Get Involved
Help us in our campaign for a New Zealand head of state by making a donation - or join the Republican Movement for just $10 a year.
Buy our guide to creating a New Zealand republic online - or get it free when you sign up for Republican Movement membership
Polls
Search
Store
"Time to change the flag?"
Changing the flag is often incorrectly associated with a republic. The New Zealand Herald puts it like this in today's editorial:
The debate there was solely about identity, not about wider constitutional matters or the embracing of a republic.The two issues are complimentary, but not the same. The Republican Movement's position on the flag is that any referendum on becoming a republic is not a referendum on the flag - if we want to change the flag, that should only be with the consent of the general public. Of course, most republicans support changing the flag as well as becoming a republic, but it's important to emphasise that a republic does not mean a flag that not everyone agrees to, or is forced upon them.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Today's popular content
- Models of a republic (1,470)
- Commonwealth membership (603)
- People involved (585)
- 60 Years of New Zealand Citizenship (574)
- Goals and activities (538)
Latest Video
Latest Republican Movement video:
For more, see our video page.
![Syndicate content](/misc/feed.png "Comments for \""Time to change the flag?"\""){kind=small}
The Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand Incorporated.
Mail: PO Box 5063, Wellesley Street,
Auckland 1141
Contact
Comments
I want to keep the flag cause
Cheers
Dan
" Pakeha stopped being
Because of that the symbols
Rubbish. New Zealand has been steadily shedding the symbols of our British-derived governance since our foundation - did creating Maori seats equate to some sort of anti-British sentiment? Of course not.
Moreover you forget that Britain itself has a long standing tradition of republicanism and anti-Crown agitation. Ironically, that's exactly why the monarchy has survived - the strength of Britain's constitutional republicanism has ensured that whereas more absolute monarchies in France, Russia and Germany - where the monarchs still held actual powers - were overthrown, Britain's survived. Likewise the other western European nations like Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands radically reformed their monarchies to be powerless symbols of their nationhood.
Chair of the Republican Movement
"the strength of Britain's
"the strength of Britain's constitutional republicanism has ensured that whereas more absolute monarchies in France, Russia and Germany"
Well, I am a supporter of our current constitution not the colonial government of Georgian America nor the absolutist monarchies you are fond of throwing into the debate as some type of distraction. It is this current constitution you wish to alter by removing the Sovereign and Governor-General.
Constitutional republicanism - some people like to call it the crowned republic or simply responsible government with a crowned figurehead.
Erm, where have I ever
Chair of the Republican Movement
Lewis I think what
For example pansy wong is considered a representative of the chinese community. Kanijwat singh bakshi is considered a member of the indian communityand an indian community leader, So what is helen clark to me and am I a member of the british community. No I dont see myself as that so why not and why dont I have a community leader or representative along the same lines as those I mentioned. Thats were the anger comes from is the anglo-celtic community dont seem to have the same identity.
I don't know of anyone who's,
Chair of the Republican Movement
With the benefit of
It's only guilt if you accept
For that reason your claim that republicanism is driven by some sort of white liberal guilt is nonsense. The root of our identity crisis is not political correctness - it's our realpolitik in the world, and our inability to accept it. Whereas we were a settler society protected and culturally aligned to Britain, post second world war (and even more so post EEC membership) British hegemony that had previously secured New Zealand's economy and identity has evaporated. It's our inability to admit to this fact that in the past stymied attempts at export diversification until it was too late (firstly forcing us to borrow until we almost defaulted, then actually accept we weren't earning as much as we used to) and more recently continues to hold on to colonial relics which struggle to find relevance even in Britain.
Chair of the Republican Movement
True that britain gave us the
dan
Immigration is a *taboo*
This is a republican website,
I was just addressing a
I was just addressing a point, raised by a previous poster, in relation to demographic changes in society and their possible effect on the operation our constitution. The constitution and its offices of state are not independent of the society in which they operate. Immigration affects the ethno-socio compostition of NZ society
Your administrative decision illustates the way in which discussions on immigration are often treated.
