At the heart of the divisive flag change debate there are questions about what New Zealand stands for. But does the Government know or is it getting it wrong, asks PHILIP MATTHEWS.



It is because children are vulnerable and blameless, wrote journalist Susie Linfield, that "depictions of their suffering have an extraordinary visceral impact". Linfield wrote that in 2010, in a book on photography and political violence called The Cruel Radiance, but it became relevant all over again when the world froze recently over the unbearably sad image of 3-year-old Aylan Kurdi, dead on a beach in Turkey.



One photograph changed everything. The New Zealand Government dithered for a few more days over Syrian refugees before surrendering to public opinion. During that weird time of national indecisiveness, it makes sense to go back into history.



There is an eight minute clip from 1944, produced as a newsreel by the New Zealand National Film Unit. You can view it at the NZ On Screen website. There is the jaunty music, the authoritative BBC vowel sounds of voice-over man Rex Walden and there is the uplifting sight of 838 Polish refugees arriving by ship in Wellington, accompanied by New Zealand soldiers.



This was New Zealand during wartime but the country looked sunny, peaceful and only too happy to do its bit for the less fortunate. Sure, it could be called propaganda, but it was affecting in its presentation of an ideal and generous New Zealand. And if you watched after meditating for a while on the image of Aylan Kurdi, it was hugely moving.



Rex Walden, in words written by Michael Forlong, talked about "a will to live, a simple gratitude". Of the 838 refugees, 725 were children and 113 were adults. "These little people have been wandering for nearly five years," Walden said. "They are broken pieces of once peaceful communities. They are remnants of families. These are the people war uproots and casts aside."



As the refugee train went from Wellington to Pahiatua, which became "a small part of Poland", children from country schools lined up to wave. Whether entirely true or slightly exaggerated, it makes for a shameful contrast with the less generous political mood in New Zealand in 2015. After four days of indecision, the Government eventually opted to take 600 extra refugees over three years while sending out a press release that carefully itemised the cost.



Many noticed that Prime Minister John Key seemed puzzled and unmoved by the crisis. That he seemed incapable of a sincere emotional response.



"As with the flag referendum, public feeling did not fit the model of the kind of politics Key is able or willing to offer," says Andrew Dean, Rhodes scholar and author of Ruth, Roger and Me. "When we head into the deepest kind of politics, and ask for something better than profit and loss, he seems unable to respond."



A day after the New Zealand announcement, Australia said it would take 12,000 Syrian refugees and our response looked even meaner.



Could we do more? A "double the quota" movement urged the Government to lift the annual refugee quota from 750, which was set in 1987, to 1500. The Green Party was more modest when it sought to introduce a bill lifting the quota to 1000. But even that was blocked by a Government that was willing to urgently change laws to keep pubs open during Rugby World Cup matches.



Rugby or refugees? Suddenly it seemed that while we were having an artificial debate about New Zealand and its values, a real and meaningful one was breaking out by accident. And it was not just the usual critics. As the refugee crisis worsened, newsreader Mike McRoberts said on Twitter that "it's not a flag that defines us as a nation, it's how we treat others".



The same point was made in powerfully graphic form by journalist Lyndon Hood at the Scoop website. Hood turned the silver fern that dominates three out of the four designs on the flag change shortlist into a barbed-wire fence that keeps refugees out.

We were suddenly having a debate about national values on three fronts, with each raising a question to mull over. What does it mean to use Parliament for the launch of the All Blacks' Rugby World Cup squad? Are we the generous and welcoming people that we like to tell ourselves we are? Can any visual image summarise our contradictions, histories and hopes?

Massey University political scientist Claire Robinson believes the flag campaign has gone wrong. The silver fern, she says, is a symbol for exporters and sports teams, not a symbol of New Zealand as a whole. It is the brand identity of "NZ Inc", an umbrella label for government departments that face offshore.

Photo: Alexander Turnbull Library/Reference Number: 1/2-003659-F Polish refugee children and locals in Pahiatua in 1945. Four Polish children are in front and two New Zealanders are behind.

In pushing for the silver fern as the new flag, Key is acting as the leader of "NZ Inc" rather than leader of the country called New Zealand.



