New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill

I move, That the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported back to the House by 29 July 2015. The Government has made a commitment to hold a binding referendum on the New Zealand flag well before the 2017 general election. As the Prime Minister said last year, it is now an appropriate time for the debate about the New Zealand flag to be resolved through a careful and considered process, the main feature of which is to enable New Zealanders to make the decision.

Legislation is required to create a binding referendum process. The Government has taken a non-partisan approach to this legislation and to the flag consideration process. This bill has been shaped by a cross-party group of MPs, working with initial proposals set forward by Cabinet. The bill sets out the structure, the procedures, and the requirements for the referendums; and the requirements for voters, advertisers, and the Electoral Commission, because it is a unique process. The referendum process will uphold the decision of New Zealanders, whether they vote for a new flag, ultimately, or vote to keep the flag that we have. If a majority of voters choose a new flag, the bill provides for this to become the official flag of New Zealand by amending the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981. So it puts those provisions in place, which does not drive any particular outcome but anticipates a change in the flag.

The Government carefully considered the options around the referendum process and decided on a two-stage postal process. This begins with a vote on alternative flag designs and concludes with a clear choice between the current New Zealand flag and the most preferred alternative design. The first referendum is needed to choose which alternative flag is most preferred by New Zealanders, including by those who may ultimately vote against change. The two-stage process means that when voters choose whether to change our flag, they know what the alternative is. The dates of the referendums will be confirmed by Order in Council, which offers some flexibility. The first referendum, though, is currently planned for November/December this year and the second referendum planned for March 2016—and this timetable has been discussed by the cross-party group.

The decision about the voting systems was also made, essentially, by the cross-party group. They disagreed with the original proposal put forward by Cabinet, and Cabinet went with the cross-party group’s view. The first referendum will use preferential voting and will ask New Zealanders to rank four alternative flag designs. They will be free to rank as many or as few flags as they wish. Preferential voting helps ensure that the alternative flag goes through with a majority support of voters’ preferences. This system means that all voters can help choose the most preferred alternative flag, so that the second referendum is really between a representative view and the current flag. Regardless of how a voter ranks designs in the first referendum, they will be able to make a clear choice between the current flag and a new flag in the second referendum. I am sure some people who are strongly motivated will vote for the worst-looking flag in the first referendum to make sure that it loses in the second one. Those options are freely available to every New Zealander.

On this point, I have seen in a media report that Labour Party members may not support the bill because they think that at the time of the first referendum people should say whether or not they want change. This issue has been canvassed, and the view set out in this bill is that a basic tenet of voting is that you need to know what you are voting for or against. No one is going to know at the time of the first referendum what an alternative New Zealand flag will look like. They will know that it could be any one of four options, but that is quite different from having a simple alternative to the current flag. So the bill proposes referendums that are the right way around—first, voters choose an alternative flag design from the four that are on offer, and then they choose between the alternative and the current flag. The plan that says whether or not you want the current flag without knowing what the alternative is just does not seem feasible. You would be voting blind for or against a change to the current flag. I have to say that for myself, like many New Zealanders, I am kind of biased in favour of the current flag because I know it, but I am keen to see the alternative in order to decide whether to vote for change. So the voting paper and the wording of the questions are set out in this bill.

The four alternative flag designs for the first referendum will be determined through consultation with the public. I must stress that that consultation will be organised and led by an independent panel. The Flag Consideration Panel will recommend flag designs to me as the responsible Minister, and Cabinet will confirm the four options to be added to the first referendum voting paper by Order in Council. I think the independence of that process is absolutely vital. I have worked with the chair of the Flag Consideration Panel in the past, and I am sure that the professor will make sure it remains independent, because the process here is as important as the result. The Flag Consideration Panel’s consultation and how it will choose the shortlist of designs is not part of this bill. It is not a matter for Parliament and it is not a matter for Cabinet; it is a matter for the panel. The submission of flag designs to the panel will be separate from the select committee stage for this bill. The bill simply provides that the designs recommended by the panel and confirmed by Cabinet are inserted into the voting paper by Order in Council. The select committee stage will give the public the opportunity to make submissions about the referendum process itself, not about flag designs, although I am sure that will become part of the discussion.

