“Taking a leaf from Canada’s flag debate”

The NZ Herald has published an article today by historian Grant McLachlan with his opinions about the flag process. I’d previously been curating examples of the local media coverage, but had not discussed it of late. This pause was mainly due to the numerous self-promotion pieces surrounding particular flag submissions and a general lack of in-depth reporting critiquing the process, our identity and the flag designs. Thus, it was pleasing to see some interesting points made in McLachlan’s piece.

McLachlan starts off by highlighting the symbols present in the Canadian submissions and their similarities to the themes seen in the New Zealand process.

In Canada during 1964, initial designs proposed by a “special flag committee” were rejected. Canadians had submitted 3541 designs. Of those, 2136 contained the maple leaf (their silver fern), 408 contained Union Jacks, 389 contained beavers (their Kiwi), and 359 contained Fleurs-de-lys (their Koru/Southern Cross).

This is a fascinating example of another country’s struggle with a bias towards existing symbols and how they subsequently featured prominently in the Canadian submissions.

The flag.govt.nz team provided some “insights on flag designs” from the New Zealand submissions where we can see the themes and ideas used to represent “what we stand for” or more appropriately our people, country and culture. Unsurprisingly these themes (for example; peace, multiculturalism, independence growth, strength and sport), were illustrated with symbols influenced by their existing usage in New Zealand’s visual language. The Southern Cross (featured in 2919 submissions), Koru (1397) and Fern (1375) made up roughly a third of the submissions, with the Kiwi (440) trailing behind with the Union Jack (461). Note: of a total of 10,000+ submissions, many featured more than one symbol.

The flagpost.nz site by Thomas Le Bas & Design Democracy provides further in-depth analysis of the symbols and colours used in the submissions.

The public mind has offered up a vast variety of icons and symbols; Moa, Matariki, Waka, and even the odd laser-Kiwi and bicycle. However, the most common symbols across the flag submissions have been quite clear. These have been the Southern Cross, the Fern, and the Koru.

You can read more about the insights related to the submissions symbols & meanings along with a detailed breakdown of the use of colour throughout the designs on flagpost.nz.

Unlike New Zealand, the sentiment for change in Canada was very different. As usual, Wikipedia has plenty of information about “The Great Canadian Flag Debate”:

In 1958, an extensive poll was taken of the attitudes that adult Canadians held toward the flag. Of those who expressed opinions, over 80% wanted a national flag entirely different from that of any other nation, and 60% wanted their flag to bear the maple leaf.

It was still controversial, yet the majority of those who wanted a new flag were aligned with the idea of using the maple leaf. However, as McLachlan points out, the public mood changed on the announcement of the process.

Canada’s popular opinion was as fickle as ours. It went from being strongly in favour of a flag change to being strongly against when their Prime Minister announced the process to consider alternatives.

In this YouTube video titled “Canadian Flag Design Jeered” you can see the controversy captured by the media at the time.

One of the most amusing sections in McLachlan’s article is his opinions on our Prime Minister John Key’s (flip-flop) views in support of different designs. They illustrate how political both the process in New Zealand and Canada became, despite attempts to position it as anything but…

Key’s inconsistent public comments are the result of internal party rumblings. His original “doodle” was a silver fern on a black flag. He then strangely surrendered his support for a black flag due to Isis also having one.

Key surrendered our national colours to terrorists.

What I suspect really happened was that the National Party hierarchy protested at the removal of the Southern Cross from the flag, which appears on their party logo, at the expense of a silver fern, which appears on Labour’s.

I’ll write more about the use of black and the ISIS flag at some other point, for now though I find McLachlan’s thoughts about the potential impact of political party logos hilarious.

Finally, the thing that stood out the most and with which I whole-heartedly agree with McLachlan on is the irony that many of the final forty flags do not meet the published guidelines:

The greatest flaw in the process is that, of the 40 flag designs selected by the Flag Consideration Panel, only a handful meet the criteria of their design guide and their video describing “What makes a good flag design.”

Here’s part of the transcript from the “what makes a good flag design” video that DINZ helped create with the Flag Consideration Panel:

The Designers Institute of New Zealand have outlined five principles of design and how they can be applied to flags.