"The flag itself should be a broader symbol or sign than simply part of New Zealand's business."



Andrew Dean agrees: "Many feel the flag should belong to all New Zealanders equally, beneficiaries or millionaires, not just to those who seek to maximise their profit by selling our products on the international market. The problem is that Key imagines that selling such products is itself a task of deep national importance, perhaps the goal towards which all politics should be orientated. He is Minister of Tourism, after all."



Key's preference has been well-known from the start. The silver fern is both a trade and diplomacy logo and the corporate brand of the All Blacks, although New Zealand Rugby warned the Flag Consideration Panel that its particular version of the silver fern was copyright.



"Key has conflated the issue of whether we need to change the flag with his own personal preference for the silver fern," Robinson says. "That's where he's got it wrong."



Robinson thinks "it defies rational conception" that the Flag Consideration Panel could have independently arrived at a flag shortlist that featured the silver fern in three out of four designs. Two are minor variations on one idea, by the same designer, Kyle Lockwood.

"The flag debate resembles a competition rather than a discussion," says writer and political commentator Morgan Godfery. "It's a search for a national brand not a national symbol."

PM personally involved



Looking at Key's role in particular, Claire Robinson thinks "he is moving into territory that is almost unethical for a prime minister".



Yes, it is entirely appropriate that a prime minister leads a discussion about changing the flag. But when he uses his various persuasive tools, such as YouTube videos or his ability to place opinion pieces in newspapers, "he moves from being an objective leader to completely personally involved. He is so emotionally bound up in the process and his desire to see a silver fern on the flag that he can't even step back from it. That, I think, is worrying."



Two days before the flag shortlist was revealed at Te Papa, the All Blacks World Cup squad was unveiled at Parliament with even greater pomp and drama. It was a big week for political theatre. The All Blacks launch was simulcast across media. The opposition paid homage too.



"It was beyond excessive, in my opinion," Robinson says. "The deference to the rugby god is just ridiculous. People have other forms of cultural or sporting outlet. Why privilege the All Blacks over every other thing we do? There's no reason for it."

Eric Thayer Refugees board a ferry at the Greek port of Mytilini this week. Is New Zealand doing enough to help?

Read more on flags and nationalism

* How New Zealand's refugee quota stacks up internationally

* Red Peak has a genuine sense of history

* Mike Yardley: final four flags a flop

* Jane Bowron: a purrfect example of why sports and politics don't mix

It is a masculine view of New Zealand culture, based on a narrow set of values, such as "mateship", Godfery says. But Key's urge to "drape himself all over the All Blacks", does at least help us understand what his position was in 1981, says Victoria University political scientist Jon Johansson.

Key was famously unable to recall whether he was for or against the 1981 Springbok Tour, despite it being the central political event of his generation. Was that an early instance of politically useful forgetfulness?



Political leadership is one of Johansson's topics. He co-edited a book on the 2014 election, Moments of Truth, which is out this month; his chapter is titled "Leadership in a vacuum: Campaign '14 and the limits of 'followership'". He argues that Key's leadership has been about following public opinion rather than trying to lead it. The refugee story is a good example: the instinctive reaction of the National base would have been to take no extra Syrian refugees, but centrist New Zealand opinion pushed Key to act.



Nine times out of 10, Key's positions have been flexible, Johansson says. But flag change was always intended as a legacy project and is a rare example of Key trying to lead public opinion rather than reflect it. Rather than back down, or admit a popular alternative like Aaron Dustin's Red Peak flag into the shortlist, Key has committed himself to the silver fern.



"It's just too obvious that the fix is in with the fern."



As a republican, Johansson has a different view of how a flag change process should go: The historic Treaty of Waitangi claims will be settled. Prince Charles will succeed the Queen, making the question of a republic relevant. Hypothetically, this could be a decade away, but we should start thinking about it now without the imposed deadline.



"A flag would flow from that and it would be a truly unifying event. Because the prime minister politicised this process from the get-go, it is not a unifying event."



As part of its process, the Flag Consideration Panel asked New Zealanders what the country stands for. The results were assembled into a "word cloud" in which these 10 words dominated: freedom, history, equality, respect, family, heritage, present, future, Kiwi and integrity.



