Interview: Malcolm Mulholland

In an ongoing series of interviews I recently asked Malcolm Mulholland some questions about the New Zealand flag process and panel.

Malcolm is a senior researcher at Massey University and member of the Flag Consideration Panel. From the university site:

Mr Mulholland’s research interests include Maori rugby, the relationship between Maori and the State, and symbols of nationhood. He is currently undertaking a PhD on the evolution of nationhood which focuses upon the three foci and he is a member of the New Zealand Flag Consideration Panel. Mulholland has also authored “Beneath the Maori Moon: An Illustrated History of Maori Rugby” and has either edited or co-edited seven Maori academic texts.

I met Malcolm at the Wellington Roadshow and with the help of the flag.govt.nz team he responded to my questions below.

Q&As

Dan (DN): As the official flag historian on the panel, have you been required to share your views on vexillology and the principles of flag design with the other members? If so how have you done this?

Malcolm (MM): Yes. I’ve shared my knowledge of flag design and history with the panel throughout this process, as have others such as the Herald of Arms Extraordinary and the Designers Institute of New Zealand. I also worked closely with the panel’s project team to share the history of the New Zealand flag which has had 120,000 views so far and been shared in many schools and communities.

— https://www.govt.nz/browse/engaging-with-government/the-nz-flag-your-chance-to-decide/nz-flag-history

DN: Have you spent time with DINZ or any design company to provide advice on design? If not do you plan to do this? And if so how will that process occur?

MM: The Panel has been briefed by the Designers Institute of New Zealand, as well as the Herald of Arms Extraordinary. While final decisions are ultimately the responsibility of the Panel, a number of cultural, vexillology, art and design experts will be invited to provide confidential technical feedback on designs under consideration. These advisors will focus on ensuring that any proposed designs are workable and that there are no impediments in the choice of proposed designs. You will have also seen the video that summarises DINZ advice on what makes a good flag design.

— https://www.govt.nz/browse/engaging-with-government/the-nz-flag-your-chance-to-decide/what-makes-a-good-flag-design

DN: Do you have any thoughts about the use of colour and symbolism in the designs thus far and what that might mean internationally? For example my comment at the workshop about the use of green in African and Middle Eastern flags represents the Muslim religion and culture, or red (revolution), black (death) etc. and whether we should be more considerate of our choice in colours?

MM: There are symbolic colours that have meaning to different people and cultures and ultimately good flag design brings together a number of elements. Flag designs need to be timeless, work in a variety of contexts and be simple, uncluttered and have good contrast. Colour is important as fewer colours help keep the design simple and bold. Balance is important in good design, as is style and size of any symbol. Stylised objects work best and the design needs to be capable of being rendered in a variety of sizes without distortion.

DN: How have you been reviewing the designs submitted thus far? What have your thoughts been on the open process?

MM: It’s great to see such a high level of engagement from many people within New Zealand, as well as overseas. Obviously flag design suggestions can still be made up until 11.59pm on 16 July and yes, I and my fellow Panel members have started reviewing what we’ve seen to date from technical and practical perspectives as well as best reflecting the values and themes that NZers have shared.

DN: Will you be providing your own recommendations of the four final short-list designs, or is the panel required to unanimously agree on this?

MM: Every Panel member has committed to see every design and naturally each of us will bring some consistent and some distinctive views. We will continue a rigorous review process until we unanimously agree on the four alternative designs.

DN: Do you think the new design should complement the Tino Rangatiratanga flag so they work together visually and symbolically?

MM: A flag needs to be distinctive in its own right. Whether it is flown within New Zealand or internationally, it is seen together with many other flags and it needs to be distinct and symbolic of New Zealand’s identity - kind of the first rule of flags, if you like!

DN: Do you have any views or comments about at the process and quality of flags submitted in Fiji?

MM: As a historian, of course I have an interest in any country considering their flag - these are usually once-in-a-lifetime decisions. Of course, they are following quite a different process to us and I will be interested in seeing the result of theirs.

