The Wing-Friends and Other Books

In Blogger's slideshows images are greatly reduced, so lose much of their impact. And captions added to them in Picasa Albums vanish, so the images shown above are: the Milky Way, the Orion Nebula, Earth, Earth with New Zealand circled, New Zealand, Auckland & the Hauraki Gulf, Waiheke Island, some native NZ forest, a Fantail and chicks, various doves, etc.

(If you want to see the first ten images in their original size, they are in a posting made on the 24th of November 2011.)

My book The Wing-Friends is an imaginative tale of a small brave boy, a magical adventure, a magnificent Pegasus and the wonderful Kingdom of the Pegasi. It has been given very good reviews, and virtually every reader on Goodreads has so far awarded it five stars. It is available here. Some of my other writings are available as e-books, such as The Lower Deck, which is an over-the-top take on Waiheke happenings--sort of.

Tuesday, 24 July 2018

Ms Julie Anne Genter, Green MP and Hon Mincer, has railed against the plethora of Boring Old Men on boards and bewailed the lack of Bright Young Women, who should be there instead, making the world a far better place. There are, she says, too many Old Boys, messing up the world with their Old Boys Network.

But obviously she's not quite up with The Plot. Because she's also said, 'Trans Women are Women'.

Aha! That is the solution to the problem of Boring Old Boys on Boards. Because now that we've all
been re-educated into the wunnerful knowledge that gender is not between your legs, it is all in
your head--and that we all have What-If On The Brain, and that all that sex-stuff is fluid, and that we
are whatever we say we are...

So all that needs to be done is for all those Boring Old Board Boys to declare themselves Bright
Young Board Girls (sealing it with shiny new birth-certificates from the Department of Just-Is; see their homepage under Family), and, hey presto! the Glass Ceiling is gone for ever.

Done and dusted. QED. O Frabjous Day!

Oh! The tongue is stuck in the cheek. 'Woe is me, I am undone.. for I dwell amongst a people of ... lips...' (let those who know the reference see the point). In this day and age the mockery of insanity has to be stuck in gear permanently.

Thursday, 12 July 2018


I am outraged (that means enraged beyond rage). Why? Well I've joined the herd of the furious and
have chosen to be outraged, and have Therefore dedicated myself to finding something every week to
be outraged about. And this week, this week, this pestiferous week there was NOTHING!

I searched and searched. NOTHING!! Can you believe that? A dedicated seeker after outrage, deprived
of outrageous satisfaction. An addict deprived of his outrageous fix. Aaarrrgghh!!

Last week there was a really good one. I found out that modern tiddlywinks are 0.02 of a gram
lighter than the good old ones. I was outraged for a whole three days about that. Very satisfying.

The previous week  I found that road markings are an inch shorter than they used to be. It took me
four days of outrage to get over that. Very, very satisfying.

Sometimes I get a whole seven days of glorious outrage. That is very, very, very satisfying.

Like the week I found about a secret society that is not deeply in love with marmalade cats whose
stripes go anti-clockwise. I worked up a whole seven days of outrage that such people could exist in
a civilised society, and that their mothers were not spayed at birth. That was one of the best weeks

But this week, nothing. NOTHING!

That is outrageous. AHA! Something! I can be outraged that there's nothing to be outraged about. O
frabjous day!

Thursday, 5 July 2018


English is English. One of its excellent features is that it does not have all that mess of diacritical marks: accents, macrons, diaereses, etc.,--all that above-letter clutter that infests European languages.

When the English missionaries to New Zealand did their excellent work of turning stone-age Maori into a written language, they, wisely, developed a form that took care of the pronunciation without the mess. Vowels were to be pronounced as in Italian and consonants as in English. Simple, easy to use, and it stood us in good stead.

Until now. Until the insanity of 'political correctness' began its normal work of tyranny, and started splashing macrons all over the place. The 'reason'? To make everyone pronounce Maori words as the Maoris do--or did, or were assumed to have done. (And, yes, the plural of Maori is Maoris: that is English, and when speaking English those who want to be true to it form plurals in the English way; when speaking Maori they should be formed in the Maori way; when speaking Hebrew in the Hebrew way; etc.; etc.)

So people are pronouncing Maori words as they pronounce English ones. Of course they are. Every language when it adopts words from other languages, quite properly, keeps its own culture and ways of pronouncing words. Trying to force people to be faithless to their language and culture is tryannical.

