“What the Kiwi way of life means to me’ – Simon Bridges

Posted without comment for discussion:

Regional Kiwi slang

I’m familiar with the southern terms there, but not so much bunking in that form – I know that as wagging for avoiding school – but I have heard ‘bunking off’ as a more general term.

When I lived in Auckland for a while (last century) I found that polonies were more common than saveloys. I don’t know if that’;s still the case. I had never heard of polonies before, and haven’t seen any since. But the are still a thing: “There are 11 different categories, ranging from saveloys and polonies…”
https://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/choosing-new-zealands-best-sausage-2014101410

How widely known is snarler as an alternative for sausage?

Some more from the twitter thread:

They had a funny word for ice blocks too, what was it…

Quenchers – may have been a brand name? Also, Popsicle.

And I remember one version that had a lolly frozen in it, something like a jelly baby.

What about brown derby’s? Choc top ice creams.

Ah yes, sold at the pictures at half time. But now we go to the movies. . . . . . .

I used to go to the Pictures. I don’t remember (I may not have been there) but have been told the family was too late to get a seat at the Pictures once, but were allowed to sit behind the screen and see a mirror image version of the  film.

Another family story – we had an American and Australian staying with us once (billets on a horse rider visit thing). I told them my mother liked Oddfellows – she quickly told them they were mint lollies.

Luxing is derived from Electrolux.

Vacuum cleaners were known as Hoovers everywhere I grew up (Auckland/Wellington/South Canterbury).

I think that one’s far more to do with Anglophilia than region.

Hoovering is more of a UK term I think but I have heard it here.

Tub vs pottle of yoghurt

All the above plus cheese roll (not a bun with cheese on top) and ‘leg in’ for a right of way section.

‘Leg in’ is common here, as is grass verge rather than berm.

Lollies … sweets … have regional variations

Also punnet of strawberries was a South Island thing, and elsewhere (like Waikato where Mum grew up) it was a chip….

Punnet is still in common use here in the south.

In chch we bunked school, ate Belgium sausage played Barbador (bulrush) and hoovered. We also nuggeted our shoes. And sometimes as a treat, had a TT2.

Bullrush seems to have had many names. I’m fairly sure we called it Black Peter at school (nothing to do with me, I was red).

This reminds me of the old days:

Flagon or Peter … half gallon jar of beer

Flagon = “half G”

They were commonly used for draught beer (weasel piss). We also used flagons for making and talking cordial. For younger readers, a half gallon is just under 2 litres (1.893 litres), equivalent to about a half dozen stubbies.

NZ Herald (2006): Taste for beer in flagons dries up

The good old flagon of beer – otherwise known as the half g or’goon – is in its last throes, kept alive only by the loyalty of “traditional” drinkers. For years the two-litre jug, in glass or plastic, was as synonymous with all things boozy as the curvaceous pub jug, the dimpled pint and a copy of Best Bets wedged in the back pocket.

Now it seems the ‘goon is a goner, doomed to go the same way as the six o’clock swill.

It’s a “generational” thing, says DB Breweries corporate affairs manager Mark Campbell. “Certainly fewer and fewer younger drinkers use it. It is probably a more traditional way that beer was sold in the past. It’s on the way out.”

I have never heard of ‘goon before. Six o’clock swill is distant history – before my (drinking) time, and not such a big deal in the rural south at least where pubs opening ‘after hours’ was very common.

Image result for nz flagon beer

Sorry about ‘Canterbury Draught’ but it was hard to find a picture of flagons as I knew them. I remember those plastic screw on handles too.

You can still fill your own draught beer but they use other sizes and shapes now.

Also before my time but we had older 750ml beer bottles still around at home with longer necks.

Image result for beer bottle nz

1940 ABC bottle (Trade Me)

Remember when the introduction of stubbies was controversial?

The anti-kiwi royals don’t care if we ditched them so we should

Some time in the future New Zealand will ditch the monarchy and become some sort of a republic. John Key liked socialising with the royals too much to consider it and wanted a knighthood too much to consider it, and I suspect Jacinda Ardern likes associating with royal celebrities too much to go there either.

But one day we will get a real progressive Prime Minister rather one than in claim only.

And when we become a country independent of the pomp and snobbery that many of our ancestors escaped from, I think the royals won’t care at all. They don’t care much about us now. We might be a bit of a perk trip to younger princes and princesses, but to the older ones we are probably just another series of boring engagements.