DN: How have you been dealing with the negative responses? Is the sentiment changing as the process continues?

MM: This process has drawn passionate responses as you’d expect in any type of consideration process. Of course there are a wide range of views about the flag, from those who like the current flag, those who want an ‘updated’ version (for example “put a kiwi, fern or the letters ‘NZ’ on it”), as well as those who want to consider a different design. What is great about this process is that it is unique, a first time in history, everyone can have a say in the design of the New Zealand flag and, those eligible, can vote in the two binding referendums. Whether the flag changes or not depends entirely on how Kiwis vote in the second referendum.

The Panel is responsible for leading a public engagement process that is independent, inclusive, enduring, well-informed, practical, community-driven, dignified, legitimate and consistent with the Crown’s Treaty obligations. Part of an inclusive, community-driven and democratic process is providing many ways for people to participate in the discussion and the Panel has ensured options for participation online and face-to-face, across all communities and schools.

The Panel is looking for flag designs that first and foremost reflect New Zealand’s identity, as shared online or face-to-face via websites, the information stand and van in busy locations, public workshops and engagement hui. Those values and themes have remained relatively consistent throughout the process and include history and heritage, freedom, equality, being a kiwi, independent, culture, environment, tradition, unity and being a Pacific nation.

Thanks again to Malcolm for taking time to answer these questions. Hopefully they provide an interesting view on the process and role he has on the panel.

You can read more of Malcolm’s thoughts on the flag in this article; “Does our flag reflect who we are as a nation?” on the New Zealand Herald site.

Interview: Rod Drury

In the midst of flag roadshows and running one of the fastest growing SaaS companies, Xero CEO Rod Drury kindy squeezed time into his busy schedule to answer questions about the flag consideration panel and his views on the process thus far.

Q&As

Dan (DN): As Xero already represents New Zealand on a global scale, what advice and views have you been able to share with the panel about the importance the flag will have internationally, not just as a symbol used here?

Rod (RD): For me personally, we value our deep relationships with the UK, but we also have increasing confidence being a New Zealand global company. When I begun this process I didn’t have a view either way on the flag but am finding the process very interesting as it has forced me to think deeply about our own identity.

DN: Have you spent time with DINZ or any design company to provide advice on design? If not, do you plan to do this? And if so how will that process occur?

RD: Yes we have spent time with DINZ and have been educated in the principles of flag design. There is a design video out soon I believe that goes through the core flag design principles.

DN: Do you have any thoughts about the use of colour and symbolism in the designs thus far and what that might mean internationally? For example I made a comment at the Wellington workshop about the use of green in African and Middle Eastern flags representing Muslim religion and culture, or red (revolution), black (death) etc. and whether we should be considerate of our choice in colours?

RD: Colors are something we’ve been getting good input on in the consultation sessions. There’s analysis on elements in the submitted flags so we can see what are the strongest colors and design elements that come through the process. That will help inform the panel.

DN: How have you been reviewing the designs submitted thus far? Can you talk about FLAGR (that you mentioned on Twitter) and how it works?

RD: FLAGR was my name (not the official name) for the evaluation tool that DIA have given us to review the designs. Already there are over 4000 designs so I’ve been keeping up to date. I can see 20 designs per page and select or mark the ones I think have promise and they go into my shortlist. Once the process closes we can get an aggregated long list and begin the process to bring it down to 4.

DN: Will you be providing your own recommendations of the four final short-list designs, or is the panel required to unanimously agree on this?

RD: I believe we do that as a group, but we are still pre long list. The panel are all quite smart and communicating well so no doubt we’ll have many ideas as to the best way to get down to 4.

DN: What have your thoughts been on the open process and engagement?

RD: It’s what’s great about New Zealand. This is the first time such an open and democratic process has been done to select a flag. I can see interest building week by week. Engagement was expectedly low at regional events on a winters night but online engagement has been very strong. But we believe it is still important to provide an in person opportunity for people to talk to the panel and flag team. It’s been great to see interest grow during the sessions as people find out more about the history of New Zealand and the flag.