The Electoral Commission will discuss these referendums, and it has robust systems in place. A District Court judge will observe the secure processing and counting of the votes. The votes will be processed centrally as they are returned over a 3-week postal voting period. The order of the flags on the voting paper will be determined randomly. All eligible voters on the electoral roll will be able to vote. As with elections, voters who are overseas will also be able to participate.

The bill also sets out rules for the regulation of referendum advertising. The Government, on the recommendation of the cross-party group, has decided that this regulation should not be heavy-handed. An advertiser will not be subject to rules or limits on its spending. The only requirement will be that promotional advertisements contain a promoter statement. This requirement will not apply to the display of the current New Zealand flag or alternative designs that are on the voting paper unless they are accompanied by further promotional material about voting in the referendums. People should be free to display the flag of their country unencumbered. This will allow for wide public discussion on the flag without unnecessarily restricting freedom of expression. If voters choose to change the flag, this will trigger provisions in the bill to change to the new flag within 6 months. It is important that people do not see these provisions in the bill as predetermining the outcome of the referendum; they simply put in place the mechanism needed if the flag changes. If it does not, those mechanisms will not be required. The only legal requirements for the use of the official flag relate to drivers’ licences and New Zealand - registered ships. If the flag changes, there will be a further 6-month transitional period.

I am grateful for the input of members from other parties who participated in the development of this bill, which will give New Zealanders a chance to have their say on a vital symbol of nationhood. I suspect that once the Cricket World Cup passes, which has excited strong feelings of patriotism, and hopefully more, this will become a matter of some wide public interest. I welcome the public debate and consideration as this bill passes through the select committee. I commend this bill to the House.

I agree with quite a lot of what the Deputy Prime Minister has said in his introductory speech on the bill. I think he has summarised the issues relatively well, save for one or two. According to the latest published poll done by Television New Zealand, 65 percent of voters are opposed to changing the flag, and 2 percent of New Zealanders think that it is an important issue. Labour believes, as was the case with the MMP referenda series, that New Zealanders should have the right to say no as part of the first referendum, rather than having to wait until the second. We think that if there is a clear view early on that New Zealanders do not want to proceed with a change in the flag, then we should not spend the tens of millions of dollars that will be involved in conducting a second referendum. I might say that the Labour Party was not alone at the select committee with that point of view. At the final meeting of the committee there was only one party—and that was the National Party—opposed to New Zealanders having the right to say no as part of the first referendum. So let us make it clear that every other party that was represented and present at what was meant to be a multi-party, consensus-building - committee is opposed to or has indicated they were opposed to the approach that Mr English is taking with this referendum. I think that also, for me, shows a bit of the problem.

This has clearly become what might be described as a “vanity project” for the Prime Minister. It is something that he strongly believes in. I actually think we should change our flag. I am of the view that it is time to change the flag, but what is really important is that we get the process right. I just totally reject—totally reject—the suggestion by the Deputy Prime Minister that New Zealanders are not bright enough to understand that they have a yes/no vote twice. It was maybe 20 years ago that we went through a similar process to change our electoral system, where we had a yes/no vote and a run-off of choices as part of the first ballot, and the second ballot was the then current system versus the new system. People could understand that. People are not thick. But it left them with the choice to say no at the beginning. And in this particular case, it would save tens of millions of dollars. Frankly, anyone who spends a bit of time in a constituency, who talks to parents with special needs kids, who looks into schools and their operational funding, and who looks at the poverty in New Zealand knows that there are many better uses for the tens of millions of dollars that are going to be spent, including on the second part of the process, than a flag referendum. But as we know, this is a vanity project for the Prime Minister.