These five principles are: simplicity, colour, the rule of thirds, symmetry and asymmetry, and context.

The first is simplicity.

Flag design is an exercise in simplicity: the composition of basic elements in a defined field, a reduced colour palette, and no language.

The process should be reductive. It’s as much about what’s not included as what is.

No doubt there will be further critique of the process and finalists on the “long-list”. For now, the parallels to The Great Canadian Flag Debate are interesting to consider.

“Dear Designer”

Along with thousands of other “designers”, I received an email yesterday with the news a “long-list” of forty flags had been announced.

Unfortunately none of my designs made the cut. Below is the letter from the panel:

10 August 2015

Dear Designer

Thank you for participating in the New Zealand Flag Consideration Project by suggesting an alternative flag design to the Panel. We were thrilled to receive more than 10,000 designs and greatly appreciate the effort people put into these.

Each design was assessed by all Panel members on the basis of flag design principles and what New Zealanders have said they are looking for in a design for our national flag.

Unfortunately, your design has not been selected for the long-list of alternative flag designs.

Many of the designs suggested were outstanding. However, the Panel has had to select a limited number of designs for active consideration during the next stages of its process. Legal due diligence is now being conducted on those designs as the Panel works towards its recommendation to Cabinet of four alternative flags for the public to vote on in the first referendum later this year.

The Panel’s decision on the long-list is final and it has released this list publicly. Thank you again for your contribution to this nationally significant process.

Yours sincerely
John Burrows (Chair)

I was rather surprised that the Flag Consideration Panel and their “advisors” had not already undertaken any “legal due diligence” before announcing these flags for consideration. That seems like something that would have been worthwhile before presenting this list. The use of the Tourism New Zealand logo one of the obvious legal issues to explore.

The other point to note is the comment that “each design was assessed by all Panel members on the basis of flag design principles…”. Based on 10,000+ submissions I find that increasingly hard to believe that all were reviewed with the same rigour. Especially as many of the forty flags are variations of the same idea or theme and in some cases arguably don’t adhere to the “common principles” and design guidelines previously published.

I’ll write something separately about my opinions on the “long-list” as I find the Flag Consideration Panel’s selection at first glance generally underwhelming and rather disappointing. As many pointed out on Twitter the makeup of the forty flags lacked variation:

‘Red Peak’ & ‘Wā kāinga’ are only two designs that don’t feature either koru/fern or stars.

— Chris McDowall (@fogonwater) August 10, 2015

Somewhat un-related, I decided against using this site to promote my designs (other than the two early parody submissions “Beautiful Beige” and “Our Southern Swanny”), so for posterity here’s a list of the forty designs that I submitted.

The irony was not lost on me that the number of submissions selected for the long-list is also forty! Even more ironic was the timing of the announcement yesterday as it coincided with the Designers Institute of New Zealand (DINZ) Best Awards finalists being published. I was fortunately more successful in that competition with work I did with the team at Xero making this years awards.

Flag Design Submissions Closing

If you haven’t already submitted a flag design for consideration, time is running out! You’ve only got till 11.59pm on Thursday 16th July to upload your concepts.

If you’re pushed for time this clever tool by Lars Ruoff lets you create flags with a preselected set of colours, shapes, divisions and random symbols. All you need to do is save your design and submit it to flag.govt.nz.

You’ve now got no excuse for not creating a flag!

Fijian Flag Design Process

With the launch this week of the newfijiflag.com site, I thought it timely to review the process underway in Fiji to change their flag. If you’re unfamiliar with their current design, Wikipedia has an overview about the “Flag of Fiji”.

Alongside the activity occurring in New Zealand, Fiji are racing ahead and are on track to change the design later this year. There’s been lots of great coverage with Radio New Zealand documenting the process and the Fiji Sun providing a local view on proceedings. Most recently the focus in the media has been on the short-listed designs.