Even worse, in the case of the Maori macron tyranny, is that macrons very often are not in the fonts people want to use, so the letters are replaced with a question mark or something else by the operating system. The Ugly Sisters cannot force their feet into Cinderella's glass slipper.

English speakers should ignore the tyranny of the 'politically correct' (which is never politic and never correct), and refuse to be tryannised. 'Maori' is perfect without that macaroni madness.

Friday, 22 June 2018


If supermarkets worked like bureaucracies...

Instead of going to the supermarket, choosing your food and beverages from the shelves, going to the
checkout, then home to eat and drink, you would:

1) Fill out a long form on-line or on paper, packed with nosy/silly questions that have
nothing to do with the true matter in hand, written by people whose English falls far short of
first-rate, and/or whose skill at designing and programming on-line forms has yet to be recognised
as skill, on a computer system that took three years to build at a cost of $90 million, which
works out at $2 million a year per programmer.

2) Submit the form.

3) Wait.

4) Wait.

5) Wait.

6) Have the application rejected, because question number 65 was not answered according to rule
E5.2.1 (which asks the impossible, but the bureaucrats love it because it can be used to delay
for ever, and to their joy messes up countless lives).

7) Re-submit the form, with, you hope, Rule E5.2.1 satisfied with a letter from an MP or Councillor
or JP (which, in your starving desperation, you may have forged).

8) Wait.

9) Wait.

10) Wait.

11) Have the application rejected, because question 67, which you answered the same way as you did
the first time, is now said not to be compliant with something only vaguely stated, but there is a
question 'around' it. Never on it, just nebulously 'around' it--somewhere circling out near Alpha
Centauri, you assume.

12) Loop round (7) to (10) several more times, and see other nebulous questions imported from
'around' Alpha Centauri and flung at you--as you grow ever thinner.

13) Call the Call Centre in an attempt to clarify 'around' and bring it home to 'on'. Wait for an
interminable length of time while your ear overheats and you are forced to occupy yourself listening
to countless repeats of 'This call is important to us, please wait', interspersed with music chosen
by tone-deaf persons devoid of taste.

14) The Call Centre at last answers, only to put you through to 'Someone Who Can Help You', but has
you find been replaced
by voicemail--but just as you go to leave a message you are cut off.

15) Carry on waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting...

16) Your friends and relatives call the undertaker, because you have starved to death.

Thursday, 10 May 2018



In every country there is always the to-and-fro battle between the adherents of process and those who love justice and right, between the bureaucrats and the public servants, between those lust to be masters of the State and those who love to serve it, between those who invent and manipulate systems and those who walk the straight path, between the false accusers and the lovers of truth.

The lesson of history is that when the first sort gain the upper hand the State is on an infernal downward path to self-destruction.

It is a dismaying fact that in New Zealand, process is now winning. From the lowliest bureaucrat to the Supreme Court, process rules. Look for example at that Court's rules at to see how many obstacles have been put in the way of getting justice and right--even signed into law by the Chief Justice acting as Administrator in place of the Governor-General (which is like the captain of one cricket team also writing rule-book and acting as umpire). There, the usual process will usually deny plaintiffs a public hearing, and a single judge in a lower court can with a process-ruling make higher appeal impossible. Injustice can thus be hidden, very easily.

The seven great Constitutional Enactments enshrined in Schedule 1 of our Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 are little-known, and are being ignored and trashed wholesale. Yet they are the only protection in law that we the common people have against unjust,wrong-headed process. They were set down for us by wise Royalty centuries ago; all our laws and history rest on them; to evade them, to set them at nought, to trash them is the ultimate corruption.

The fact that those enactments were originally enacted by Royalty may upset the republicans, who want us to be on the track to a Bush and a Trump, but if they had not been enacted none of us would be here. It was on those great laws that England became great, then Great Britain, then the greatest empire the world has ever known, which touched 171 countries, including New Zealand. Whatever people might think of that, that is the history of the world. Billions of people would not exist if those Royal enactments had not been made. And English would not be the world language. For New Zealand, they are the foundation of our history and all our law. If they had never existed Cook would not have set sail in 1769 and claimed this land for the British Crown. Those greate enactments began on June the 15th 1215 in Magna Carta. From that later arose our seven Constitutional Enactments, dated 1275, 1297, 1351, 1354, 1368, 1627 and 1688. The last is the 1688 Bill of Rights Act, and therefore New Zealand has two Bills of Rights Acts, the 1688 one signed by King William III and Queen Mary II, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Constitutional laws are, by definition, paramount. For the Court of Appeal, now backed by the Supreme Court, to rule them not paramount is outrageous.