The Admin is in the right
Chair of the Republican Movement
No problem....immigration is
No, I see Admin has also
Chair of the Republican Movement
"we do have to live with the
"we do have to live with the consequences of their actions,"..which is another way of saying guilt by association. It is like the old attitude that a child be saddled with stigma of his unmarried parents' actions. Does the child of a criminal have to make reparations to the "victims" of his parent?
"That's nothing more than a belief in justice though." However the perpetrators are in the past...so today when that justice is served, it is today's generations that must pay the price and the "guilt" is determined using modern standards applied to yesterdays actions.
it is today's generations
Yeah - that doesn't mean guilty by association though. I'm not sure if you're aware, but Maori actually pay tax too... a mate of mine worked out that by the time the Treaty Settlement process concludes, both Ngai Tahu and Tainui would've paid for the whole thing in company taxes... and probably the services other taxpayers don't have to pay for.
and the "guilt" is determined using modern standards applied to yesterdays actions.
Actually it's not. Believe it our not, confiscation, arbitrary land title allocations (i.e. Native Land Court), taking cultural relics without permission, invasion without legal declaration, etc. weren't legal in the Victorian era. However, the British had superior numbers and weapons... but then, might doesn't make right, and it us fundamentally unjust to speak of security of land tenure when that's exactly what the Colonial government took from Maori.
It's the broad interpretations of the Treaty that are the real problem, not the "modern standards on yesterday's actions".
Chair of the Republican Movement
"Maori actually pay tax
They also benefit from what
Wait a second... separate police and defence forces? Last time I looked the Maori Wardens got very little from central government, and we abolished the Maori Battalion after WWII. Most of the separate education scholarships disappeared (they've also curtailed quotas in law school). Sure, we're not at the point where all New Zealanders are treated on the basis of need not race, but we're part way there.
More importantly, a substantive economic analysis by NZIER a few years ago shows Maori pay more tax than they receive back in services / transfers from the central government. So yes, there are "separate" programs for Maori, but they actually don't cost that much more than what the government gets back in tax.
Chair of the Republican Movement
"wait a second... separate
"wait a second... separate police and defence forces? "..if you had read the post I did say "OFTEN on an apartheid basis". Often does not mean always, well, on my understanding anyway. With the arrival of the Maori Party and some of its policies, the pressure seems to be increased for separate initiatives for Maoris.
Also the still quite influential Anglican Church, has an apartheid administrative system with Tikanga Pacifica, Tikanga Maori, Tikanga "Everybody Else". National Anglican decisions have to be acceptable to all three tikanga before being adopted. This has been suggested by some as an example for a new NZ system of government!
"More importantly, a substantive economic analysis by NZIER a few years ago shows Maori pay more tax than they receive back in services / transfers from the central government." In this NZIER which ethnic groups were net recipients of government money? Did this analysis apportion govt expenditure on infrastructure, defence, justice system etc.?
********
I have just searched (quiickly) for this NZIER 2003 TPK report ...all I could find was an item from Colin James in the NZ Herald .
In it he said "Maori households contribute more in tax than they receive in benefits and other fiscal transfers." What is included in fiscal transfers?
Another quick search produced this:
The NZ Association Of Economists produced an article which refuted the claim of the NZIER TPK report as no allowance had been for health, education, police, defence, roads, development of industry. If the same measure for tax/receipts had been applied to NZers as a whole then Maori and non-Maori combined tax payments would come to $31.6b, compared to total received benefits and fiscal transfers of $10.5b.
See http://www.nzae.org.nz/news/newsletters/AINo16.doc
This has been suggested by
Another reminder of why I don't like organised religion...
Chair of the Republican Movement
"might doesn't make right" Oh
"might doesn't make right"
Oh really! International law traditionally recognised the "right of conquest" until the middle of the C20th. And, of course, pre-European Maori tradition included inter-tribal land grabbing.
"security of land tenure"...ultimately all land is state land as witnessed by the ability to enforce compulsory acquisitions and wartime requisitions.
International law
Sure - but the conquest came after the Treaty had granted Maori equal rights under the British common law. So even by the standards of the 1840s, the actions of the colonial government were unjust. The Premier at the time of the Waikato invasion, Edward Stafford, did not support the invasion and was voted out of office because of it.