Submissions & Short-listed Designs

So far 47 entries have been short-listed and then a further 23 presented to the public for consideration. The newfijiflag.com site features these 23 designs after more than 2000 were submitted. The flags are presented with an overview of the symbolism identified within the designs. Below is a portion covering the use of colour:

• “Fiji Blue” provides continuity from the 1970–2015 flag, remaining the “banner blue” of the national anthem. It represents peace, serenity, and freedom, as well as the Pacific Ocean. It shows solidarity with all island nations.
• Yellow represents radiance, life, sustenance, and a new beginning. It recalls the sun and Fiji’s place as “the land of the first rising sun” and its tropical location.
• Dark Blue stands for peace, prosperity, trust, dignity, and intelligence. The colour of the deep ocean, it represents the depth of Fiji’s culture.
• Red represents passion, strength and energy of the Fijian people.

Each flag is presented above a form where you can respond (regardless of whether you are a Fijian citizen) by selecting that you strongly agree through to ‘strongly disagreeing’ with the design / symbolism as well as providing any additional comments.

The 23 designs are variations on particular themes using a similar aesthetic and colour palette. Whilst in most cases the ideas and symbolism seem sound, there’s some overly detailed flags and interesting arrangements that don’t appear that conducive to being replicated at small sizes. I don’t want to appear overly critical, however many of the final 23 are not well drawn. The two designs that stood out were Number 47 and Number 49. NB: Weirdly those numbers do not match the URLS.

UPDATE 1: Since writing this Radio New Zealand reported that a committee member overseeing the Fijian flag redesign has anonymously confirmed the 23 designs were “amalgamated”:

The National Flag Committee member says the group reports directly to the Attorney General, Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum, and was told to go back to choose more after it selected five final designs.

This isn’t unique to Fiji, with a similar approach taken with the South African Flag. A public competition failed to find an appropriate solution, then several design studios were asked to consider submissions and present alternatives, also failing, before Frederick Brownell designed the flag we recognise today. As a reminder the process in New Zealand allows for this as my article about the terms and conditions outlined.

The inability to decide from public submissions does have an impact on the perception of the process and members of the public in Fiji had evidently been raising their concerns:

Given the designs that have popped up thus far, a lot of people have shared their opinions that they don’t think that they were part of the process in designing the new flag. After 1000-plus entries that went in it seems like the committee decided to come up with their own design.

— http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/275868/fiji’s-flag-council-confirms-designs-are-amalgamated

Earlier in the process the Fiji Sun published details about how the submissions would be accepted by mail, online (email) and in person over the course of several months. Interestingly they also stressed “you do not need to be a professional designer to make a submission”:

You do not need a computer design program and you do not need to be a professional designer to make a submission. Sketches and drawings will be considered the same as electronic designs. All you need is pen, pencil and paper to participate.

— http://fijisun.com.fj/2015/03/05/how-to-submit-designs-for-fijis-national-flag-competition/

UPDATE 2: Radio New Zealand have reported that the final 23 designs are now no longer being considered as “locked in stone” or “final” after a public backlash.

Announcement & Background

Following the initial announcement the media coverage about the change in Fiji was a mixture of concern and opposition with the “Fiji flag process slammed as ‘nonsense’” and “Opponents of Fiji’s future flag ‘ready for jail’” a sample of the articles online.

Radio New Zealand documented the “Concerns in Fiji over process for new flag” (Audio), highlighting the lack of a “mandate to change the flag without a referendum” and that the Prime Minister has stated he wants to retain the colour blue as part of the redesign:

As Prime Minister, I have an open mind about the final outcome. My preference at this stage is to retain the existing “Fiji blue” background – but without the Union Flag and Shield. But I’m excited to see whatever ideas the Fijian people come up with.

— http://fijisun.com.fj/2015/02/03/pm-officially-announces-fiji-flag-will-be-changed/

Initially the Fijian public weren’t involved in the decision to change the current flag, only to be later told a referendum would be required to make changes to the flag in the future. Radio New Zealand reported on this in the article: “Fiji’s new flag laws seen as ‘ironic’”. This means the current change will be confirmed and approved by the Prime Minister, whilst any future changes will require a referendum. A petition gathered 3000 signatures requesting the current change was only approved through a referendum, however it was ignored.

To make matters worse, the current flag designer Tessa Mackenzie has spoken out explaining her disappointment with plans to replace the design.

