So... Why is the NZ government suggesting the NZ flag is changed?
The Treasury website should tell the truth. I will check my source(s) again to ensure what I have suggested is true - those sources are closer to the health sector and may have a slant that misrepresents the information. Or they may not, and the representation of the information on the Treasury website while being accurate, may not tell the whole story.
There are several points in the Treasury piece that I would immediately take issue with. For example, clinicians are not receiving 2.5% per annum increases in pay as 'modelled in an illustrative scenario' (aka - estimate, not fact), and the population demographics and growth are not considered. I can be absolutely categoric when I say the biggest issue facing the DHB I work for is the aging population, and the immigration to the area of people who typically have very poor (in terms of health) lifestyles and typically require
significantly more care than people of a European-type descent. That won't be as common an issue across many other DHBs, but is certainly prevalent in the Auckland region.
Incidentally, the increase in health sector spending looks dramatic, but is only bringing NZ up to the same standard as other countries of similar population, when that spending is considered a percentage of GDP.
That wasn't the intention. I focused on something I know about. I'm sure others could do the same for education, military, transport and roading or any one of many other areas.
The government says it has no money, then 'magically' comes up with $26m to spend on something no-one asked for, and which is then vehemently opposed. The government ignores known public opinion, instead choosing to spend yet more money campaigning for the solution a significant majority of people have said they don't want. Admittedly, that has not (yet) been said in a public referendum and only in many dozens of online and other surveys carried out across the country.
I am all in favour of democratic process, but this referendum is moving away from that to one of political persuasion. Sure, you do still get to pick whichever flag you prefer, but you're being sold the result before it happens.
Regardless, I don't regard this as money spent on democratic process, however it is dressed up. I regard it as money wasted, money spent unnecessarily. Money that would have been better spent elsewhere. (But I think we've established my view on that!
) I have absolutely no doubt there is much more money also wasted in official spending, but not in situations as publicly flaunted as this. (Unless Tim Groser spending $200k in 3 months on travel counts.)
In this case we have a government pretending to give the public a choice. When the supposedly desired choice of said government looks to be on a hiding to nothing, they then start to advertise, publicise and distort public opinion to get the result they want. This extends beyond just promoting their preferred candidate, but into persuasion.
This is the back page of the Hamilton Press, dated February 24th 2016. (Apologies for the poor quality of the image. You can find the online version
here.)
This is Spin Doctoring for Dummies masquerading as a full-page advertisement. (Celebs may well have presented their own opinions on the flag change f.o.c., but this will certainly have cost money.)
Note how the official governmental preferred option is on the left. OK... One of them has to be to the left, or the top.
Note how the text for the official governmental preferred option is crisp and clear, in black on a blue-grey background for enhanced contrast. (I appreciate you'll have to take my word that it is crisp and clear.)
Note how the text for the existing flag is on pale blue for reduced contrast. Again, I know you can't see it in this image, but the published text does appear marginally less distinct.
Also note that the provenance of the advertisement is not prominently stated, and written in white on pale blue for even less contrast and immediate visibility.
Now, it is entirely possible an independent advertising agency supports the flag change and has taken an opportunity to publish this item. To me, that seems unlikely. Regardless, anyone in advertising will tell you at a glance that this page is designed for one thing - to emphasise the flag on the left while nullifying as far as possible the flag on the right.
One last thing... I've shown the fern flag to some people I regularly speak with from overseas to seek their opinion on the design. "Here's a proposed new flag for NZ - what do you think?" The responses, frankly surprised me.
Not one single person knew what the fern was. Almost everyone wanted to know why NZ wanted a feather on it's flag. One person asked if it was some bizarre and rare skeleton from a animal or fish only found in NZ.
If this is to advertise NZ overseas, shouldn't it be obvious to the people living overseas what is being portrayed?
Based on this (laughably small review sample: 20-30 people), rather than boost NZ's image overseas the new flag is more likely to damage the NZ image and consign it to obscurity. Many people in NZ feel the reference to the British Empire should be deleted not just from the flag, but from memory. While it probably won't impact on Kiwi thinking, most people in the UK are proud NZ is (or was) a part of the British Empire, look upon NZ as a wonderful place (it is) and aspire to visit here. I'd hope that changing the flag won't adversely affect that, but I really can't see anyone thinking "Oh wow, what a great country to change their flag! I must go there!"
I'm surmising, of course.
Change is not a bad thing. Changing the flag is not necessarily a bad thing. But if it is to change, let's change it to something we can all be proud of, something meaningful, rather than a rework of John Key's own design from 20-or-so years ago. What we have is a piece of tat - the Aoteatowel - being pushed like cheap crack on to an unsuspecting public by a government who should know better.
IMHO.
Originally Posted by bogan
Reply With Quote
how do you know it is money wasted, if you don't ask the people. That literally is the democratic process, and that is what this is being spent on.
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
Bookmarks