I must say that Jonathan Young is looking fitter as a result of this process. I do not think I have ever seen anyone run up and down the Beehive stairs as much as Jonathan Young did in consulting with the Deputy Prime Minister on this particular issue. Frankly, I have been involved in a couple of multi-party committees of this sort in the past, and I have never seen one where the Government pulled the strings of the chair in such a way. I like Mr Young. I think he is a good character. He actually comes from a damn solid family, but in this particular case he did not understand the role of the chair in defending the views of the other parties to the executive, and he allowed himself to be dictated to by them.

The Flag Consideration Panel itself, I think it is fair to say, is a mixture. It is a mixture of some wonderful people and a few National Party hacks. It is sad—it is really sad—that the executive, that Cabinet, was not prepared to accept the list that was prepared by the multi-party committee, which had plenty of extra choices.

💬 Hon Bill English: Most of them are.

No, eight out of the 12 are, and four out of the eight—four out of the eight—are people whom Jonathan Young nominated. So, actually, a third of the people who are on that panel are people who were nominated by other parties. So just do not interrupt and do not interject, Bill English, when you do not know what you are talking about. When you do not know what you are talking about, Bill English, it pays to keep those slightly split lips together. It pays to keep those slightly split lips together, Mr English.

There were some other revealing things at the committee. I learnt, as part of the committee, a lot about the ACT Party and its attitude to primary industry in New Zealand. It is a quote that will stay with me for ever—the quote from David Seymour, the leader of the ACT Party. He indicated that farmers are not business people. We had a couple of nominations there for farmers to be on the panel, and Mr Seymour said: “Unless they invented dairy farming, they’re not real business people.” That is an Epsom indication of the value of agriculture to New Zealand if ever I saw it. At the moment what is happening is that the National Party is relying on a person with that sort of attitude towards primary production for its majority.

Another point goes to timing. I will accept that there are times when a committee accepts your point of view and there are times when it does not. This is one time when the committee clearly did not accept my point of view. I think that having the second referendum—and I think possibly we should not—in the lead-up to the centenary of the first commemoration of Gallipoli lacks taste. I think it lacks taste. I think having a 3-week period less than a month before the centenary of the first commemoration of Gallipoli is something where our soldiers—we had only had the flag for 13 years at the time of Gallipoli, but I think there is a certain lack of sensitivity and a denigrating of the role of the military. I am an old Viet Nam protester, but I think some of the attitudes of members from that side of the House towards people who have served New Zealand leave something to be desired. The timing insisted on by the Deputy Prime Minister for this is part of that.

So it is with a slightly heavy heart—because I do want to change our flag—that I am indicating that Labour will not support this bill until New Zealanders get the right to say no as a part of the first referendum.

Well, if all Labour members can come up with as a reason not to support this bill is that they do not like the way the questions are asked, then it seems like a pretty flimsy reason to me. I mean, really, is that it? Is that the strength of the argument that Labour members could promote—that, actually, they do not like the order of the questions?

Here is how I think about it. If I am going to make a decision about whether or not New Zealand is going to have a change of flag, I would like to think that I would be given some context about what I might potentially be voting for or not. And, in the first referendum, I can withhold that choice, and that gives me quite a bit of power, actually. I do not know whether the Assistant Speaker has actually thought it through very much, to be frank. If I felt really passionately about it, I could design a flag myself. How powerful is that? So that is three goes that I have got over this.

In the first instance, if I felt really, really strongly about replicating that little hand-embroidered kiwi that my mum had on her knapsack when she went hitchhiking around the UK 50 years ago—and she felt so proud to be a Kiwi, to be a New Zealander—if I felt so proud of that, which I do, then I could promote that as my idea for the flag. The commission that will be enacted under this bill will be able to evaluate that against all of the other suggestions that come through from fellow New Zealanders. It might be a kiwi like the one on my mum’s knapsack, or it might be a silver fern, or it might be that wonderful—wonderful—image of a silver fern with the servicemen marching off into the distance: a really poignant symbol for many people of what it means to be a New Zealander, and it has been translated into a tattoo and has gone viral around the world. People feel really strongly about this kind of thing.

