A British Blue Ensign, defaced with four stars of the Crux Australis in red, outlined in white No change Two referendums were held by the New Zealand Government in November/December 2015 and March 2016 to determine the nation's flag.

The purpose of this group was to publicise the process, seek flag submissions and suggestions from the public, and decide on a final shortlist of options.

[14][15] Then in March, Key announced that New Zealand would hold a referendum within the next three years asking whether to change the flag design, if the National Party be re-elected for a third term.

The purpose of the cross-party group was to review draft legislation allowing for the referendums to take place, and to nominate candidates for a Flag Consideration Panel by mid February 2015.

[5][25][26] The Flag Consideration Panel was a separate group of "respected New Zealanders" with representative age, regional, gender and ethnic demographics.

Their purpose was to publicise the process, seek flag submissions and suggestions from the public, and decide on a final shortlist of four suitable options for the first referendum.

On 23 September, the Green Party MP Gareth Hughes attempted to introduce a bill to parliament to include Red Peak as an option in the first referendum.

[46][47] New Zealand Herald writer Karl Puschmann called it a design for those "sitting on the fence" who didn't want much change[48] and the National Business Review labelled it "amateur" and "dated".

[57] Members of parliament accused the referendums as Key's "vanity project", populist bread and circuses,[58][31] a distraction from poverty and housing issues, or a vehicle to establish a personal legacy.

[68] Key's inclusion of the Red Peak design in the shortlist at the request of the Green Party was seen as a belated and futile appeasement, and cross-party support was necessary from the very beginning of the process.

[71] Audrey Young suggested that the process was too rushed, and a longer one lasting at least two electoral cycles would have allowed more time for opposition party support and the possibility of a Labour prime minister overseeing the final result.

[72] Opposition parties condemned the flag as low priority compared to current issues in the public consciousness such as education, health and housing.

Trevor Mallard and Phil Goff cited the results of recent opinion polls that showed public opposition or apathy to a flag change.

[58] Opposition parties, Royal New Zealand Returned and Services' Association (RSA) president Barry Clark and members of the public criticised the referendum plan for costing $26 million which could be spent on other issues.

[58][29] David Seymour (ACT's representative in the Cross-Party Group) said that the planned order made sense, as the public would need to see the alternative designs before deciding on a change.

[80] Professor John Burrows, chair of the Flag Consideration Panel, agreed that familiarity with proposals was a prerequisite for a properly informed decision about them.

Trevor Mallard and Phil Goff claimed that the final list of members of the Flag Consideration Panel was numerically slanted towards those nominated by the National Party, despite the shortlist of candidates being roughly neutral.

Stuart Nash presented quotes in the Regulatory Impact Statement document admitting that referendum options were restricted by prior decisions by the prime minister and National Party dominated Cabinet, accusing them of pre-determining the process.

(3/4 contained a silver fern until the Red Peak flag was added) Thus, the panel was accused of being sycophantic and undermining their mandate to be neutral and democratic, which restricted the options available to the public and ruined the reputation of the whole process.

[49] Crowdsourcing processes have historically been inundated by unqualified participants submitting large numbers of very low-quality, plagiarised or malicious contributions that ignore standard rules and best practices, with a high administrative burden to identify which ones are legal and serviceable.

[51][87][88][89][48][90][91][92][83][85][excessive citations] A spokesman responded that "it was considered that panel members did not need specialist skills in art, design, legal or intellectual property" and that consultation with experts would be sufficient.

[94] Missing elements included clear research questions, artistic criteria, requirements elicitation, prototyping, monetary reward, direct public consultation on the longlist and shortlist selections, design iteration, deadline extensions and consideration of choice architecture such as randomisation.

There were complaints that the four initial designs did not offer sufficient variety, as only one did not feature a large silver fern dividing the field, and two were identical except for a colour choice,[49] prompting accusations of groupthink and favouritism amongst the panel.

[70] In hindsight, those analysing the reasons for the referendums' failure have posited that the quality of the official selection was so poor that it effectively prevented the possibility of a flag change.

[69][49][99] Some proposed that the outcome reflected the public's negative reception of the Kyle Lockwood design more than their underlying attitudes about flag change or national identity.

[85] McLachlan demonstrated that online signatures could easily be forged by recording himself signing the petition sixteen times and fraudulently impersonating members of parliament.

This result confused Malcolm Mulholland of the Flag Consideration Panel, who believed they had adequately engaged with Māori during their nationwide tour.

He also noted that factors behind support for a flag change (i.e. cultural diversity, Asia-Pacific links and independent symbols) would only increase in the future.

Former Green MP Keith Locke also pointed out that the 43% result was a marked increase over previous opinion polls that showed support for change in the 20–30% range.

[71] Labour leader Andrew Little agreed that it was appropriate to discuss the flag as part of constitutional debates once the reign of Queen Elizabeth II was over.