It should infuriate every true-born New Zealander that our Constitutional Enactments have been so hubristically destroyed. Our birthright has been taken from us, by iniquitous process, behind closed doors. And, even worse, the worst example of it has been done in our Courts.

It is doubly sad that the Consitutional Enactments are not not being taught in schools. They should be; over and over and over again. Everyone should know our most fundamental rights. The Consitutional Enactments in the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 should be known far better than the Privacy Act 1993 and the Human Rights Act 1993, and should be held far higher. To trash them is like murdering your parents and all your ancestors, and it puts us on the downward path.

It is particularly corrupt for New Zealand Courts to evade and set at nought the heart of two of our greatest Constitutional Enactments, the Second and the Fifth. Because in the Second there is a great promise made to everyone--'We will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right--and in the Fifth there is a great dictate, that whatever emanates from ‘false accusers’ is 'void in law and holden for error.' To trash that promise is downright evil, and to trash that dictate is to give open slather to the corruption of process and thus a free hand to all those who, as the Fifth says, act for 'singular benefit not for the profit of ... the people'.

The Fifth Constitutional Enactment is very right. Process-and-title is always about 'singular benefit'--about the rank abuse of rank,  rule by and for process and title not by and for justice and right. That corruption cares nothing for those whom Winston Churchill called 'the people who toil and moil.' And in a speech to the Canadian Parliament during the Second World War he said, 'Public men are proud to be servants of the State and would be ashamed to be its masters.' But the adherents of process, the bureaucrats, the rank abusers of rank, know no shame. In their shameless vanity and arrogant stupidity they are destroying our country, bit by bit.

Saturday, 2 September 2017


We all know that the increase in the price of houses is insane, but I have just checked the current capital value of the house I bought in 1978 for $34,500. It is now listed by the Council at $540,000.

The Reserve Bank's inflation-calculator says that $34,500 is now $213,555, which is less than half $540,000, so the price of that house has rocketed far ahead of inflation. $540,000 is 2.52 times $213.555. $540,000 is 15.65 times $34,500.

The house was new, three bedrooms, in a good neighbourhood in Birkenhead, in a cul-de-sac off a cul-de-sac off a cul-de-sac so it was quiet. Lots of bush, close to schools and a supermarket. I got it on a deposit of $5000.

Crazy, indeed!

Saturday, 3 September 2016


A poll has just been published which appears to say that New Zealanders want to ditch the monarchy

God forbid! We would get someone like our damned politicians. Better to have someone born to the job, trained for it, not political in the slightest degree, someone with a broad world view and experience of all matters, and remote enough to be independent and seen to be independent. Someone in the job for life, not someone voted in at enormous expense of money and argy-bargy every few years. Someone not in the least open to even a hint of political interference or bias. All that is the black blot on America's ridiculous system of so-called government.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

But as the article shows, the 'poll' was loaded, the question put was not neutral, and the figures were jiggered to give the republican outfit that paid for it the answer it wanted.

And to say that the Queen is a British Monarch, although true, is also a lie, because she is a citizen of every country in which she is monarch, which includes New Zealand. She is British, Canadian, Australian, a New Zealander, etc., etc. That underlines how loaded the question was. It was, to put it bluntly, a lie looking for a lie in answer.

The uninformed people who want to dump the monarchy do not understand its fundamental importance. In New Zealand law, for example, one of the most important statutes is the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988, which sets into modern New Zealand law the great laws enacted by royalty, stretching all the way back to the update in 1297 by King Edward I of Magna Carta. And section 29 of that update, which is the section enshrined in the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988, is a great promise: 'we shall defer or deny to no man either justice or right.' It is the right of all those in New Zealand to claim that promise when confronted by official wrongdoing.

Section 29 in full is the fundamental of all the rights and freedom we enjoy in New Zealand, and in all countries where Queen Elizabeth II is head of state: 'NO freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right.' [disseised means deprived of, have taken away]

We owe a great debt to monarchy, a debt of centuries of rights and freedoms, and a debt to a system that serves us superbly well. Ditching it out of ignorance and replacing it system riddled and raddled with politics would be grossly stupid.