Jonathan Milne:  We want a New Zealander as our head of state? Just get on with it, says the Queen

Former Anglican Archbishop Sir Paul Reeves who led Charles and Diana in prayer for New Zealand’s leadership in 1983, went on to represent the Queen as Governor-General. He later told me the Queen should be replaced by a New Zealand head of state. He said his knighthood had become a part of him since its award in 1984, “but if renouncing knighthoods was a prerequisite to being a citizen of a republic, I think it would be worth it.”

All Black-turned-broadcaster Chris Laidlaw talked to Charles about New Zealand becoming a republic, too, at a dinner in 1997. “Well, to be frank, I think it would come as a great relief to all of us,” Charles told him. “It would remove the awful ambiguity we have at the moment. It seems to me that it would be a lot easier for everybody if you all had your own completely independent head of state.”

Another former Governor-General, Dame Catherine Tizard, asked the Queen the same question. “She is quite sanguine about these things,” Dame Cath later told me. “She has always said it is a decision for New Zealand to make, and ‘whatever decision New Zealand makes, of course we would accept it’.”

They would have to ‘accept it’.  They may lord over us from a great distance, but they don’t rule us.

In a new biography of the Queen, author Robert Hardman reveals the Queen came to one firm conclusion. In the event of this or any other realm opting to become a republic, they should get on with it.

‘It could not be tied to the death of the Queen,” said a Palace advisor. “That would be untenable for the Prince of Wales, untenable for the Queen and untenable for the country itself because, obviously, they’d be looking at their watches waiting for her to pass away.”

So we should at least start doing what we need to do to become a republic before the current queen dies. We can’t go annoying Charlie.

It’s no longer acceptable that our head of state’s allegiance is first and foremost to another nation, nearly 20,000km away.

It’s no longer acceptable that our head of state’s succession gives preference to Anglicans over Catholics, English peers over hardworking Kiwis.

If NZ First seriously believe in promoting kiwi values then they should lead the revolution.

In fact, it’s no longer acceptable that our head of state is chosen by succession at all, when in other spheres of life we celebrate the strongly-held belief that we should be recognised on our merit.

The monarchy is anti do-it-yourself-kiwi and anti-kiwi values, it is anti-secular, it is anti-equality, and it is anti-democracy.

All we need is an actual progressive Government to do the decent thing and ditch the royals.

 

An immigrant’s story

There are a lot of immigrant stories in New Zealand – about a quarter of the population were not born here so most will be immigrants, that’s over a million of us.

Last week Duncan Garner stirred up the immigrant issue with a column for Stuff.

In response one immigrant, Ghazaleh Golbakhsh, who has lived here most of her life (since she was 4) has written her own column:  ‘They speak English and have good lamb’: a Kiwi immigrant’s story

My parents moved here from Iran for simple but horrid reasons. They had just lived through a massive revolution, which brought in a new autocratic regime which implemented archaic laws oppressing the masses and completely overturning the nation. On top of that, there was a bloody war where the city they lived in was bombed on a daily basis by Saddam Hussein’s forces.

Interestingly enough, the straw that broke the (culturally appropriate) camel’s back was being arrested one night after a party where the sexes were mingling (not allowed) and some hipster had brought their homemade vodka for all to enjoy (definitely not allowed). I know this because I was there and so became the youngest in my family to be arrested. As a four year old. To be honest though, I was lucky. Some of the other partygoers got public lashings as punishment. I just developed mild claustrophobia for the rest of my life.

She seems to have also developed a determination to confront immigrant-bashing.

1987 in New Zealand was an odd time. It was an old time. It was a time when everything shut on a Sunday and ‘immigration’ was some strange term that seemed straight from colonial days. Except as modern immigrants, you were expected to assimilate. And fast. It was the first time in my life that I learned the power of language. When I arrived I only knew three words in English: “One, two, three”. Ironically, maths has never been my strong point.

At primary school I had the ghastly Mrs. M as my teacher. She resented me because I couldn’t understand English. One time, I drew her a darling picture of she and me and a tree – standard kid drawing stuff. She yelled and yelled at me until I cried. This wasn’t the homework we were meant to do.

One of the cool boys felt sorry for me so helped me instead. His name was Ben. If you are reading this Ben, know that I love you and hope to swipe right on you on Tinder some day.