I really like the community and education resource kits.

DN: Do you have any designs you’ve seen so far you’re excited about and can share / comment on? Or is the panel required to not share their individual views until the end of the process?

RD: It’s not appropriate for the panel to share views at this stage. I would say that many don’t meet generally accepted principles of good flag design, but you do see the themes coming through that are important to New Zealanders

DN: Have you familiarised yourself with the principles of flag design / vexillology and looked for the most “flag-like” submissions thus far?

RD: Yes, we have.

DN: How have you been dealing with the negative responses? Is the sentiment changing as the process continues?

RD: The biggest criticism is the cost. That is the cost of running a proper process. That’s out of the hands of the panel and as it’s committed to, we all believe it’s important not to waste the opportunity to have this discussion. I really hope people accept that the process is underway and engage.

DN: Do you think the new design should complement the Tino Rangatiratanga flag so they work together visually and symbolically?

RD: There are so many themes we need to boil down into a simple and clear design that adding that as a requirement would be very difficult. But who knows, perhaps a new design and Tino rangatiratanga would look good together anyway. Tino rangatiratanga is a very elegant design.

DN: Do you have any views or comments about at the process and quality of flags submitted in Fiji?

RD: I’ve read some of the criticism and my quick take is that it reinforces we’re running a pretty good process.

Thanks again to Rod for taking time to answer these questions. Hopefully they provide an interesting view on the flag consideration panel and their process.

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

Public Engagement

The public engagement campaign for the flag consideration project officially kicked off with the launch of the standfor.co.nz site this week.

The site is primarily set up to collate answers from New Zealanders responding to the question “what do we stand for?” The purpose of which, it appears, will allow trends and common values to rise, reflecting the sentiment around the possible change in flag. The intention is then, that these insights could help guide designs for those considering submitting a concept.

By highlighting key values you can already search and discover popular terms such as; “equality”, “freedom” and “change”. There’s a diverse range of responses associated to each term ranging from the eloquent to the offensive, as well as some especially hilarious posts, as any public internet forum will attract. It is no doubt keeping the team behind the site busy, as one post mentions; “You’re gonna get awfully tired moderating an entire nation of trolls”.

Kris Sowersby also made this comment about the process thus far:

This is like those cop shows where they ask people to phone in with details about a crime for reward money, and spend weeks dealing with the crank callers and bullshit artists.

Despite the rush of posts surrounding the launch, one of the secondary goals of the site appears to be the sharing function of suggested flag designs. A section of standfor.co.nz allows a user to upload a design and see it on a flag pole.

The Flag Pole

Speaking of flag poles, you can also get your name engraved on one as part of the engagement process. If you submit a response to the question “what do we stand for?” you get an option to have your name engraved on Te Pou Herenga Tangata: Our nation’s flagpole.

UPDATE 1: Despite conflicting opinions on the typeface used in the mock-up, the Stand For NZ Twitter account confirmed it is using Guardian Egyptian Headline¹. Sadly, that was not the news I was hoping for. I’m also still not convinced. Either way, it’s a weird choice considering the origins of the font.

UPDATE 2: The Stand For NZ Twitter account responded again with a further update clarifying the mock-up had defaulted to another font. It appears the intention was to use Guardian Egyptian Headline, however another typeface was displayed instead by error.

At this point it is fortunately still an artists impression of what the sculpture might look like. Hopefully a more appropriate typeface that reflects New Zealanders can be used to etch what we stand for into history.

Roadshows & Resources

Alongside the launch of the standfor.co.nz site, other details have been provided about the flag consideration project on the flag.govt.nz site.

The Flag Consideration Panel (FCP) will be travelling the country in a Toyota Hiace “to encourage all New Zealanders to share what they stand for at the nationwide roadshow, public workshops and hui.” Nothing is more New Zealand than Toyota, right? Barry Crump would be proud.

