The Sunday Star Times reports that a new book out by academic Malcolm Mulholland is controversial, because it advocates that we find a new flag, a new national anthem and a new name for our country.
I don't find any of those things particularly controversial. Take our anthem. It sucks. I've said so before. I even suggested an alternative. And in these secular times the reference to God is hardly appropriate. If we're going to be saved by someone or something, how about Barack Obama? Or maybe Dan Carter's boot?
And our flag has a symbol in the top left corner that means nothing to a large number of us. The stars on the flag are nice, but I'm open-minded about what we ought to replace our current flag with. I don't care enough about flags to actually propose something positive - although the current one feels wrong.
Then there's the name. Maybe we could go for something more modern. What about George? East Australia? The Shire?
Or what about Zealand 2.0? It's edgy and modern, but still honours the past.
I look forward to being labelled "controversial" by the Sunday Star Times.