Keep it this way

[Biff]

Yeah, but this isn't the US - Debate away!

Ok, here's my reponse to your questions.


A. Changing the flag will matter a bit.

But the perception of New Zealand by other nation states and their constituent populations would. A comment was passed in a previous post that nobody cares about New Zealand anyway. Well as I've already stated I've personally been blessed with being able to travel to many nations around the world and that there is the belief by many people I've met on my travels that New Zealand is a British colony simply because NZ has the flag of another nation as a key part of it's national identity. As such why would these individuals take anything NZ had to say seriously if they are of the impression that this great nations view was worthless as it was the UK which spoke on it's behalf? To be taken more seriously on the world stage it is important for any nation to be able to be seen to be independent and freethinking.

B. That a Republican Democracy is the ONLY alternative to a Constitutional Monarchy/Westminster Parliamentarian system?

I believe that both Republican Democracies and Constitutional systems work well and both have their own merits (and weaknesses), as do the their respective legislative systems. There are plenty of templates out there as examples of governmental structures that NZ could emulate and it would be an ideal opportunity to take a look at many of examples of governments around the world and their respective legal systems, picking the best bits and ignoring the archaic systems employed by other nations (and I'm particularly thinking of some Westminster parliamentarian and legislative processes here).

However, I do not believe that there is a necessary or automatic correlation between changing the design of a piece of cloth which, it could be said, is nothing more than a (supposedly) unique national identifier and a change in governmental systems. This is a broader issue that I for one do not see the need to change at this point in NZ's history.

[Blakamin]

As for fighting and dying for your flag, sorry I don't buy that. I don't believe that a single Kiwi has ever fought to keep a piece of colourful material just the way it has been for centuries. They fought for their nation and their beliefs.

Actually, NZ hasn't had to fight for the country for a long time... fighting on behalf however... (slack poms cant do it themselves!)
Australia did have to fight for the country in WW2.... like I said before, If either country was under threat, I'd be there in a heartbeat... the flag is symbolism or countries wouldnt have flags at all!!!

I dont think NZ should change its flag
I think Australia should! I think the Australian flag should be the Eureka Flag. bloody good flag design (and it was in the town where most of my Aussie side of the family call home. in fact, my "good" brother lives about 400 metres from the original site)

In December 1854, 1000 men gathered at Eureka, on the outskirts of Ballarat and unfurled their flag, a white cross and stars on a blue field, to proclaim their oath:

We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other, and fight to defend our rights and liberties.

fuckin good oath I reckon!

[James Deuce]

This is a broader issue that I for one do not see the need to change at this point in NZ's history.

Ah, I see where you are coming from now.

The problem with your responses is that they are contradictory. I don't know if you are aware, but NZ is not Independant. It is a realm of the United Kingdom, so the current flag actually makes a great deal of sense in terms of NZ's International legal status.

That is why I link flag reform and legislative change.

I think it is interesting that you label the Westminster system "archaic". Probably in it's current state it is the most modern democratic system on the planet, and certainly able to change legislature quicker than the US Republican system.

There are actually very few functioning democratic templates for government reform in NZ to follow.

[That Guy]

I'd like to see the flag changed; but have not yet seen one I like. I'd like to see one that acknowledges where we came from, but also recognises that we don't owe things we achieve today, to the UK.

What crystallized it for me was watching Sarah Ulmer get her gold medal. She wrapped the Kiwi flag around her proudly (good) but all you could see was Union Jack. Why should the UK be globally acknowledged for her achievement?

I like the Maori flag but that recognises only 10% of the nation, nor does it recognise that a huge part of our history is UK founded which we shouldn't forget -we need something that recognises all of us. I thought this one was getting close...

[Biff]

I don't know if you are aware, but NZ is not Independant.

Really? I honestly didn't know that! Best I do my homework before ranting.

I think it is interesting that you label the Westminster system "archaic". Probably .

One of the main problems with Westminster is that there are two houses to satisfy. On the one hand you have the House of Commons, which consists of elected representatives (MP's) and then you have the House of Lords, which despite the current governments (alleged) attempts is still largely run by non-elected hereditary peers (Lord's and Ladies). These people have never earned the right to speak on behalf of the population of the UK, but simply acquired the right to have the final say on which legislation hits the statute books simply because they have bought a title, own land (by hook or by crook ,but that's another story) or their family have had the titles for centuries. These people in no way reflect the cross section of society and are primarily from the upper and conservative classes. Although I do appreciate that the current elected government is attempting to change this, and to some extent has been successful. But guess what - the House of Lords has to vote on whether or not it should change!!!!!

How on earth can a country that claims to be democratic still base it's legislative process on such an archaic practice. I've lost count of the number of times the elected house vote to pass a law or reform only to have the lords reject it.

[Big Dave]

I thought this one was getting close...

Best of the bunch by a LONG shot.
bd

[Big Dave]

There are actually very few functioning democratic templates for government reform in NZ to follow.

What an opportunity to get it right then!

Personally I hope you do - these issues are not too far away from surfacing in Oz again - 2007 I think it all comes up for mention again - and a Kiwi inspired reform would be......I'm not sure I have the word for it.

Considering that in the planned layout of Canberra, the parliament building is in the middle of Australia Circuit.

All of the roads that radiate from it point directly to the state capital for which they are named. Sydney Rd to Sydney etc.