Saturday, 25 June 2016


For a long time I put off upgrading from my desktop PC from Windows 7 to Windows 10, despite the fact that it was free, partly because I was busy with other things and thought it would take a lot of painful hours, and partly it does not impresss me that the blurb that said it combined the best of 7 and 8. Windows 8 was one to be avoided, and what Microsoft called 'the best' made me apprehensive.

I am also chary of upgrades, because so often they mess up your machine by taking it into their software heads to do things that you neither wanted nor asked for. In short, I never expect a smooth ride.

But when I saw that the free offer of Windows 10 was going to expire on the 29th of July 2016 I decided to bite the bullet, first with a nibble by upgrading my backup machine, and if that went well, carry on.

To my delight it did go well. Very well. And not only did my machine look pretty much the same as it had in Windows 7, but I was able to make some judicious tweaks to make to look and behave even better. That included taking this advice to make the colour-scheme more pleasant. The palette of colours in the standard offer is a bit limited. But using Run and Control Color enables very fine tuning (note the American spelling, because it does not accept English).

Do I like Windows 10? YES. Do I like it better than 7? YES. Would I uninstall and go back to 7? NO. It does seem to run a bit slower in some things, in some a bit quicker, but overall about the same, and it is nicer to use, it has some nice features.

The revamped Start Menu has been done very well. You have to prune out of it the stuff that Microsoft wants you to have there and pin to it what you want, but that is easy to do quickly. And it is very configurable. For example it is easy to resize the icons so that they do not shout at you, and to get rid of that silly, distracting transparency, but it is very nice.

At first I missed the Windows Classic look that I had been using for years, but 10's look and feel very soon became familiar and preferred.

The upgrade went easily. A download of about 2GB then a small number of hours chugging away, and it was all done.

The only thing to watch is that near the end of the process it asks you if you want the Express Installation, which invites you to use a big button down on the right, but in small print down on the left it says Customise. If you select express you get a heap of Microsoft applications hurled at you. It is a sell.  I chose Customise, unticked everything, and carried on using the applications that I had been using, which were mainly not Microsoft offerings.

I think the one to avoid is Photos, because it organises all the photos in your machine in way that is not what anyone sensible would want. But some who like what it does. I ignored it all created a Desktop shortcut to my main photos folder, to make it most accessible, because it opens exactly what opens when I Pictures is clicked on in a system menu.

The only little annoyance in 10 is that although the weather in the Start Menu is brilliant–truly 10 out of 10–and can be set to Celsius for temperatures, it insists on reporting the wind-speed in mph and there is nowhere it can be set to km/h or kph. That is silly enough, but even sillier is the fact the the weather button in the Start Menu can somehow show kph, sometimes, but when you click on it the full display still shows mph. That is fine if you live in one of those backward countries that have yet to go metric, but a pain in most the world.

There is a bugbear if you are using Chrome, in the area where you manage passwords, and which you go to if you have forgotten one and want to change it from hidden to show it. Windows 10 annoys by insisting, every single time, that you enter your Microsoft Account password before it will show it.

But, those points aside, Windows 10 is superb. Well done, Microsoft!

Monday, 31 August 2015


Prime Minister John Key wants a fern for the new flag. The Prime Minister John Key got three ferns in the final shortlist of four. Shall we act surprised? He got the panel he wanted; he got the designs he wanted (with something else chucked in to make the thing look like a choice--but even that is the tip of a fern).

We got the bad best of the long list of forty, and it is of course dominated by what John Key wants.

Not one of this shortlist does what a flag should do; not one says to the rest of the world, 'This is New Zealand, and nowhere else.'

And all of them are virtually impossible to define accurately for reproduction. It can only be done photographically, which makes a perpetual problem. The Canadian flag is very precisely defined, with precise measurements and angles. Ditto the British and American flags. These cannot be.

And no one seems to have thought of the variations needed. There need to be variations for the Navy and marine use, and there need to be variations for the army, the RNZAF, Civil Aviation, the police, the Fire Service, the RSA... These designs do not lend themselves to those needs.

The first design has the merit of having only two colours. But although it works for waving at a footy match it is not a good national flag. Far from it. It is boring, stark, and devoid of international meaning.

