Calls for a new flag

Calls for a new flag

The flag proposed by in the 2000s.

Calls for a new New Zealand flag

There have been numerous calls in the last few decades for a new flag to be adopted. People argue that the current flag is too similar to the Australian one and/or that it is no longer appropriate for the Union Jack to so dominate our national flag. These arguments have been articulated by some MPs and since 2004 by, a trust established with the sole purpose 'of encouraging New Zealanders to change the flag'. On the other side of the debate, the Returned Services’ Association (RSA) has always opposed any change to the flag, arguing that generations of New Zealanders have fought and died under it. In 2015/16 New Zealanders will have two opportunities to vote on the issue.

Aussie PM discomforted

One criticism New Zealanders often make of their flag is that it is too similar to Australia's. On occasion this has also caused embarrassment for Australians. In 1985 Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke was greeted by a New Zealand flag while travelling overseas.

The 1970s and 80s

In 1979 the National MP and Minister of Internal Affairs, Allan Highet, ignited debate by suggesting the New Zealand flag should be changed. His proposal gained little traction, as did a call by Labour MP and Minister of Foreign Affairs Russell Marshall in 1988. This was unsurprising - polls taken in 1973 and 1984 suggested that the majority of New Zealanders were opposed to changing their flag. In 1989, a year before commemorations of the 150th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, the NZ Listener magazine took a slightly different approach. It ran a competition asking artists, designers and other New Zealanders to send in their ideas for a new flag. This followed 'Ausflag', a similar competition held in Australia in 1986 in the lead-up to its bicentennial celebrations.

Polls on the flag

Much of the debate over whether there should be a new New Zealand flag is generated by polls conducted by the media. These have consistently suggested that the majority of New Zealanders oppose any change. The results of some of the polls taken:

1973 - 75% No to change
1984 - 86% No to change
1999 - 64% Opposed to change
2008 - 62% Leave it alone
2011 - 72% No to change

Nearly 600 entries in the flag competition were narrowed down to seven finalists, including the current New Zealand flag and the United Tribes flag. The New Zealand flag was eventually announced as the winner with a healthy 45.6% of the total vote. Despite this result Gordon Campbell, who ran the competition for the magazine, considered that it had 'exploded myths' about New Zealanders' devotion to the flag. He argued that:

Support for the flag cannot be gauged accurately by asking people what they think of the current design. A better picture emerges when the current flag is placed among other designs, with the invitation to choose between them. Most New Zealanders do want a change; what the Listener competition failed to do was toss up the right design that could tap that underlying yearning for change.


The 1990s and 2000s

Others reignited the flag debate during the 1990s and 2000s. In February 1992 Matiu Rata, a former Minister of Maori Affairs and the founder of Māori political party Mana Motuhake, called for the flag to be redesigned to 're-establish our national identity'. The RSA responded by circulating a petition calling for the retention of the flag. They collected approximately 10,000 signatures from their members, and argued that many more people would sign should the flag come under active threat.

The flag debate was stirred up again in 1998 when National Party MP and Minister of Cultural Affairs Marie Hasler called for the current flag to be replaced with a silver fern on a black background. The Prime Minister, Jenny Shipley, tourism operators and others supported this suggestion. The RSA again argued in favour of the existing flag, but said that it would support a change to the flag if it was shown to be 'the will of the people' in a public referendum.

Hasler lost her ministerial post following the 1999 election. She remained in Parliament as a list MP and continued to lobby for the flag to be changed. Learning that the silver fern emblem used by the New Zealand Rugby Football Union had been patented, she began looking for a  variation on that theme.

In early 2004 another voice emerged. Wellington businessman Lloyd Morrison formed a trust,, with the 'sole purpose of encouraging New Zealanders to change the flag'. Hasler was one of the initial trustees. The RSA maintained its stance that it would prefer to keep the existing flag but said it would back a change if this won a public referendum. Some district RSA associations, such as Canterbury, disagreed and voted to oppose any move to alter or change the flag.

Later that year the new trust announced plans for a petition calling for a citizens-initiated referendum at the 2005 election. The aim was, depending on the outcome, to have a second referendum at the 2008 election to decide on the design of the new flag. High-profile figures such as Catherine Tizard, Keith Quinn and Susan Devoy became supporters, a school competition for designs for a new flag was organised, and many volunteers circulated the petition, which obtained 100,000 signatures, not enough to trigger a referendum.

Recent debates continues to operate and debate on the flag has come up around Waitangi Day each year. In 2010, following discussion about the national Māori flag, the New Zealand Herald ran a front-page article arguing that it was time to change the New Zealand flag. The newspaper declared that 'a majority of New Zealand's most eminent citizens' agreed, presenting the opinions of political party leaders and the 22 members of the Order of New Zealand. But the party leaders were in fact evenly split (even with the Greens getting two votes), and only half of the Order of New Zealand members backed a change. The other 11 were opposed, unsure, or unwilling or unavailable to comment.