How come I am standing up here in this Parliament, for example, remembering that my mum had an embroidered kiwi on her knapsack 50 years ago when she went off on her big adventure? Why? Because it meant a lot to her and it means a lot to me. So the flag is a really important aspect of us, as New Zealanders, defining who we think we are. What is it in our flag that defines who we are? Not only is it when we are remembering the wonderful things that New Zealanders have done for us and by us and to us—not just that—but it is also our outward-facing nature, which we do so well in this country. It is our face to the world, and to a lot of people it means a lot. So strike one for me is that I have the opportunity, which is described in this bill, to design my own flag, based on what is important to me, and to submit it to be part of the consideration.

Strike two is the first referendum question. That first referendum question is going to say: “Here are four alternatives. Which one do you like, New Zealand?”. We know we have got the old one, and here it is in the bill. It is the third flag we have had in our history, by the way. So there we are; we have got that one in the bag. We have had it since 1902. It has served us well. We are proud of it. But does it say who we are today? OK, so we have that. The question for me and for every other New Zealander—except the Labour Party members because, of course, they do not want to have a question; they are going to oppose it. Except the Labour Party members because they do not like the way the questions are framed, so they are not even going to play with us. Oh, well, that’s fine. But, I, as a New Zealander, am going to. And when I have my second strike—my second choice—I am going to be able to vote, and it is going to be a vote based on four flags that mean a lot to New Zealanders. Well, what a wonderful opportunity that is. I am looking forward to that very much.

As I read the bill very briefly this afternoon, I think that that vote is going to happen around May 2016. So that is quite a tight time frame. If you have got a mind to start designing the flag, I would get on to it this afternoon. I have got some blank paper; I might do it after this speech. That is my second strike, and that is an exciting prospect for all of us because we all have the opportunity to make a choice. If we did not have our flag, which we have here in the bill—if we did not have this one, which one would we like? Which one most captures what it means to me to be a New Zealander? What a powerful question. Why does Labour not support that? Why does Labour not support the absolute power and freedom of a New Zealander to be able to answer a question like that? Well, it beats me. [Interruption] Oh, OK, my colleague from Rangitīkei has just said: “Well, because it wasn’t their idea.” OK, I leave it at that.

In around May next year an envelope will arrive in the mail for all of us who are registered electors, and we will get the opportunity to choose between four options. At that point, what that allows us to do, apart from choosing something that speaks to us about being a New Zealander, is to begin to weigh up in our minds: OK, if we are not going to have the current flag, what might we replace it with? Is that not a much better question than a simple yes or no? We will have something in front of us that we can look at—we will be able to see those designs. They will be in the newspaper. They will be in the media. They will be in social media, no doubt. They will be on the voting papers. Is that not a more powerful position for us as New Zealanders to be able to say: “OK. Is it the old one or might it be one of these? I’m going to think about that and then I am going to have a vote.”? And, for me, I do not know yet. I do not know; I am open. But I am looking forward to those alternatives, which I might vote on. So that is strike two.

Then, as enacted under this bill, the commission goes away and determines a preference, and then, and only then, puts that preference—and it might well be a silver fern on a red and blue background. It might well be a kiwi. It could be anything. It could be the Southern Cross. It could be a combination of the old flag and some aspect of New Zealand that speaks to us now. We do not know what it is going to be, and that is what is so wonderful about this process. In due course—third strike—we are going to have another choice, and that choice is going to be based on a bit of thinking. Unlike Sue Moroney, who is sitting over on the other side of the House just yabbering away, because I do not think she understands the issue—because what we are going to be able to do—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: I think it’s Jacqui Dean who’s yabbering.

