought in numerous conflicts to uphold the values upon which contemporary New Zealand is built under the current flag. Additionally, whilst the outcome of the final referendum indicates a relatively close contest, many have criticised the flag referendum as being a vanity project by the incumbent government and as being a diversion from more pressing socio-economic issues. Such allegations may have merit, since it is often difficult to gauge the true intentions of politicians. Nonetheless, Kiwis can be proud of the responsible and attentive manner through which they have handled the flag debate, since amending or abolishing national symbols can often fraught with political and emotional conflict that can divide societies.
anapophist 