Except for 'Australia Road' - it points directly to....Wellington.

Seems you chaps not wanting to 'play ball' in the federation game came as a bit of a suprise.

Nice irony if NZ could inspire a reform back home.

Adds: - Just on Lous comment - Becoming a state adds an extra layer of Government - don't do it - a common currency and SX would be better.

bd

[Blakamin]

Except for 'Australia Road' - it points directly to....Wellington.

Actually, doesnt it point to Jervis Bay, which is part of the ACT as the capital had to have access to the sea :spudwhat:

[James Deuce]

Really? I honestly didn't know that! Best I do my homework before ranting.



One of the main problems with Westminster is that there are two houses to satisfy. On the one hand you have the House of Commons, which consists of elected representatives (MP's) and then you have the House of Lords, which despite the current governments (alleged) attempts is still largely run by non-elected hereditary peers (Lord's and Ladies). These people have never earned the right to speak on behalf of the population of the UK, but simply acquired the right to have the final say on which legislation hits the statute books simply because they have bought a title, own land (by hook or by crook ,but that's another story) or their family have had the titles for centuries. These people in no way reflect the cross section of society and are primarily from the upper and conservative classes. Although I do appreciate that the current elected government is attempting to change this, and to some extent has been successful. But guess what - the House of Lords has to vote on whether or not it should change!!!!!

How on earth can a country that claims to be democratic still base it's legislative process on such an archaic practice. I've lost count of the number of times the elected house vote to pass a law or reform only to have the lords reject it.

I know what you're saying, but the US has effectively 3 layers to go through, and can be overturned by a 4th "non-political" layer, so I don't reckon that's a goer either.

Elected officials very seldom reflect their constituent or list base, because most people don't hanker after political power. Bit if a catch 22. Plato had the population for an effective democracy (as intended by Democrates) - about 2-3000. Over that and the "general" populace are excluded from debate.

[Posh Tourer :P]

Best of the bunch by a LONG shot.
bd

Agreed, maybe remove the leaves to make it simpler...... Looks good too, but I suspect we will be required to have a Maori symbol on it too, unless the fern counts well enough (it ought to)

[Big Dave]

Actually, doesnt it point to Jervis Bay, which is part of the ACT as the capital had to have access to the sea :spudwhat:

Not the way i heard it - heard being the operative.
bd

[moko]

How on earth can a country that claims to be democratic still base it's legislative process on such an archaic practice. I've lost count of the number of times the elected house vote to pass a law or reform only to have the lords reject it.

Then just to make it really good there`s a thing called The Parliament Act which means that despite all this farting around the Government can over-rule the Lords anyway,the subject of a court-case with the Countryside Alliance (Rural activists who have just seen the Govt. steamroller anti-fox-hunting legislation through).Worse yet is the "Royal Perogative" which basically gives the PM the same rights as an absolute Monarch(in theory is able to decide a course of action on behalf of the Crown,which in reality has no power),that`s how Thatcher was able to give the order to sink the Belgrano despite the majority of even her spineless,arse-licking cabinet advising her that war-crimes go down in history.THAT`s the farce that`s British democracy,the current Govt. are in a constant battle with the judiciery for trampling all over the laws of this land.tony blair`s government do something then are sued by the company his wife works for,great scam there somewhere.

[Hitcher]

I still don't think that anyone has even come anywhere near to answering the questions I posed above, which gives me more to concerned about than the large numbers of Aussies now living in NZ that have appeared in this thread. (Large numbers is more than one).

Sorry mate, I thought they where rhetorical...

If changing the flag doesn't make a difference we shouldn't do it. However the flag becomes a significant issue every time there is some "New Zealand marketing push thingee" internationally (I've been personally involved in about four of these over a period of mumble years). In these cases the issue is one of branded identity which a nicely unambiguous flag would go a long way to solving.

On a day-to-day basis Joe and Julie Citizen have very little to do with the flag and really don't give a shit. About the only time they see it is during the Olympics and such when it is raised to that egregious tune that passes for our national anthem.

The "fought and died" argument is a crock. No New Zealander died for King, country or flag. They volunteered in their thousands to fight in other people's wars because all their mates were, it was a great adventure and way to see the world, and there was bugger-all else happening here. They were also bloody good at it. The battle honours received either by regiment or individually by New Zealand troops is frightening testament to their prodigiousness and prowess as soldiers.

Democracy? New Zealanders like ticking boxes. We were conned into MMP by a well-organised and financed lobby group on the basis that a first-past-the-post electoral system is "unfair". Sigh. There are much better systems of proportional representation, if that is indeed what we want.

Prediction: Britain will become a republic before we do. What's left of the Royal family will either move here voluntarily or face deportation.

[vifferman]

Worse yet is the "Royal Perogative" which basically gives the PM the same rights as an absolute Monarch....

Yeah.

It was disgusting when that was exercised to shaft the Chagossians, who in 2003 had a court ruling that they had been unlawfully evicted from Diego Garcia, only to have the Royal Rubberstamping to say that they were never ever allowed to return to their homeland. Shameful use of power.... :disapint:

[avgas]

We were never a Prison colony - where do you get this stuff from??

nope...but austrailia was. not that you can tell from our flags that we also are not.
We were suppose to be a colony of people who were gonna start a new life in a new land.
but no lets drag the old one here too