Considering the $640 per day rate the panel will get, that’s an expensive tour. I’ll be going along to the Wellington sessions in June to see what happens.

Find out when the Toyota Hiace and FCP will be visiting your town.

On a more positive note, it was impressive to see the material provided for schools to use in classrooms to encourage conversations about national identity, symbolism and the use of flags in our society.

In the resource document there’s also a timeline suggesting schools recreate the process by establishing their own judging panel, designing concepts and voting in their own referendums. I think this a great way to encourage and involve the generation likely to be most affected by a potential change. Involving the youth of New Zealand is an important and critical part of this process. They’re also represented on the Flag Consideration Panel by Stephen Jones, an Invercargill Youth Councillor.

You can read the document on the Ministry of Education site.

Finally, if after all of that it’s not clear what the difference between the two sites is; standfor.co.nz is for public engagement and flag.govt.nz is for submissions / general information.

The Flag Consideration Panel

In February the Flag Consideration Panel (FCP) was announced by the Government. The panel of sports stars, business leaders and individuals, representing Maori, the military, New Zealand youth and academia will somewhat controversially be paid $640 per day to help select up to four flag designs from public submissions.

A group of MPs provided nominations for the FCP in December last year. Details about the criteria and make-up of the panel were outlined in the cabinet paper quoted below:

The FCP members will be the “face” of the New Zealand Flag discussion (well-known New Zealanders are likely members), and should represent a cross-section of New Zealand society, with members reflecting the following criteria, and having an understanding of all that goes to make up New Zealand’s sense of national identity:

national geographic coverage;
Maori representation;
representation of Pacific Island and ethnic communities;
a variety of age groups; and
gender balance.

The most controversial part of the announcement from the design industry’s point of view was not seeing one of our own on the panel. The Designers Institute of New Zealand (DINZ) expressed their concern about the lack of design representation on the FCP, however their written request to the Government was unsuccessful. You can read more about their efforts in this email sent to DINZ members.

As DINZ state in their email, it is disappointing, however there are some positive signs in the appendix outlining the process the Government will take regarding design representation. Throughout the submission phase (May 4th – August 21st 2015) the FCP will “seek input from flag and other design and Tikanga Maori experts” before presenting designs and preparing them for the referendum in November.

A great place for the FCP to find design professionals with appropriate experience would be the Best Awards judging panel. The experience of critiquing design work and judging the submissions quality and craftsmanship seems like an excellent skill to add to the process.

Below is the announcement and list of people on the FCP.

The Government has appointed 12 New Zealanders as members of the Flag Consideration Panel which will engage with the public about a possible new New Zealand flag, Deputy Prime Minister Bill English says.

The panel will be chaired by former deputy vice-chancellor of the University of Canterbury Emeritus Professor John Burrows, ONZM, QC of Christchurch who was co-chair of the Constitutional Advisory Panel. Writer and reviewer Kate de Goldi of Wellington will be the deputy chair of the Flag Consideration Panel.

The other 10 members are:

Nicky Bell – CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi New Zealand and board director, Auckland
Peter Chin, CNZM – Former Mayor of Dunedin, director and trustee, Dunedin
Julie Christie, ONZM – Director of Julie Christie Inc. and board member, Auckland
Rod Drury – CEO of Xero and technology entrepreneur, Havelock North
Beatrice Faumuina, ONZM – Olympian, Commonwealth gold medallist, ASB Head of Talent & People Strategy, board member and trustee, Waitakere
Lt Gen (Rtd) Rhys Jones, CNZM – Former Chief of NZ Defence Force, Wellington
Stephen Jones – Invercargill Youth Councillor, Invercargill
Sir Brian Lochore, ONZ, KNZM, OBE – Former All Blacks captain, coach and administrator, Masterton
Malcolm Mulholland – Academic and flag historian, Palmerston North
Hana O’Regan – Academic, Maori studies and the reo Maori, Christchurch

— https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/flag-consideration-panel-members-announced