Chair of the Republican Movement
I do not deny that there were
I do not deny that there were wrongful acts committed, even according to the law of the day. Unfortunately though it is not the perpetrators who are actually paying the reparations and suffering the consquences. There again, all consequential settlers could be said to have benfited indirectly from the illegalities committed.
That's exactly what I said
Chair of the Republican Movement
I am a republican. But am
is nationhood and identity. I want a republic but want to keep the flag. Many South african kiwis and Indian kiwis support south africa over the all blacks and at eden park last year I saw most of the crown cheering for india. Most probably indian kiwis with dual passports wanting a flag change as they are"loyal" kiwis.
But these arguments are irrelevant to the flag and republic debate hence lewis will shoot you down. I understand many kiwis see republicans as leftwing anti anglo pc multucultralists which most are. I own a house in mt eden and resent the fact my rates pay for cultural festivals not relevant for me. When I was a sport and rec student at AUT i tried to start an anglo-celtic club but was declined even though I had the numbers but every other ethnic club under the sun was allowed. But Lewis will call me culturally insecure which I am but I wonder why I am and why there is no anglo pride among my fellow republicans yet ethnni celebrations and pride amongst ethnic republicans. But like I said these are not valid arguments for the flag change which frustrates many kiwis like me who feel they have no culture. I have never meet a republican who is proud to have british blood all they refer to is things like shakespear our rule of law bla bla which is not ethnocentric like ethnic communities. When I think of shakespear i think of the man and his work not why my anglo blood brethren. My issues are with immigration and most republicans want a full on melting pot which I cant debate with lewis as it is not relevant to the debate thats why he is so good. Point UK migrants make up 20% of our total migrants Our largestsingle group. 70% comes from asia so it is somewhat misleading.
For the record We need a president and contitution that says NZ must never be part of an asian style eu without 75% vote of the public. The problem with the westminster system is that it could be achieved quicker without the peoples conscent thats why I support a republic.
Just a quick point here Dan -
The culturally insecure are those who believe we ought to retain constitutional links to the UK (even though most now argue that the monarchy isn't such a link, but in actual fact that's what they mean) to preserve "our" heritage, or because of "our" history. Yet we would still have links to the UK via the Commonwealth, and family ties (as those of us with non-British heritage do).
Chair of the Republican Movement
Sure, I'm proud of my
Actually, I'm not sure whether the NZ republicanism debate is anywhere near as polarised and fraught as it is within Australia...
True graig like the chinese
republicanism is about having a kiwi president not being anti british.
cheers
dan
Most of your fellow
Chair of the Republican Movement
Thanks lewis. I too am of
Cheers
Dan
Funny, my grandfather was
Certainly the currently flag has an emotional link to our past. That's about all it has going for it. But that doesn't mean we couldn't, for example, use it on ANZAC Day to remember the fallen. That would be a pretty smart compromise, I would've thought.
Chair of the Republican Movement
Agreed. I would approve of a
Dan
Fought for the freedom to
There are four million
There are four million opinions on this issue. One way to get clearer is to run online polls on the various options.
I've started to do this with regard to my preferred emblem, the silver fern.
One poll on colourschemes http://johnansell.wordpress.com/flag-poll-1-which-fern-flag/ suggests that people prefer a fern on blue with red stars to plain black.
Another poll of fern designs http://johnansell.wordpress.com/flag-poll-2-which-fern/ shows a clear preference for a classical design over the more angular commercial logos.
Feel free to paste these polls into your own blog or Facebook page.
I'll keep testing the most popular fern and non-fern designs until a clear challenger to the present flag emerges.
Then some daring politician will be able to support the front-runner with confidence.
Thanks John.
Chair of the Republican Movement
All states are represented by
Not originally. They just removed the Union Jack and replaced it with a circle of 13 stars.
"Crux Australis isn't a Christian symbol" the way it was seized upon as a symbol by Christian Europeans is not co-incidental!
Yeah it is.
