By Crispin Hull

FIRST, I have to declare a bias. For a long time I have had a soft spot for New Zealand and New Zealanders.

It began in 1989 when as Editor of The Canberra Times I was telephoned by the features and op-ed editor of the Christchurch Press asking me if I knew of anyone on my staff who might be interested in writing a weekly column about Australian politics.

I knew just the person, of course. For four years I had been bottled up as Editor, never being able to write with a bit of passion and zing, only writing editorials bylineless and in suit-and-tie style..

“I know just the bloke,” I said. “What, 800 words a column. First column this week?”

“Yep,” he said. “Pay is miserable.”

In those days of the rivers of gold, editors of Australian newspapers got reasonably well paid so money was not the object.

I had Bob Hawke as King Lear, desperate to be loved, and misunderstanding at least two thirds of his electorate and misinterpreting the other third. I had Keating as Hamlet. To challenge or not to challenge, that was the question.

I am not sure what my New Zealand readers made of it, but the op-ed editor lapped it up.

The Press has since gone tabloid and parochial, the way of all newspaper flesh in the 21st century. 

Anyway, I suspect a lot of Australians are beginning to admire and respect New Zealand these days in a way that goes beyond our long ANZAC traditions, especially this week.

The New Zealand Government set up the prosaically named Flag Consideration process and a panel which this week made public its four preferred designs for New Zealand’s new flag. There will be a vote to see which is most favoured and then another vote to see if New Zealanders prefer that or want to stay with the existing flag.

New Zealand’s flag, and Australia’s, too, suffer from bittiness – too many elements. Both have the Southern Cross and a combination of three other flags in a rectangle in the top right: England’s St George’s Cross, Scotland’s St Andrew’s Cross and Wales’s St David’s Cross. Very messy symbolism. Australia has also the federation star with a point for each state and one for the federation.

The federation star means that Australia can, will and must change its flag if the Northern Territory becomes a state, proving the point that all the arguments about “fighting under this flag”, “historical importance”, “we must keep the flag the same” are twaddle.

The Southern Cross is not especially symbolic. It is on the flags of half a dozen nations.

The best flags have relevant, elegant, simple symbolism.

Among my favourites is the Union Jack itself – an elegant statement of the union of three entities. Others are those of Israel, Turkey, the US and Japan.

One of the four designs on offer to New Zealand is a cracker. The silver fern runs diagonally bottom left to top right. On the top half it is black on white and on the lower half it is white on black. It is an obvious stand out.

My guess is that there will be a bit of a stir on the way, but that if New Zealand adopts that flag in 10 years time, New Zealanders will not only wonder what all the fuss was about, but why did they put up with the Union Jack-emblazoned, Australian-look-alike flag for so long.

Down to the last citizen (not subject, one hopes), they will adore it.

Pity Australia did not adopt that open, consultative process that conservative Prime Minister John Key adopted on the flag for our 1999 republic referendum.

We should have first asked Australians what sort of republic they would want, even if they were against it. Then having sorted that out, pitted that choice against the status quo.

If that had been done the direct-elect proponents would have respected a choice for an indirect-elect proposal and vice-versa. Whichever was chosen would have won the day.

But no, our process was tainted by politicking, grandstanding, point-scoring and John Howard’s Machiavellian antics.

New Zealanders are looking mature by comparison.

That maturity expressed itself more than two decades ago, when New Zealand was suffering what we are suffering in Australia today – nasty, destructive partisanship. If Labor/Labour says sugar is sweet, the Liberals/Nationals say it is sour. If Liberals/Nationals say the sky is blue, Labor/Labour says it is green.

Arguments on their merits are discarded and replaced with whatever proposition, however specious or spurious, that supports my temporary cause.

Then New Zealanders said, “Enough!” They changed their electoral system so more minor parties and independents got seats in the House of Representatives.
The major parties had to learn to negotiate and compromise in a much more robust way than required by an occasionally hostile Senate, as in Australia. The very life of a government depended on it.

The result has been that instead of getting “my way or the highway” (Rudd) or “head-kicking” (Abbott) politicians, New Zealand has had highly respected leaders from both sides. John Key even defied odds to get a majority of seats in a proportional system. Helen Clark’s consultative style earned her nine years in the top job.

Sure New Zealand has its tough politics and glitches and gaffes, but their system is looking a whole lot more workable than ours. Issues are less often seen as opportunities for advancement of my side and loss to their side, but as working out what might be best for New Zealanders.

They have certainly done a whole lot better than we have on marriage, climate change, sensible industrial relations and economic reform, and on refugees.

By comparison we are slugging it out bare-fisted in the kindergarten sandpit.