The second one is superficially attractive, and will probably win the referendum. But it is not a good design. Red is the colour that attracts the human eye more powerfully than any other colour, and therefore must be used carefully and intelligently. In that design it has not been. That red area at the top lefthand corner is the first place the eye goes. But it is meaningless; it is not an element that cries out 'This is New Zealand.' It says nothing. It is just a blob at the mast. It fights for attention with the white fern (the ponga is white on the back, not silver) and the stars. The white fern, with red and blue seen through it, flashes at us, it has a dazzling effect. So the eye finds itself hopping about between three elements fighting for attention. And not one them is unique to New Zealand. It is arrogant for little New Zealand to claim the Southern Cross, which can be seen all over the Southern Hemisphere and parts of the Northern. And ferns grow all over the world; there are even ones with a white back elsewhere. The only reason the fern has achieved some dominance is because early settlers, struck by the prolific ferns, which were a contrast to their native land, called New Zealand Fernland. But the name did not stick. And again the two-tone backing of the fern motif makes it flash at us.

The third one is a bad variation on the second one. Bad because it has four colours, and a maximum of three is ideal. And black does not go with blue, even when there is a comb of white between them. As the saying goes, they hold hands very hard.

The fourth one is the worst of this rubbish. Are we really and truly to consider THAT THING as our national flag!!! Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Social media has mockingly dubbed it HypnoFlag, The only reason it can have been put there is to ensure that we have only ferns to choose from. Manipulative John Key strikes again.

There are only three things that are unique to New Zealand in the mind and eyes of the world: the shape of the country, the kiwi, and the country's coat of arms. The first and last do not work well on a flag. For the Flag Consideration Panel to ignore what Kiwis are called all over the world is wilful blindness and stupidity. But John Key was pulling their strings...

To paraphrase Henry Ford's famous remark about the colour you could have a Ford T ('You can have any colour you like, as long as it's black): John Key and his puppets have said to the nation, 'You can have any flag you like, as long as it's a fern.' What a ferny man he is!

Sunday, 9 August 2015


The Flag Consideration Panel has now released its long list: the forty designs that it thinks are the best of the 10,292 that were submitted. What a disappointment! Many are rubbish; few are worthy of serious consideration; many fail the Panel's own design criteria.

And although the Panel says it wanted something that...

'should speak to all Kiwis. Our hope is that New Zealanders will see themselves reflected in these flags' symbols, colour and stories. ..... In reviewing flag designs, first and foremost, we were guided by what thousands of Kiwis across a range of communities told us when they shared what is special to them about New Zealand' [emphasis added] did not include even one design that has a kiwi. Not even one! All it chose were ferns and stars and koru curlies, despite the fact that ferns, even white-backed ones, are not unique to New Zealand; and that the Southern Cross is common to all countries in the Southern Hemisphere; and that the koru is a stylised fern shoot, and therefore only the Maori word for it is unique to this country.

Not a single kiwi for Kiwis to choose. Not one!

It is obvious that the final choice will be one of the five Kyle Lockwood variations. They are nice, but they do not shout 'New Zealand, and nowhere else' to the rest of the world. To many of us, yes, but not to the world. They have to be explained to the world.

Any explanation attached to a flag should be very simple, and fixed to the flag, as with the flag of the United Kingdom, which is simply explained as the combined crosses of the patron saints of the four countries that make up the UK; and as with the flag of the United States, which is simply explained as thirteen stripes for the original thirteen states and fifty stars for the present number; and as with the Canadian flag, which is simply explained as the maple leaf, the national symbol of Canada. For New Zealand, only the kiwi achieves that simplicity: 'We are called Kiwis, after our national bird, the kiwi.'

Removing the obvious rubbish from the list of forty, as well as the also-rans to the obvious rubbish (the small x's), leaves very few that could be considered, and most of them are marginal because they do not make a flag that is all New Zealand, only New Zealand, and nothing else:

Of those, the simplest one, the one that holds the eye best is the middle one at the top. It has only three colours and a central focus. But it is not balanced. It would be better if the white fern was smaller and the stars larger. To many in the world that white 'fern' is likely to be taken for a white feather, which is the universal symbol of cowardice--hardly something for our soldiers to fight for.

Because it is a physiological fact that red attracts the eye more strongly than any other colour, if there is a red patch in the top-left corner it attracts the eye, which then finds itself hopping between that patch and the stars, although they are what should dominate. The green curly is very marginal, and only gets into the above group because it is nice to look at, not because it is a good design for any nation's flag. For New Zealand it would be a thorough break with the past, and the crooked stars, which are forced to be crooked by the fancy curly, puts it at the bottom of this group of five. It also fails to have a strong central point with which to hold the eye, because the stars are small and are in a crooked arrangement. It is nice to look at but a very bad idea for our flag.