The process underway in Fiji and New Zealand has often been viewed as a distraction from other important issues both countries face. With increasing water and electricity cuts and a reported 45% of the Fijian population living below the poverty line, there’s clearly work to be done that won’t be solved by a new flag.

Unlike New Zealand, Fiji and their fearless leader Frank Bainimarama plan on changing the flag to coincide with a significant event, the “45th anniversary of Fiji’s independence”. The Guardian provides plenty of background in their opinion piece: “Postcolonial? Yes. But Fiji’s new flag will also be a break with the chiefs’ power”.

Bainimarama has framed the flag change as an effort to break free of the shackles of Fiji’s colonial past. The flag that has existed since 1970 features the Union Jack – a nod to the British monarchy’s role in governing the islands from 1874 to 1970.

The Fiji Sun added further details saying “The final design should represent the theme: Fiji forward, Fiji as one people.”. Whilst the NPR also reported on the process and goals behind the change in flag stating:

The move is intended as unifying. The country has two major groups: ethnic Fijians and ethnic Indians, who were brought over by the British as laborers to work on Fiji’s sugar plantations in the 19th century. Relations between the two communities have sometimes been tense.

— http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/02/390164844/fiji-launches-competition-for-new-national-flag

Finally, the process in Fiji has been a fascinating precursor to what might happen in New Zealand. The issues with “amalgamation” and public involvement have been interesting to document. We’re ultimately much more fortunate in New Zealand that the process is democratic, although as the coverage surrounding both processes outlines, change is difficult and polarising.

The renowned vexillologist Ted Kaye, author of “Good Flag, Bad Flag” and part of the flag committee in Fiji was interviewed by Vice Magazine about the process:

It’s a common refrain heard when a flag change is proposed: that people like the old flag, not necessarily because of the inherent characteristic of that old flag, but because that’s the flag they’re familiar with and that’s the flag that’s represented them.

— http://www.vice.com/en_au/read/a-flag-expert-on-how-to-design-a-nations-flag-491

Overcoming that relationship with the familiar has been difficult in Fiji and no doubt will continue to be in New Zealand as well.

Media Coverage

Like the local and international coverage New Zealand received, many media companies have reported on the process in the Pacific. For posterity here’s a selection of articles covering the Fijian flag redesign:

ABC News: Fiji flag designer Tessa Mackenzie disappointed by Frank Bainimarama’s plan to replace it

NPR: Fiji Launches Contest To Design New National Flag

The Guardian: “Postcolonial? Yes. But Fiji’s new flag will also be a break with the chiefs’ power”

Radio New Zealand: “Fiji flag process slammed as ‘nonsense’”

Radio New Zealand: Concerns in Fiji over process for new flag (Audio)

Radio New Zealand: Opponents of Fiji’s future flag ‘ready for jail’

Newsmax: Union Jack No Longer Belongs on Flag; Country Will Redesign It

Fiji Sun: PM Officially Announces Changes To Fiji Flag

Fiji Sun: New Flag For Top Forum?

The Telegraph: Fiji to remove Union Jack from flag, PM says

Portland Flag Association: A New Flag for Fiji—A Work in Progress

Vice: Here’s How to Design a Country’s Flag

Terms & Conditions

With the launch of the submission process, the flag.govt.nz site was updated with the official terms and conditions for submitting a flag design for consideration.

The terms and conditions start off well with clear and concise language outlining the submission process with obvious points such as:

You confirm that each Flag Design you suggest, including each element of each Flag Design, is:

a. an original work made by you and no one else, except to the extent you disclose otherwise under clause 12;
b. not copied; and
c. not illegal, offensive or derogatory.

So far, so good. Next up, the terms surrounding the consideration of the designs by the panel. In this section they allow for any design to be considered, so it is not necessarily a requirement that the design be submitted as part of the official process:

The Panel and the Crown each reserve the right to consider other flag designs suggested before, during or after the Suggestion Period.

As I quoted in the post about the “Terms Of Reference”, there is room for a design company to be engaged outside of the open submissions process. It will be interesting to see if this happens, and if so, in what capacity the design industry is involved.