"I mean, the Brits had to start somewhere themselves" Well of course the British flag itself draws on the symbols of the constituent nations. St George have significance to the Anglo -Norman crusader even prior to becoming patron saint in 1300's.
Exactly. The Union Flag doesn't represent any of these "contributors" to the modern British state.
The House of Orange...hmm did not William and Mary reign as joint monarchs through Mary's Stuart bloodline (her father being Chas1). Besides they were taking over the headship of an established concern.
Sure they "reigned" as Stuarts... but then the Queen is a "Windsor" which was simply invented to hide the fact that the Royals are German, thanks to anti-German xenophobia during World War I. They made a major contribution to Britain's constitutional development.
Anyway designing a culturally neutered flag is an interesting diversion.
Not a diversion, it's my original point...
Chair of the Republican Movement
We are talking about the
We are talking about the suitability of current flags. With the current US flag, the original thirteen original states of the US are given an exclusive representation by the bars! In addition they are represented amongst the stars in the upper hoist. When the union jack was replaced by the stars, the number of stars reflected the 13 states...the flag had 2 more stars added in 1795.....now there are 50 stars. Their history is honoured by the pominence given to the riginal 13 states in their current flag.
"exactly. The Union Flag doesn't represent any of these "contributors" to the modern British state"
rubbish!
...as i said...scotland (st andrew), N. Ireland (st patrick) and England (st george) ...sounds like good representation of constituent parts to me! The only country to claim it may not be fully represented is Wales...but I guess it was integrated into england by right of conquest - conquest being recognised by many nations (including the Maori tribes as illustrated by the hoohah over Maungakiekie (one tree hill) and rival iwi) claims!).
William and Mary .....Mary was born a Stuart.....so it was it was no-made up fantasy.
...as i said...scotland (st
It's a good representation of the patron saints, but not the "contributors" as you've previously argued. I mean, St George is also patron saint of Georgia (hence the name of the country in the Caucuses).
With the current US flag, the original thirteen original states of the US are given an exclusive representation by the bars!
Which is a great argument for keeping the Southern Cross, not the Union Flag.
Chair of the Republican Movement
"I mean, St George is also
"I mean, St George is also patron saint of Georgia" From what I have heard, I think English people find it a good symbol to represent them. Indeed the Georgian flag features the cross as well...just like the Southern Cross being a symbol of significance to people in the following countries which have a representaion on their flags: Australia, NZ, Samoa, Papua New Guinea, Brazil, Christmas island, Cocos Is, Magallanes Region Chile, Tierra del Fuego Argentina...not exactly a unique symbol to NZ. The kiwi would be a better identifier....as in the RNZAF roundels ( I guess for you that too is a colonial cringe...being in red, white and blue and based on the British RAF design!)
"Which is a great argument for keeping the Southern Cross, not the Union Flag." It certainly places us in the southern half of the globe! I think the early founders of NZ were happy to live under and identify with the Union Jack. Early NZers and NZ leaders encouraged Britain in its Empire building too....among the keenest supporters of the British Empire! So the Union Jack would be the NZ equivalent of having the 13 stripes in the US flag.
The 13 stripes are like the
Chair of the Republican Movement
"The 13 stripes are like the
"The 13 stripes are like the Southern Cross"....no - they are like the Union Jack, the stripes represent the founding of the USA - those first states. They may well have borrowed the EAST India Company design (possibly also from English civil rights movements) but the stripes for Americans are intended to represent those first states. Malaysia too, also borrowed the East India Co design.
"The national flag of the United States. Its fifty stars represent the fifty states; its thirteen stripes represent the thirteen colonies that became the original states." http://www.answers.com/topic/stars-and-stripes
"But they removed it and replaced it with a circle of stars" after a revolution and schism with the Britain and the British government. English and Scottish settlers were at the forefront of that revolution so would not want to retain the flag of the Government they rebelled against. They started their new united American nation and government from scratch. Therefore those founding states were the founders of America...justifying for present day Americans their exclusive representation in the stripes.