Vowing never to be that embarrassed again, I set about reading as much as I could. I read anything I could find – to myself, to my parents, to anyone who would listen. And so I suddenly began to learn the language. My reading and writing comprehension went up so much that I got put up a year. Take that Mrs. M, you dream crusher.

Having dreams crushed at school isn’t confined to immigrants but must make it very hard for them. Parents of immigrant children seem to be good at encouraging them to succeed despite hardships they encounter, something quite a few born here Kiwis could do with learning.

Why I can’t trace my lineage to Scotland/Ireland/England like everyone else in my class? “We’re just Persian,” my mum tried to explain. “But that can’t be it!” I replied desperately. “Yes – it’s one of the oldest civilisations in the world.” Not good enough, I thought. It wasn’t until my late teens when I threw myself into writing and drama that I learned to accept my differences. It helped that I hung out with other marginalised friends who got it. They were immigrants too, or in the arts, or redheads who couldn’t sit in the sun for too long either. Or just accepting.

I was lucky I was able to feel like I did fit in, despite the redheadedness.

Then 9/11 happened and everything changed. It not only altered or destroyed the lives of those people whose lives were directly affected, but it changed the way the world looked at so many of us.

…I was also treated to heavy-handed racist diatribes whenever some mentally unstable gunman with a beard terrorised innocent victims in the West. “We need to bomb them all. Fuck the Middle East.”

It’s disheartening to hear this from people who have never even seen a bomb, let alone lived through a war.

It is sad to see intolerant people promoting violence, especially on a large scale.

I’m sure military veterans and other victims of war would agree when I say – no, you have no idea, you fucking sadist. War should not be the answer. Ever.

Ever. But that requires many people to openly oppose violence.

One of my favourite incidents was in my twenties. I got accosted by a man in a Hugo Boss suit on the bus who kept yelling at me about how there are too many of “us” in NZ. “There should be a bomb to get rid of all you immigrants, a nuclear bomb to get rid of all this rubbish like you!” Everyone on the bus just stared at me and I refused to engage.

Sad that no one spoke up against this extreme bullying.

Instead, I wrote about it and won an award. I put it into my work. I used that anger and hatred as fuel for something better. If you are reading this Mr. Suit Man, know that you are being immortalised in a film soon. I hope you see your monstrous self reflected back and think about it.

There are a few people that would benefit from seeing themselves as they are, or as they appear to others.

I know I am speaking from a privileged position. Even as an immigrant there is an obvious pyramid of hierarchy. I am privileged in that coming here as a child allowed me to develop a typical Kiwi accent. I am privileged that my parents had skills to allow them decently paid work. I am privileged that I am not usually subject to the racist vitriol directed so often at my fellow immigrants from the Asian continent.

No one in New Zealand should feel privileged that they avoid being on the receiving end of racist vitriol, but sadly it happens far too much.

That’s abbreviated, it’s worth reading the whole thing: ‘They speak English and have good lamb’: a Kiwi immigrant’s story

Many Kiwis are tolerant and peaceful, but need to do more to make it clear that intolerant and violent behaviour should not be the Kiwi way.

How immigrant am I?

Picking up on comments made yesterday…

I grew up very Kiwi, or at least a variety of one. I was born and grew up in rural South island, not far from a small town. My view of the world was enclosed by mountain ranges with occasional glimpses beyond, but mostly not far beyond. I saw the wider world via books and Movietone News (that dude had a very strange accent).

I was born in New Zealand so I’m 0% immigrant.

My parents were born in New Zealand (Dunedin and Queenstown) so I’m 0% immigrant.

Three of my grandparents came from the other side of the world in the 1920s so I’m 75% immigrant.

Seven of my great grandparents came from the other side of the world so I’m 87.5% immigrant.

100% of my 16 great great grandparents were immigrants – one of my great great grandmothers immigrated to Canterbury when she was 13 with her parents in 1852.

New Zealand as it is today is based on immigrants. The immigrants over the past 200 years have also to a significant degree integrated and merged with the indigenous immigrants.

There are a wide variety of cultural practices in New Zealand.

Accents have changed significantly in my lifetime. Newer immigrants may be more noticeable, but each generation of immigrants has brought changes on the various Kiwi accents in use today.

I’m 100% Kiwi/New Zealander and I’m 100% immigrant, merged into an ever evolving mix of cultures.

