The re-exhibition of Diane Prince’s provocative artwork “Flagging the Future” at Nelson’s Suter Art Gallery has reignited a fierce national debate about the boundaries of artistic expression, the symbolism of the New Zealand flag, and the legacy of colonisation. The installation, which invites viewers to walk on a New Zealand flag stencilled with the words “Please Walk On Me,” has drawn strong reactions from veterans, local leaders, artists, and the wider public—mirroring the outrage it sparked when first shown 30 years ago.

The Artwork and Its Origins

“Flagging the Future” is a multimedia installation by Diane Prince, a prominent Māori artist and activist. The centrepiece is a New Zealand flag laid on the floor, marked with the phrase “Please Walk On Me.” Above it stands a surveying tripod, crafted from flax stalks—chosen by Prince as a symbol of Māori reclamation and a direct reference to the tools of colonial land acquisition.

Prince first exhibited the work in Auckland in 1995 as a pointed critique of the Bolger Government’s fiscal cap on Treaty of Waitangi settlements. The installation was removed after public outcry, but its message and controversy have endured.

Outrage and Defence: Community Reactions

Veterans and Returned Services’ Association

Barry Pont, president of the Nelson branch of the Returned and Services’ Association (RSA), described his reaction as “shock horror.” For Pont and many veterans, the flag symbolises the sacrifices made by New Zealanders in war. “To wipe your feet on it is an insult in my eyes,” Pont said, adding that while he could tolerate the flag lying on the floor, the explicit invitation to walk on it crossed a line. He also pointed out that legislation prohibits displaying the flag with the intent to dishonour it and questioned whether such an artwork should be shown in a ratepayer-supported gallery.

Local Government and Public Complaints

Nelson Mayor Nick Smith echoed these concerns, calling the artwork “in bad taste” and confirming the council had received at least 19 complaints. Smith stressed he would feel the same if the artwork encouraged people to walk on the Tino Rangatiratanga flag, highlighting the emotive power of national symbols. However, he also acknowledged the independence of the Suter Art Gallery and encouraged its board to consider community feedback.

Artistic and Curatorial Perspective

Exhibition curator Gina Matchitt and Suter Art Gallery director Toni MacKinnon strongly defended the exhibition’s value. Matchitt emphasised that Prince’s work recognises the service of soldiers with “reverence and compassion,” noting that other pieces in the show honour Prince’s ancestors who fought in the Land Wars and World War I. She argued that the artwork is an invitation to reflect on the multiple meanings of the flag: “For Māori, that Union Jack symbolises land loss, language loss, culture loss… the flag actually belongs to all New Zealanders, it doesn’t just belong to the RSA.”

MacKinnon described “Flagging the Future” as a significant piece of the country’s art history, saying its return to public view is both an act of recognition and an opportunity to provoke thought and discussion.

Protest and Public Response

The controversy has moved beyond debate to direct action. One Nelson woman has vowed to pick up the flag from the gallery floor every day in protest, sharing her actions on social media and drawing further attention to the issue. This protest underscores the depth of feeling the flag evokes in many New Zealanders and the challenges of balancing respect for national symbols with freedom of artistic expression.

The Broader Context: Art, Colonisation, and Treaty Debate

“Flagging the Future” is not just about the flag—it is a commentary on Aotearoa’s colonial history and the ongoing impact of Treaty of Waitangi settlements. The surveying tripod, made from flax, symbolises both the Crown’s territorial conquest and Māori resilience and reclamation. The work invites viewers to confront uncomfortable truths about land loss, cultural suppression, and the contested ownership of national symbols.

Curator Gina Matchitt encourages visitors to learn about local Māori history, including Treaty settlements, to better understand the context behind the artwork. She notes that the piece is especially relevant today, as debates continue over Māori rights and the government’s approach to Treaty obligations.

Art as a Catalyst for Conversation

Supporters of the exhibition argue that challenging, even provocative, art has a vital role in a healthy society. MacKinnon and Matchitt both point out that galleries have historically exhibited works that push boundaries and spark public discourse. They see “Flagging the Future” as an opportunity for New Zealanders to engage with history, identity, and the meaning of the flag from multiple perspectives.

Political and Legal Dimensions

The controversy has also reignited discussion about the legal status of the flag and the limits of protest and expression. While legislation prohibits the flag’s deliberate dishonour, enforcement in the context of art is complex and subject to interpretation. Mayor Nick Smith and others have called for a balance between free expression and respect for national symbols, suggesting that public institutions should be mindful of community standards while also protecting artistic freedom.

Where to From Here?

“Flagging the Future” will remain on display at the Suter Art Gallery until 5 October, before continuing its national tour. The gallery’s leadership has signalled a willingness to listen to public feedback, but also a commitment to showcasing challenging art. The debate is likely to continue, reflecting ongoing tensions in New Zealand society about history, identity, and the power of symbols.

Summary

The “walk on me” flag controversy in Nelson has reignited deep questions about art, history, and national identity in Aotearoa. Diane Prince’s provocative work challenges viewers to reflect on the meaning of the New Zealand flag, the legacy of colonisation, and the importance of open dialogue—even when it is uncomfortable. As the exhibition continues, the conversation it has sparked will remain a touchstone for debates about freedom of expression and the evolving story of New Zealand.