None of those five are brilliant. The best is only the best of a bad-to-middling lot.

But the Panel was picked/vetted by John Key and he has said loudly and often that he wants a fern, so a fern is what got, with a lot of rubbish round it as make-weights, like the dirt in a bag of spuds.

The very least the Panel should have done was to have picked the best of the designs featuring stars, the best of the ferns, the best of the korus, and the best of the kiwis--i.e., the best of four different bases. Then there would have been real choice. This is just ferns, ferns, ferns, ferns rammed down our throats with a bit of pretence at democracy.

Wednesday, 3 June 2015


The huge number of designs submitted to the Flag Consideration Panel are a mix of facetious and excellent, with a proponderance of ones that ignore the well-established principles of good design, or do not do what a national flag should do, or both.

Good design limits the number of colours, ideally to no more than three (which is why the red, white and blue of the present design works so well), and not to have colours on top of each other that cause them to appear to be flashing (such as red on blue, which is why the present design has white between the red and the blue). There should also be good contrast between the colours, and the combination should be upbeat, positive, not negative in any way. The design should have a strong central focus so that the eye is not forced to hop about between two or more competing elements, and, above all, the design should be unmistakably New Zealand; it must should 'New Zealand' and nothing else, and therefore the central symbol should say that.

In the ones submitted to the panel there is also the big no-no of the accidental (or deliberate?) use of phallic symbols, such as 3, 4 and 14 on this selection made for the New Zealand Herald. 14 is particularly obvious. Why could the people who selected those three not see that? Do they want New Zealand to be mocked round the world?

Number 4 is also bad from the point of view of colours; it has only two, and they are ones that do not have nearly enough contrast.

1 is too bland, and does not shout 'New Zealand', as a New Zealand flag should.

In 2 the eye hops from point to point; it is not held by a central focus. If the stars were bigger it would be much better, because they would not be fighting for attention with the vertical white bands.

5 is good use of colour and shape, although the eye is forced to go from side to side.

6 is fine to mark a fighter-jet or helicopter but not to be a flag, even though it has long been used by the Royal New Zealand Air Force. It is designed for a plane not a flag; but it is right to use the strongest symbol of New Zealand, the kiwi, something found nowhere else in the world--unlike a fern with a silver back, which is found elsewhere.

The black fern of 7 is too sombre, and the fern is too detailed to work on a flag.

8 makes the same mistakes as 2 and 7: the eye is forced to hop about, and those tiny stars are too detailed.

9 has two focal-points not one. It would be better to dump the stars.

10 features something no unique to New Zealand, and is too sombre.

11 is not a good variation on 5; the red is better than the black, and the black means that the design has four colours, which is not the best.

12 uses the English cross for some obscure reason (England is only part of the Great Britain from which the New Zealand nation sprang), plus four stars for no apparent reason, because they are not as they in the sky, and again it does not shout 'New Zealand' to the world

13 has been discussed in another blog posting. Obviously I think it is good, and it certainly keeps to the fundamentals of good design: only three colours, bold, a central focus, a symbol that more than any other shouts 'New Zealand.'

14 should not be considered, for apart from its obvious phallic reference, it is too detailed--those stars are two small for a flag.

15 does not shout 'New Zealand' and that dividing line near the bottom says nothing. If it is meant to a long white cloud it says it in an obscure whisper. It does not shout, and has not geographical reference. New Zealand is essential a north-south country between two oceans left and right, not an east-west one.

All elements of a flag's design should say something about the country. The American flag says 'America', it shouts it, every element is about America and nowhere else: the fifty stars represent the fifty states of the United States of America, and the thirteen stripes represent the thirteen British colonies that declared independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain and became the first states in the union. It uses only three colours, colours that have good contrast and that go well together, and that recognise the country's British heritage. There should be something of that. We should at least keep the blue, partly because of that, and partly because we are surrounded by the deep blue ocean.

'New Zealand' means 'New Sea-Land' and the flag should say that.

Any flag that does not instantly say 'This is New Zealand' should not even be considered. 

Most of the thousands of designs that have been submitted do not do that, and are design-disasters. Obviously their creators ignored the very good advice given on the Flag Consideration Panel's website.