In October 2014 John Key, recently re-elected as Prime Minister, made another unexpected flag-related announcement: a two-stage referendum would be held on the issue. From early 2015 a cross-party committee would seek public input on potential designs for a new flag. A referendum in late 2015 would allow the public to choose a preferred option from those selected by the committee. Then a second referendum in 2016 would decide between this preferred option and the existing New Zealand flag.

Further sources


Community contributions

9 comments have been posted about Calls for a new flag

What do you know?

Andy R

Posted: 01 Sep 2015

Keep the existing flag. It is much better than all the other options, Maybe when and if NZ becomes a republic then that will be the time to think of change. Until then I advocate keeping it.

Rhoda Nash

Posted: 14 Aug 2015

Many years ago we here in Canada went through much the same, sometimes bitter, debate as New Zealanders are doing today. In 1965 we adopted the Maple Leaf Flag as our national flag and it turned out to be absolutely the best decision we, as a nation, could have made. Like New Zealanders, we are a people who are proud of our nation, its history and its place in the world today...and having a unique flag that is easily recognizable is something that you will grow to love and cherish. Your present flag, though steeped in a great history, really gets lost in amongst the other flags of the world....go for something really simple and clean (though I am not sure that I would want a black flag to represent such a beautiful people and country!).


Posted: 21 Jun 2015

I am a Canadian and old enough to remember the flag debate in my country which was quite divisive. As a monarchist if I could have voted at that time, I probably would not have changed from our Red Ensign flag which would have been a huge mistake. Our flag has given us a symbol that is uniquely ours and which we are very proud of. It unites the country in a way the old one never did. Our head of state is still the queen and nothing has changed other than a different flag . The Red Ensign was adopted by a couple of provinces and some of the veterans use it for ceremonial purposes. I would urge you to find a flag that represents you, And if like us, you will not regret it.

Reti Tipene

Posted: 18 Feb 2010

Hone Heke fought his way into the British Army base at Kororareka on three separate occassions to cut down the colonial flag. It does not represent Tangata Whenua at all and needs to be replaced. If you do your research you will find our anthem was infact composed in England for Australia - '.... make our praises heard afar, God defend Australia!!' It even rhymes. Choice. Time for a change maybe.

George Rangiaho

Posted: 16 Feb 2010

The NZ flag and the Maori flag are a great representation of the treaty arrangement. The NZ flag is flown all year and the Maori flag is flown only on Waitangi day to indicate the tokenism that is this modern arrangement. My view is since there is no binding law on how many flags a country can have, why not break the mould and have two official flags?


Posted: 13 Feb 2010

I know that the present flag is very much an accident of ur imperial past. But could we please remember that we adopted the blue ensign almost a decade before the Australians did theirs. Perhaps we could also cast off the cloak of colonial cringe and look at it in a different light... As much as the Union Jack represents our links to Great Britain it also acknowledges the English Welsh and Scots emigrants who settled this land. The clue is the vast pacific that surrounds us and finally the Southern Cross the stars that brought the Polynesians here.

Peter C Wilkins

Posted: 13 Feb 2010

Change for the sake of change is the pursuit of novelty for the sake of amusement. The current New Zealand flag represents both halves of the Treaty, those that were here and those that came. To discard the Union Jack is to discard the balance that the Treaty represents, to discard the origin of one of the languages we speak, our mode of society, our sense of justice. If you must, design a flag of balance not of 'political correctness'.

Nelia Manansala-Vanderwoude

Posted: 13 Feb 2010

Change is one thing that we know is constant. However, in this instance, to change the country’s national emblem because we deliriously hate the sight of the Union Jack, or the current design resembles the Australian flag, is nothing but a reason of complete hypocrisy to what New Zealanders have become now because of their rich and meaningful past; the request for change seems to be an antipathy to foreigners and clearly isn’t reflective of what peoples of New Zealand should stand for. Come to think about! If and when the current NZ flag is changed, we can but just hope for more change implications to five of six other New Zealand flags flown for official purposes in our country – the Governor-General’s flag, The NZ Red Ensign, the NZ White Ensign, the Royal NZ Air Force Ensign and the NZ Civil Air Ensign. WHY? Well, they ALL have the Union Jack, too! What a waste of time, I reckon. We could focus our energies instead, more on developing desirable pro-active stance within ourselves, with others and to the whole world. As a Greek philosopher once said, “Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; remember that what you now have was once among the things you only hoped for.” Let our current flag inspire us and not divide our country. ....Let our cause be just and right,God defend New Zealand....

Patricia Roberts

Posted: 10 Feb 2010

One website offers a different solution to the flag debate. It suggests we keep the current flag to fly with the new one on Anzac Day and Waitangi Day. Our new flag would identify us clearly as New Zealanders, and the old flag would continue to honour and respect our war veterans, and our British heritage. There are two very strong camps in the debate. The ones who want a black flag with silver fern, and the ones who want to keep the flag we have. Perhaps a combination of both would be a fair and acceptable compromise. These ideas and a number of new flag designs can be seen at, along with a survey form to have your say.