What has become a perennial issue for New Zealanders – the adequacy of our nation’s flag – has emerged once again. Voices in favour and against are gargling in readiness for the inevitable emotive debate that should be accompanied by a robust community engagement process. Whether or not either of those happens remains to be seen.

National identity symbolised by the country’s flag is something that some people are passionate about. On one hand there are those who don’t see a need for change. On the other are those who want to see New Zealand stand clearly apart from other countries who have copied our flag, such as Australia!

So what could an ideal community engagement process entail?

Given that democracy should be a key driver of significant change, then the people of New Zealand need a chance to have their say. This process needs to be more robust than a referendum or general election promise.

A first step should involve looking beyond a “squeaky wheel syndrome” and finding out if there really is a significant desire for change. “Significant” should be more than a simple majority. If there isn’t such a desire, end of story. The status quo should prevail. A case as important as this may need New Zealanders to determine what the magical number defined as “significant” is, before anything happens.

If there is a desire for change, then a robust process needs to follow to identify the key elements for a new New Zealand flag. A number of options get trotted out each time this issue reappears but there may be something even better as yet undeveloped.

A design competition encompassing these key elements could be used to identify leading contenders, with the most popular facing off in some sort of popularity contest.

Ideally this should be a process that isn’t rushed. A famous cheese manufacturer often tells us that “good things take time”. Something as important as a national flag which should endure for many future generations of New Zealanders must be no exception.

This must not be done on the cheap. It needs to involve a well-resourced process that actively engages with New Zealanders and other potentially affected stakeholders or groups with an interest in us and our flag. Our Pacific neighbours are but one example. Some sort of comprehensive “brand audit” to find out where and how our current flag is used may produce some interesting results.

Any engagement toolbox should make strong use of online tools, but not rely exclusively on those.

Moderated online discussion forums could be used constructively to tease out many issues, like whether there is a compelling need for change and, if there is, identifying the design brief against which all existing and new alternative designs can be evaluated.

Face-to-face engagement should also be used, particularly for groups who prefer to share ideas in this manner. Māori and Pacific Island groups are examples, so too are school children and aged people.

Whatever engagement tools are used, they must reflect community preferences to ensure that all barriers to participation are removed. There are important cultural and mechanical considerations when developing an all-encompassing and robust engagement process, which must be the basis on which a discussion as important as our nation’s flag is conducted.

Recently notified reorganisation schemes for Northland and Hawke’s Bay regions appear to clearly indicate a one-size-fits-all approach by the Local Government Commission to local government structure in New Zealand.

The Commission’s model is almost like turning the clock back to the mid-1800s and the provincial government models that applied at that time. While that model for local government may have been appropriate then, circumstances are very different today, requiring a greater focus on local needs and circumstances.

This approach replicates local government changes to a single council in greater Auckland which are as yet unproven as a model suitable for the rest of the country. Changes to Auckland local government were initiated by central government from a sense of frustration at the inability or unwillingness of Auckland’s councils to work together in the interests of greater Auckland. That situation, while relevant to Auckland, does not exist in other parts of New Zealand and therefore is not a reason to impose an Auckland model anywhere else.

When local government went through the major changes of 1989, four unitary councils were created and appear to have operated successfully since then. Unitary councils combine the responsibilities of city or district councils with those of regional councils. Those four councils are Gisborne, Marlborough, Tasman and Nelson. This unitary council model could be applied in other regions, if deemed suitable by the effected communities. Auckland Council has its own enabling legislation, which differs from that used for these four unitary councils.

That aside, the key to successful local government must be the delivery of local services that local communities consider necessary and appropriate in their districts for which they are prepared to pay. What this means is that before considering structure, there needs to be a community-led process to determine what type of community people actually want and can afford. Structure then follows as the means of delivering the infrastructure and services the community desires.

In both Northland and Hawke’s Bay consideration is currently being given to the Commission’s proposals. In both cases this needs to involve informed and engaged communities being given full opportunity to determine what local government should look like in their area. Simply making in-house decisions and giving residents limited options to consider is no way to meaningfully engage with a community and is unlikely to result in the best possible outcome.