Well, that got them going. What we are going to be able to do, in another 6 or so months’ time, is make a decision based on knowledge—make a decision based on some options about what really speaks to us, as New Zealanders. Well, how wonderful is that? What an opportunity for us, as New Zealanders. So when we do go to make that final vote, in about a year and a half’s time, we will be able to make a decision based on knowledge. And that is what the Labour Party is voting against. It does not want us to go to this referendum being able to make a decision based on knowledge. It has just knee-jerked: “We’ve got to oppose it, we’ve got to oppose it, we’ve got to oppose it. What could we oppose it on? I know: they’ve got the questions around the wrong way.” Well, if that is the best that Labour members can come up with, then maybe they deserve to be floundering around the 33 percent in the—what, 33, 32 percent? Are they in the 30s? Whatever.

This bill puts a structure in place for New Zealanders to have a say about our flag—and it is our flag, and it is not just going to be the Labour Party telling us how to vote. This is going to be a binding referendum for all New Zealanders. It is a marvellous opportunity, and I support this bill. Thank you.

There is a fundamental flaw in what Jacqui Dean was saying, and I would just invite Mrs Dean to think back to the last time we had a binding referendum. It was in 2011 and it was on MMP—nothing more fundamental than our voting system. Was the first referendum—and there could have been two—on whether we wanted single transferable vote, supplementary member, first past the post, or MMP, and when we decided what the alternative was we would decide whether we kept the status quo? Of course not. The last time we had a binding referendum in this country, the electorate of New Zealand was quite properly asked, first of all: “Do you want to change the voting system?”. That is why the whole logic of the referendum on a flag, if we are going to have the referendum, is: let New Zealanders decide first of all whether we want to change the flag. Why would we spend $26 million on two referendums if the majority of New Zealanders did not want change?

I have got the three latest polls on the flag, and I have got to say that the Television New Zealand (TVNZ) one on September 2014 was 35 percent for change, 65 percent against. The March 2014 New Zealand Herald poll was 40 percent for change and 52 percent against. The February 2014 TVNZ poll was 28 percent for change, 72 percent against. So here we have got a Government that wants to have change—and I will come to what my view is on that shortly—but it is going to say what we are going to change to before it gives New Zealanders the right to say whether or not they want it. This is not a decision for 121 members of Parliament to make in this Chamber; this is a decision for all New Zealanders. Surely we should ask New Zealanders the first question in the logical order: “Do you want change?”. Is there anything that is not understandable about that priority? That is how we decided on our voting system. That is how we could be deciding on our flag.

The other thing about those polls that I have just talked about is that the TVNZ poll found the total of all of the New Zealanders who thought that changing the flag was an important issue. Do you know what the total came to? Two percent—2 percent of New Zealanders thought that this was an important issue. It is, therefore, hard to understand what the obsession of the Prime Minister is with this issue. On the one hand it could be a vanity project. The Prime Minister is about to retire and he wants to be remembered for something. It is hard to think what he will be remembered for, but maybe he could be remembered for changing the flag. The alternative explanation for why the Prime Minister has this obsession is that it is a bit like bread and circuses. It is a great diversion, is it not? When things are not happening the way they should be around the country, let them look at something else: “Watch this flag. See we could change this flag. Don’t worry about education. Don’t worry about the failure of the charter schools and the loss of public money. Don’t worry about the district health boards not having enough to provide decent health services. Don’t worry about the fact that we have cut policing in real terms every year in the last 5 years. Look at the flag.” That is a diversion.

You know, I probably share with most New Zealanders the kind of bemusement about why this is being put up as a priority issue. I noticed that the American comedian John Oliver also said that. He said that the New Zealand Prime Minister—to his audience, if they knew where New Zealand is—was going to change the flag. Then he went on and said that John Key, as the newly elected Prime Minister, is “ready to tackle the most pressing issues facing the country.” Well, I disagree—I disagree. John Oliver was obviously being sarcastic about that.

💬 Hon Members: No!

Just for the dimmer members across the House, I thought I should explain that in case Government members got excited.

I think there are other priorities. I think the level of child poverty in our country is a priority. Why would we not be focusing on that in a debate this afternoon? I think the transport gridlock in Auckland is a priority. They have to worry about that—

💬 Ron Mark: No, not to the National Party—not to the National Party.