The next section outlines what happens if you’re fortunate enough to have your flag shortlisted. It turns out you might have the GCSB investigating you. As the terms and conditions delicately put it, you’ll be required to “submit to checks”, of which they provide a couple of examples:

If your Flag Design is selected as one of a shortlist of preferred designs to be subjected to a due diligence process (Shortlisted Designs) by the Panel, you and any other author of your Flag Design acknowledge that you may be required to submit to checks, for example intellectual property checks and a criminal conviction check. Any information obtained during or as a result of these checks may be taken into account by the Panel and may exclude your Flag Design from further consideration.

This makes sense and allows the Government to avoid any X Factor or Bachelorette type of embarrassment by not properly vetting those who have submissions shortlisted.

The next section of the terms and conditions outlines that you’ll “grant the Crown an irrevocable, royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual, sub-licensable licence to use, copy, modify, adapt and/or publish your Flag Design for any purposes the Crown sees fit in relation to the selection of a new flag for New Zealand.” Goodbye rights. This means they’ll have the ability to:

Alter or amend your Flag Design, merge or combine your Flag Design with any other flag design or use elements of your Flag Design in another flag design.

Hard not to worry about that clause. If you submit a design and it gets shortlisted you could end up seeing it ‘merged’ with another submission. Maybe you forgot to add the Southern Cross, well the Government could fix that for you an create a Silver Fern / Southern Cross hybrid, presenting our two must commonly submitted symbols, regardless of their suitability. I joke… Although this could be used to alter a design, it might only be required to simply perfect a submission for production and manufacturing.

Alongside merging or combining your design you also grant the Government the ability to publish your design in any medium throughout the process. This also covers any future use after the referendums. Basically, if your flag makes the cut, you’ll have no say in how it is presented or used.

The following section on intellectual property and moral rights is interesting as it explains what you’ve waiving:

While the Crown will acknowledge authors as described in clause 13, by suggesting a Flag Design you hereby waive all of your moral rights arising from your Flag Design throughout the world, to the extent that you may lawfully do so, and you agree not to assert any of your moral rights, and to provide all consents required by the Crown, in relation to the use and publication of your Flag Design…

The section continues by outlining where and how your submission can be used. It’s no surprise the Government is making it very clear that you will have no legal ownership of your design, as well as many other clauses that protect their interests. Considering the circumstances, any open submission process requires all-encompassing terms and conditions, and that’s what these set out.

One of better clauses in the terms and conditions is the re-assignment of rights that you can request if your design is not selected:

If your Flag Design is chosen as a Shortlisted Design but is not ultimately chosen to be the next New Zealand flag, then you may request that the Crown re-assigns the rights transferred under clause 15 so that you regain ownership of all rights you had before you suggested your Flag Design.

Finally, if things go pear-shaped the crown reserves the right to cancel the process. Always a good idea to have a get out of jail card…

The Crown reserves the right to vary or cancel the Flag Consideration Project at any time.

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

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

Community Resources

As the National Road Show continues to travel around New Zealand, the flag.govt.nz site has been updated with a community ‘resource kit’. Created to help encourage discussions with “whanau, workmates or members of a community”, you can read tips about having a respectful discussion, take a quiz, and then share what you ‘stand for’ as part of the process on the standfor.co.nz site.

Here’s the tips from the document about having a respectful discussion.

Tips for a respectful discussion:

• Encourage everyone to participate
• Focus on responding to the discussion questions
• All responses are valid – there are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers
• Respect the views of others
• Provide each other with encouraging feedback
• Ask people to clarify what they are saying if you do not understand
• It is ok to disagree, feel challenged or uncomfortable

As well as that helpful advice many on Twitter discussing the flag could benefit from reading, there’s a quiz with some simple questions about the history of our current flag.

New Zealand Flag Quiz:

1. How many official national flags has New Zealand had?
2. How was New Zealand’s first official national flag chosen?
3. What flag did New Zealand use immediately after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi?
4. When did the current design become our official national flag?
5. What is the Tino Rangatiratanga flag?
6. In what ways is the New Zealand flag different from the Australian flag?

You can find the answers to the quiz and other information about engaging with your community at the link below.

— https://www.govt.nz/assets/documents/flags/fcp-community-resource-kit.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.