The soft and loud of “Pākehā”

(I have posted and reposted this in 2012 and 2014 but some who haven’t seen it might be interested).

I’ve often wondered what ethnicity to call myself.

I’ve never felt anything like “European”.  I only recently visited Europe for the first time in my life, and didn’t go to the countries my ancestors emigrated from.

European
— adj
1.     of or relating to Europe or its inhabitants
2.     native to or derived from Europe
— n
3.     a native or inhabitant of Europe
4.     a person of European descent

http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=european&ia=ced

I’m of European descent, but then a lot of the world except Africa could probably claim some European link. Anyway, I see “European” as having a link to Europe now, not some time in the distant past.

“Caucasian” is another term sometimes used but it sounds more remote to me than European.

Cau·ca·sian
1.
Anthropology . of, pertaining to, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by fair to dark skin, straight to tightly curled hair, and light to very dark eyes, and originally inhabiting Europe, parts of North Africa, western Asia, and India: no longer in technical use.

http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=caucasian&ia=luna

So technically, that’s not me either.

usage: The word Caucasian  is very widely used in the US to refer to people of European origin or people who are White, even though the original classification was broader than this

http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=caucasian&ia=ced

And I have no US heritage so ruled out there too.

So I should be using some local description. I certainly identify as a New Zealander and a Kiwi, so in a wider sense that is appropriate.

kiwi
As slang for “a New Zealander,” it is attested from 1918.

http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=kiwi&ia=etymon

That sounds fine, but it isn’t universally known. I was talking to an American once who only knew a kiwi as a brown furry fruit, the sort that was called a Chinese gooseberry back in the old days.

New Zealander
— n
a native or inhabitant of New Zealand

http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=New+Zealander&ia=ced

Yip, I’m one of those. But what sort of a New Zealander am I?

I was put off a common native language description, Pākehā, because I’ve heard some fairly derogatory “definitions” relating to fleas or fat pigs, but I’ve done some research that pretty much rules them out. What does Pākehā mean then?

1. (loan) (noun) New Zealander of European descent.
Te rongonga o te Māori i te reo kihi, hoihoi, o Kāpene Kuki rātou ko ōna hōia ka kīia e te Māori he Pakepakehā, ka whakapotoa nei ki te Pākehā. Nā te Māori tēnei ingoa i hua e mau nei anō (TP 1/1911:5). / When the Māori heard the soft and loud sounds of the language of Captain Cook and his sailors the Māori called them ‘Pakepakehā’, which was shortened to ‘Pākehā’. The Māori created this name. which is still used.

http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/index.cfm?dictionaryKeywords=pakeha

That sounds reasonable enough. What else is known about it? From Wikipedia:

There have been several dubious interpretations given to the word Pākehā. One claims that it derives from poaka the Māori word for (pig), and keha, one of the Māori words for (flea), and therefore expresses derogatory implications. There is no etymological or linguistic support for this notion.

Although some are apparently offended I’m happy with the derogatory versions being ruled out.

The origins of the term are unclear, but it was in use by the late 18th century. Opinions of the term vary amongst those it describes. Some find it highly offensive, others are indifferent, some find it inaccurate and archaic, while some happily use the term and find the main alternatives such as New Zealand European inappropriate.

New Zealand European seems very strange, associating opposites, like an Arctic penguin.

Historian Judith Binney called herself a Pākehā and said, “I think it is the most simple and practical term. It is a name given to us by Māori. It has no pejorative associations like people think it does — it’s a descriptive term. I think it’s nice to have a name the people who live here gave you, because that’s what I am.

I can comfortably agree with that.

So depending on the circumstance I’m happy to describe myself as any of New Zealander, Kiwi or Pākehā.

Diversity: It’s a good thing

Some people say they want everyone who migrates to New Zealand to accept and follow our ‘culture’. They don’t explain exactly what New Zealand culture is.

Maori culture is a significant part, but even that varies in different parts of the country, and it has blended significantly with other cultures. Which other cultures? From the 2013 census New Zealand residents identified with these ethnicities:

  • European 74%
  • Maori 14.9%
  • Asian 11.8%
  • Pacific 7.4%
  • Middle Eastern/Latin American/African 1.2%

I guess I’m included in ‘European’ but I don’t see myself as European, I see myself as a New Zealander with little empathy for Europe.

