Terms Of Reference

Over the last few weeks several questions have been floated about how the Flag Consideration Panel will be reviewing the designs and what their responsibilities will be.

When submissions have been excluded from the gallery on the flag.govt.nz site, email responses refer to the “terms of reference” the panel will be using. From what I can tell the “terms of reference” they are referring to are the “guiding principles” in the original cabinet paper appendix. I’ve previously posted a summary of the Guiding Principles, but thought it timely to provide a bit more detail.

Interestingly there is a section about the approach the panel can take.

The research may include the following approaches (within the available budget):

1. surveying;
   
2. commissioning a design agency to create a range of potential designs, and promulgating these for public feedback; and
   
3. commissioning legal assistance to complete domestic and international due diligence on the suitability and availability of proposed designs.

I don’t recall seeing the note about “commissioning a design agency” the first time I reviewed the cabinet papers. This is rather fascinating and I’d love to hear if a design company has been approached. Let me know if you have…

Also in the appendix is a section outlining the responsibilities of the panel and the requirements for their report.

The FCP’s report is expected to include the following:

1. a summary of the processes used to engage with the public;
   
2. any common themes in designs and suggestions from the public;
   
3. any common design elements in flag designs submitted by the public;
   
4. discussion of the process by which the group has narrowed down the selection of alternative designs;
   
5. description of the work the FCP has undertaken to ensure the alternative designs meet accepted design standards and that there are no legal or other impediments to their use;
   
6. recommendations for a reasonable number (5-6) of alternative designs for inclusion in a referendum, together with the current New Zealand Flag.

I can’t wait to see that report and what they determine are “common themes” and what submissions will “meet accepted design standards”.

— http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/publications/nzflag-process-cabinet-paper-october2014.pdf

Design Guidelines & Submissions

Alongside the launch of standfor.co.nz, the flag.govt.nz site received an update with more information about the flag consideration project. As well as officially calling for entries, design guidelines covering a range of topics such as intellectual property, suggested flag ratios, common principles, and minimum submission standards were published.

Common Principles

In the guidelines document are 8 “common principles”. They’re a great starting point for the criteria in judging the success of a flag, of which I’ll write more about later. For now, here are the principles from the guidelines below:

1. The design should be simple, uncluttered and balanced.
2. It should be designed to be flown, and viewed from either side.
3. It should look as “timeless” as possible. Avoid using features in the design that will cause the flag to become dated or obsolete. Imagine the flag in a historic setting and in a very modern setting to check whether it would work in both.
4. In terms of colour, using fewer colours will keep the design simple and bold.
5. Contrast is important – use light colours on dark, and vice-versa. So a white cross on red is a good contrast, but a blue cross on red would be a poor contrast. This is a very useful guideline, especially for choosing the colour of any symbols and their background.
6. If the use of non-contrasting colours is unavoidable, make use of outline colours.
7. Any animals or birds would traditionally face the flagpole, so that the animal faces in the same direction as the flag bearer.
8. The top left hand corner of the flag is typically the place of honour in a flag. This reflects the fact that the opposite end of the flag wears out first, and is the section that is least visible when the flag is not fully unfurled.

Point number 7. is an interesting principle to include and a positive sign of the detail expected of the panel in judging a flags qualities. If for example a submission of a flag with a kiwi bird was submitted facing away from the flagpole, that would be one reason for it not to be considered.

A couple of other points in the guidelines document provide advice as to what won’t be considered:

• Offensive or divisive designs – Flags should be a symbol of pride and unify the community they represent. For this reason, flags that are offensive to an individual or community, or that are divisive, will not be considered.
• Flag designs that include words, photos or complex objects will not be considered.
• Flag designs that incorporate the image of a person will not be considered.

— https://www.govt.nz/assets/documents/flags/flag-design-guidelines.pdf

Submission Process

Submissions will be accepted from the 4th of May till the 16th of July 2015. Each submission requires your name (and the name of the designer if that is not you), your ethnicity, and citizenship status (all mandatory fields). Fortunately, you get a few extra characters than a tweet to describe your design. 200 words to be precise.

If you want to dive straight in and submit your design you can now do so, however before you get overly excited and press “submit” I would strongly encourage you to read the terms and conditions closely. Thankfully they’re not overwhelming long, but they’ll no doubt be controversial.