NZ Flag: Four Alternatives Chosen For Vote

Four alternatives have been revealed for New Zealanders to choose from in a referendum on whether the country should adopt a new flag.

There will be a postal referendum on the designs, between 20 November and 11 December, before the winning choice is pitted against the current flag - which is 112-years-old - in a second referendum.

Three of the flags feature the silver fern and two contain the four stars of the Southern Cross but none feature the Union flag.

The four were chosen from more than 10,000 submitted by members of the public.

Architectural designer Kyle Lockwood, who created two of the four designs, said: "New Zealand is a small nation at the bottom of the world and most of us are pretty humble people who don’t like talking that much about ourselves.

"When designing a flag, you have to put all that behind you and say, okay, what will make the world recognise us, what will make Kiwis proud to carry it and what will bring a tear to your eye when you see it on the podium?"

Flag Consideration Panel chairman Professor John Burrows said: "There are practical matters such as how they look from a long distance, how they look from both sides, when flying or still, in situations where they may hang vertically, and so on."

The idea of replacing the current flag has been met with a mixture of emotions in New Zealand - with some passionately for and against the move, but most caring very little.

Only 739 people across the country turned up to public meetings to hear about the project and it has been described by opposition Labour party leader Andrew Little as a "hugely expensive and highly unpopular vanity project".

The Returned and Services Association, which represents military veterans, says a change would dishonour the memory of those who fought for their country.

And when a NZ current affairs television programme ran a survey on the issue, 84% said the country didn't need a new flag anyway.

Many have also criticised the process because it will see more than $25m (£10.6m) spent on the two votes to decide the matter.