European and Asian cover a wide range of ethnicities. And many people identified with multiple ethnicities, for example 53.5% of Maori identified with two or more ethnic groups.

Many of us have ancestral links with Great Britain, but there’s a wide range of cultures there. It comprises England, Scotland, Wales and still a part of Ireland, but within each of those there is a huge cultural mix.

The British Isles have been a melting pot of cultures for millenia. Some of the major inputs have been Celtic, Roman, Viking, Angle, Saxon, Jute, Norman, with a lot of intermixing with neighbouring countries such as France, Holland, Spain. There have been significant influxes of immigrants at various times from  around Europe, and more recently from the Caribbean and Asia.

And many of these cultures end up in New Zealand, melding European with Pacific.

So when people claim some sort of magic culture that everyone should embrace I have no idea what they mean.

Some people seem to be afraid of diversity. Others, like me, like it and embrace it.

Last night someone linked to this image:

10ysah

Have a look at the ethnic mix in many cities in New Zealand and you will see a wide diversity, different to this picture but just as varied.

I enjoy mixing with other cultures.

At various times I have had a go at learning a number of languages – French, Esperanto, Italian, German and Spanish. I know bits of them, and I know bits of Maori and other Pacific languages but am not fluent in any other than English. Or I should say the particular flavour of English many of us use in New Zealand.

I enjoy eating a wide variety of cuisine from around the world.

There are some people who shun diversity in food and prefer Macdonalds when travelling – but I didn’t experience hamburgers until some time through my childhood and Macs are hardly a symbol of Kiwi or European culture.

While some seem to yearn for a Kiwi monoculture the reality is that diversity rules here, and immigration will ensure that our cultural mix keeps changing and evolving.

And it’s worth remembering that cultural diversity leads to genetic diversity, which is essential for a healthy human race.

Diversity? Yes please. A monoculture of clones would be boring.

Ignorance about New Zealand culture

There’s a common mistake made about New Zealand culture in relation to immigration – that immigrants should “accept our culture” or “go back home”.

Two mistakes actually – some immigrants don’t have homes to go back to, or don’t have safe homes to go back to.

But some seem to think that their culture represents New Zealand culture and everyone should do and be the same.That’s nonsense. There are a wide range of cultures co-existing and intermingling in New Zealand and there always have been.

“Go back home” came up in a spat between MPs in Parliament this week. Curwen Ares Rolinson (young NZ First activist) has  acknowledged the damage of Mark’s comments in a post at The Daily Blog – On Ron Mark, Melissa Lee, and Public Holidays in Korea.

Now for the record, I wouldn’t have spoken as Ron Mark did. I can see how such a statement could easily be misconstrued and has the real potential to make members of migrant communities who *have* chosen to make New Zealand their home – and work for the betterment thereof – feel unwelcome.

But he also defended Mark and supported NZ First’s divisive tactics.

In any case, while I might disagree with the wording used in the bridging phrase, I can nevertheless easily see why Ron would have cited a list of comparable conditions (in this case, Korean national holidays) designed to demonstrate that Lee’s “as a migrant” assertions about New Zealand’s status relative to other countries were spurious.

The “go back to Korea” line was a poor choice of set-up for this, and there are certainly other ways Ron could have lead into talking about that part of Lee’s speech … but I make no apology for New Zealand First harbouring legitimate concerns as to how this legislation might affect and undermine the rights and protections of the ordinary Kiwi worker.

A commneter agreed with Mark. Pietrad:

I agree with the writer and with Ron Mark. The truth of the matter is that NZ is our home and if someone visits and doesn’t like the way we do things, then they need to accept our culture or go live somewhere else that operates to their satisfaction. I especially feel this to be the case with people whose religion requires them to be always masked in public.

I don’t recall seeing any religious masking. The garb of nuns or Brethren or Muslims is not my thing but it’s their choice (hopefully) what they wear.

I see what I think are far worse fully clothed sights from youth ‘fashion’ statements. I find gang regalia more distasteful than religious clothing. I’d rather see many of the the overuse of tattoos covered up and face piercings look much worse to me than a scarfed head.

This is NOT part of our much more open culture and those people need to accept being un-masked is how we are, or GO and LIVE WHERE THAT SORT OF BEHAVIOR IS THE NORM. That’s not to judge it wrong but it is an example of such a different culture and one which essentially exists in conflict with ours. Would the NZ public find it acceptable if immigrants came from a culture where they wore NO clothes? ‘Go back where you came from’ would be a much more common demand. ‘When in Rome …..”