All are good, if bland and a little hard to depict. And, with one exception, they are not unique to New Zealand. When he teaches, Johansson talks about some other, more nuanced New Zealand qualities: fiercely independent, egalitarian in both a good and a bad sense, "first in the world" and similar examples of Kiwi self-bolstering.

supplied The shortlist of four possible New Zealand flags. Are they "banal, bovine and bland"?

Flags and patriotism

The desired end result of the flag change process, as Key has said, is patriotism. But are we even unpatriotic? Robinson doubts that, although we do lack the flag-waving, overt patriotism of the United States.

Key is after blind patriotism, Johansson says, while dismissing constructive patriotism. Those who protested against the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement would be constructive patriots. As a thoughtful critic of the Government, writer Eleanor Catton would be a constructive patriot.



Blindly patriotic messages can often seem incoherent. Ahead of the Rugby World Cup, a Steinlager billboard appeared that put a can of beer in front of a night view of a rugby pitch, and one big word in Gothic script: "Believe". The image was both pseudo-religious and nationalistic. Believe in what, though? Rugby? Beer?



Nationalism is powerful politically because of its incoherence, not despite it, says Dougal McNeill, a lecturer in English at Victoria University. It works best when it is inarticulate, which is why Key has it all wrong with the flag change, he says. The process has made it "explicit that it's the call for a national brand rather than keeping that appeal vague, imprecise and emotional," McNeill says.



"Key has made the mistake of thinking that kind of ideological power can be rustled up by committee."



And "believe"? Rugby and patriotism are linked in New Zealand, but the patriotism only goes one way, Andrew Dean observes.



"New Zealanders must be loyal to the All Blacks, but they seem to owe us nothing, and New Zealand Rugby's concern is the financial well-being of the organisation," Dean says. "The refusal to give the Crown rights to the fern is in keeping with New Zealand Rugby's relationship with New Zealanders more generally in the last few years. Despite the huge national significance of the team, All Blacks games are shown on pay TV, a move that puts short-term profit ahead of intangibles such as bringing the country together or long-term concerns such as growing the game."

THE RED PEAK/FACEBOOK Aaron Dustin's Red Peak flag has become an emblem for those who feel they have not been offered a choice.

The big and intangible questions about New Zealand and its values are now tied up with a two-part referendum. In November, we get to pick one flag from the shortlist of four. The winner will be put up against the current flag in March.

The discussion has rapidly moved from whether we want change at all to whether we have been given real alternatives, notes As Claire Robinson.

"The debate now is about the fact that we really didn't get a choice," she says. "I don't think they have genuinely provided four alternative flag designs."

The shortlist of four is easy to mock. In an example of constructive patriotism, actor Sam Neill wrote on Twitter that "three look like logos for a new sportswear franchise", while the koru looks like "a tidal wave of despair".

Is that New Zealand now? Three parts sport to one part depression?

Dougal McNeill thinks the four designs are "banal, bovine and bland", which reflects the Government's world view. Take unresolved tensions and colonial history out of the picture and New Zealand is the dull place represented by the shortlist.

It's no wonder that a wild card has emerged for those who would rather not join the Returned Services Association on a journey back to the old New Zealand by lobbying for the current flag but are also uninspired by the approved shortlist of four. Robinson says she was more impressed by the long list of 40 and even more impressed again by the longer list of 10,000, which offered a true diversity of ideas, designs and colours. She calls the Red Peak flag an "emblem" of those who want real choice.

The national mood is hard to judge. On Monday, Johansson asked 80 students in his New Zealand politics class about their plans for the referendum. The result? "Two thirds intend to spoil their ballot papers. This is young people who have come to that conclusion all on their own."

That is round one. What will happen in round two, early next year, is much tougher to pick. But in any event, the referendum will be more than a survey of attitudes towards New Zealand and its values and traditions. It will be a very public test of the power of the John Key brand.

Read more by Philip Matthews

* Christchurch rebuild: Welcome to Brownleegrad

* Inside the Conservative coup

* Christchurch: Memories of a city lost

* Yes ministers: Dame Margaret Bazley's 60 years of sometimes fraught public service