As the development of NZ has been evolutionary rather than revolutionary, NZ's foundation was in 1840 when the British and Maori formed NZ under British sovereignty, whether de jure or de facto. Hence the Union Jack representing our founders - becoming our version of the "stripes". Whilst on our flag the southern cross represents all of us who currently live under the southern cross in NZ - becoming our version of "the stars".
they are like the Union Jack,
No, the Union Flag on the US flag is like the Union Flag on our flag... it's not hard to see it. The Americans broke off the constitutional relationship with Britain, and removed the Union Flag. If I were a monarchist I'd argue that that is consistent with NZ keeping our flag as is because we haven't made the break yet. But then, there's Canada...
English and Scottish settlers were at the forefront of that revolution so would not want to retain the flag of the Government they rebelled against. They started their new united American nation and government from scratch.
Well yes, although the States each had their own assemblies.
Hence the Union Jack representing our founders - becoming our version of the "stripes". Whilst on our flag the southern cross represents all of us who currently live under the southern cross in NZ - becoming our version of "the stars".
I see where you're coming from. But as I've said above, the reality is that removing the Union Flag represents breaking the relationship with the UK. Of course, most monarchists argue now that that relationship has already ended... sometimes, depending on the audience.
Chair of the Republican Movement
"but then the Queen is a
"but then the Queen is a "Windsor" which was simply invented to hide the fact that the Royals are German,"
I have heard it said by some republicans, including on this site, that the current royal family aren't really british they're Geman. The Queen is British through her mother (through many enerations) and 4th generation Brit through the male side of her father's side, 3rd generation brit through the female side of her father. If the queen is still called German, then using the same criteria, about 66+ % of the NZ population (including many people regarding themselves as Maori!) are British.
Sure, but that doesn't refute
In many ways the post 1949 (West) German constitution is vastly superior to ours, or Britain's.
Chair of the Republican Movement
"I find the accusation that
"I find the accusation that the Queen is German is pretty crass, and pointless - does being German make someone inferior?" I agree with you on that...yet the "German accusation" is at times levied at the Queen by republicans. That and the name change are part of the stockpile of "weapons" for them to throw at the monarchy. I guess the Royals name-changed as a result of what I believe was quite widespread anti-German sentiment during the war. It may have been for the morale of the Empire. I gues to this day there is still residual anti-German feelings even in NZ so being called German has a greater barb too it than being called, for example, Italian. Everybody - whether elected or not - is affected by others' perceptions. (interesting to note that depite the war and the Prisoner of War atrocities of the Japanese, it did not stop the surge of Japanese imports and tourists in the 1960's-70's)
In West Germany of course there was widespread determination for the constitution, the economy and things in general to work successfully after the War. The thought of another period like the 1920's must have played on many minds.
On BBC World they have a programme in which foreign correspondents based in London comment on British affairs. The other day there was a segment on the Commons expenses scandal. The American, Zimbabwean and French journalists said it was basically a storm in teacup (no bibery was involved, Britsh MPs are poorly paid so deserve the odd new duck-hose, cleaned moat, blue movie). However the German journo said the German reaction was shock. He said that Germans regarded the British system as being honest democratic and beyond reproach! It was as though the scandal had knocked the Commons off a pedestal.
However the German journo
I doubt that's a fair representation of German perception. I studied German at university and most of the tutors I encountered told me they thought the strength of the German system was that it improved on Westminster - (after all, that was the point of the Reichstag / Bundestag) specifically with federalism, proportional representation and an elected President.
Chair of the Republican Movement
True...I cannot remember the
"How dare they want to serve
"How dare they want to serve their country!" Gee well I guess they have shown they are good at doing what ever they were good at. And someone holding a political office thought they deserved some reward. These people elevated by honours are now part of an honoured elite. The Herald portrayed them as "paragons" and as such we were to be impressed on their thoughts on the flag.....a topic a good many of them were no more qualified in than the average person. We are supposed to be impressed at the fact most of them wanted a change in flag!
Good on them for excelling at whatever....but to bow down before them as an elite group of paragons - no way....then I am guilty of tall poppy syndrome. The Australian-owned Herald can say whatever it wants.
BTW I have said and still say, more than likely it will be a Politician for President.