Is Pietrad suggesting that anyone not complying with the Kiwi cuklture of a black singlet, shorts and gumboots should ‘Go back where you came from’?

People stating that people who don’t fit in with “our culture” shoukld bugger off never seem to say what specific Kiwi culture they want everyone here to comply with. There’s a vast array of cultures on display around New Zealand.

It would be awful of everyone was a clone of Pietron or Ron Mark.

I think people like this have as much right to choose their attire in New Zealand as I do:

How would Mallard know what people want?

In a column at Stuff Trevor Mallard talks as if he knows “what we want”, but he doesn’t even seem to know what he wants, apart from dissing an opponent.

Trevor Mallard: Flag issue about PM’s ego, not what Kiwis want

When it comes to a brand spanking new flag, I started the parliamentary process with an open mind.

I don’t remember that bit. He must have closed his mind quite quickly.

The time for change will come I thought. But the middle of the commemoration of World War 1 is not the time.

if you don’t want something to happen you can think of many reasons why now isn’t a good time.

John Key has written that seeing the silver fern at the Bledisloe Cup  game confirmed to him that New Zealand needs a new flag. I watched that game, too.

But something else occurred to me looking around the packed stadium of 50,000 people: you would need three stadia that size to hold all the people who are out of work under National.

That’s why so many New Zealanders are angry about Mr Key’s flag project. There are a lot of serious issues facing New Zealand but the Prime Minister is fiddling about with the flag like he has nothing else to do.

This multi stadia vision of Mallard’s must be quite new. When he was in the Labour Cabinet his responsibilities included Minister for Sport and Recreation, Minister for the America’s Cup and later Associate Minister of Finance. Financie and sporting events must have been a different priority then.

There are 148,000 people unemployed in New Zealand right now, up 50,000 under National. There are 305,000 kids in poverty, up 45,000 under National. Net Government debt is at a record level, up by $58 billion under National. Homeownership is at its lowest level in 60 years.

$26m wouldn’t solve those problems, but it could make a start. Instead, Mr Key is flushing it away on a referendum that Kiwis have clearly said they don’t want.

Mr Key wrote “in a sense, the people have already spoken”.

He’s right: Kiwis have spoken. In every forum and in the media, the public opposition to a new flag and the referendum is overwhelming. The fact that fewer than 700 people showed up to the Flag Commission’s multi-million dollar roadshow speaks volumes.

The polls are stark – 70% of us don’t want change. Just 25% do.

That’s just one poll, so it’s very misleading quoting that. There are thirteen polls cited here, with a range of results. The three option polls show minorities against change in all three polls conducted last year.

The vast majority of over ten thousand flag design submissions were serious suggestions, suggesting significant interest from Kiwis.

It’s as plain as day that the second referendum will vote to keep the current flag.

It’s as plain as day that Mallard doesn’t know what he is talking about – or is deliberately promoting false impressions.

It’s impossible for anyone to know what the result of the second referendum will be.

The point of a flag referendum is to ask the people if they want change. The clear answer is that they don’t.  Not only do New Zealanders not want change, they don’t want $26m of taxpayers’ money spent on a vote.

No, the point of the two referendums is to ask if people want change. Grumpy old politicians opposing change under a Prime Minister they don’t want given any credit gives far from a clear answer.

John Key wrote that he believes now is the time for us as New Zealanders to have the national discussion around changing the flag.

I disagree. This is all for a vanity project in John Key’s name. We should all remember the word vanity comes from the Latin root Vanus which meant empty.

I began this process with an open mind. My mind is now made up. Now is not the time to change the flag. It wasn’t at the start of the process. It certainly is not now, no matter how many times the Prime Minister tries to convince us it is.

Mallard’s mind was obviously made up a long time ago. He has been campaiging against the referendums and against flag change for yonks.

Mallard announced that Labour would oppose change in March – see Loony Labour line on flag questions – despite change still published Labour Party policy.

But his and Labour’s opposition to flag change the Key way goes back into last year:

Petition 2014/0006 of Hon Trevor Mallard
During our consideration of this bill we also heard evidence on Petition 2014/0006 of Hon Trevor Mallard, requesting

That the House note that 30,366 people have signed an online petition calling for the Government to include a question in the first flag referendum asking New Zealanders if they want a change of flag or not.

The petition, along with other submissions, supported the inclusion of an initial “yes/no” question immediately before the proposed four alternative flag designs to be ranked in the first referendum. The petitioner argues that this referendum structure would allow participants to consider the alternative flag designs to help them decide whether or not they want to change the flag. If a majority voted against changing the flag, then the current New Zealand flag would be kept. The petitioner argued that this structure could save money as it might negate the need for a second referendum.

If the majority voted to change the flag, under the petition’s proposal the second referendum would be a run-off between the current flag and the highest-ranked alternative.

The majority of us recognise that if this procedure were followed, many of those who voted against changing the flag would probably not proceed to rank alternative flags, and therefore not contribute to selecting the preferred alternative. We note that the 2011 referendum on the voting system used a similar structure, and more than 50 percent of voters who voted to keep MMP in Part A did not go on to vote for a preference in Part B.

The majority of us note that the petitioner’s proposed referendum structure was considered by Ministry of Justice officials in preparing the Regulatory Impact Statement on the bill. The option was not among the top four for achieving the goal of a legitimate and enduring electoral outcome. There are a variety of reasons for this. For example, for a change of flag to occur, a majority of voters would have to vote twice for change, both in the first and second referendum; whereas those opposed to change could prevail at either referendum. The majority of us believe that the petitioner’s proposed structure would bias the referendum in favour of the status quo. A further reason against the proposal is that placing a first-past-the-post vote on whether or not the flag should be changed alongside a preferential vote as to the design of a possible new flag would cause complexity and thus confusion for voters. We note that the petitioner argued against this assumption.

Some submitters argued that adding an initial “yes/no” question into the first referendum would save money. However, the advice from the Electoral Commission is that not proceeding with the second referendum would produce only very limited cost savings. Net savings would be $2.27 million (given sunk costs already incurred and additional costs).

The majority of us therefore recommend no change to the referendum structure.

So Mallard is misrepresenting the cost – the first referendum with or without his amendment would incur most of the cost.

New Zealand Labour Party minority view

We stand strongly opposed to this bill.

While we question whether there is a genuine appetite for a debate around the flag, this has not been the primary reason for our opposition. Rather, it is the structure of the referendum that we object to.

And when they didn’t get the structure changed (which would have been against expert advice) Mallard and Labour switched to total opposition.

The most consistent argument against this proposed referendum structure was that it would be too complex for voters—we consider this argument to be an insult to the intelligence of the New Zealand population.

FOR. FUCKS. SAKE.

Labour wanted to make it more complex.

Mallard seems to have forgoten about this “most consistent argument” now a simple alternative choice in the first referendum and a simple new versus old i the second.

Mallard’s changing arguments are an insult to the intelligence of the New Zealand population

How can he know what Kiwis want when he doesn’t seem to know what he wants, except to oppose key’s flag initiative? Petty politics at it’s worst.

Kiwi, Koru, Cross, Fern

This is one of the simplest (as per the result) attempts at combining a number of elements in a New Zealand flag:

DaveGDesignFlying

We are Kiwi

Designed by: Dave G from Wellington

Not one to come up with a whole lot of symbolism, but the main feature is the outline of a Kiwi, which represents New Zealanders. The area on the left is a koru which is a symbol of new life, growth, strength and peace. The back of the Kiwi doubles as a silver fern which obviously has many reasons for it’s inclusion, including it’s links to the defence force and fallen NZ soldiers. The Southern Cross on the blue continues to represent our location, especially if the blue represents the Pacific Ocean. And let’s face it – black is a colour used to represent NZ, and goes well with the blue. Red maybe in the stars as currently done, but perhaps just white. The main thing is a New Zealand flag should not contain another country’s flag. Elements of this design were ‘improved’ from other designs on this site from “Chris Harrison” and “Barbara Peddie”

This would be towards the top of my preferred list for replacement flags.

The Chris Harrison ‘Koru Wave’ design:

Barbara Peddie designs (she has done more but these are what Dave G has based his on):

I prefer the silver/black fern version.

I prefer the silver/black fern version here too and prefer this to the vertical fern version.

Dave G’s non-flying version:

DaveGDesignI think these are all good designs worthy of consideration.