Well, maybe not in the Wairarapa, Mr Mark, but certainly for a third of the country who are Aucklanders. I think the housing crisis where every year fewer and fewer New Zealanders get the chance to own their own home is a priority. So I do not know why we have a priority where we are going to be spending $26 million on a couple of referendums in the wrong order—a couple of referendums in the wrong order. I know that the people in Mt Roskill will be asking me when I go back there tonight: “Why are we spending $26 million? Is there nothing better that the National Government has got to spend it on?”. I could say that it is spending $65 million on sending 16 trainers to Iraq—that is not too good—and it is spending $69 million on trying to buy an election, which is being totally counter-productive. So I guess my confession to my electorate will be that the Government is wasting lot of money, and this $26 million is part of the wastage.

There are a couple of other things that I think we need to take into account. If we are trying to cut down the cost of it, it makes sense to have one referendum first to see whether people want to have change. But there is another proposal that I have for the House, and that is that if we are going to have a referendum on something as significant as the symbol of the country, the flag, why would we not hold that at the same time as an election? There are two big advantages in that. The first, of course, is that it is much cheaper, but the second advantage is that you are going to get a decent turnout. If you have a stand-alone referendum, you might get 40 percent, or maybe 50 percent, going out to vote. I am saying that if you are going to change the flag, at least get a genuine indicator of what people feel, and the best way to do that is by coinciding a referendum with an election. Is it so pressing that we have to have two stand-alone referendums before the next election? Nobody thinks it is that pressing. Two percent of New Zealanders think that changing the flag is an important issue. So let us be logical.

Let us in this House be sensible, and I am directing this to the members of the National caucus. Why not have at the next election one referendum with two parts? Part A will ask: “Do you want to change the flag? Yes or no?”. Easy. Then Part B will ask: “If there is a majority that wants to change the flag, which of these preferences do you prefer?”. You do not have to run it as two separate stand-alone referenda. You could hold it with one referendum coinciding with the election. What is illogical about that? It is totally sensible. It is what we should be doing. That is what every party on the cross-party committee wants to do, with the exception of National and, if you call it a stand-alone party, ACT. That is what the majority of people in this House want.

My own preference is that I would actually like to see a new flag—a 21st century flag—and I kind of like the one by Kyle Lockwood. It has the silver fern through the middle. It has the blue of the Pacific, and the Southern Cross, and it is three colours. It is quite attractive. But it is not my decision to make.

There is something else I want to say about timing. When the RSA makes as strong a stand as it has, I think we should do it the courtesy of listening to it. We all say: “What a debt we owe to our veterans.”, and, by God, we do owe a debt to our veterans. So why would you, as the Prime Minister, introduce a bill to change the flag a month before the centenary of Anzac Day—a month before the most important day for our veterans, and, because it is the centenary, the most important one in 100 years?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s pathetic.

This is just throwing it up into their faces, Mr Smith. That is what it is doing. Why could we not have waited for the RSA and our veterans? They feel strongly about it and I understand why they feel strongly about it. They fought under that flag, Dr Smith, something you and I have never had to do. They saw their mates die under that flag. They feel strongly about it. I have a different view on the flag but I do respect their view, and I do respect the fact that in a month’s time we will be commemorating the centenary of the Anzacs. I think we could do them at least the courtesy of waiting until after that before we start this debate and bring this legislation into the House. I have to say that the logic is entirely in favour of having one referendum with the first question asking whether people want to change the flag and the second part asking what they want to change it to. We should do it at the same time as the general election, to save the $26 million the Government is spending and to get a decent turnout in terms of the answers to both those questions.

I have to say, as well, because it has been raised time and again with me, that there is a panel of 12 people. Some of them are very good people. Some of them are National Party hacks. We could have cut that committee down. In my electorate, where people are struggling to pay their rent and make sure their kids get what they want, people are wondering why there is $600 to $800 a day being paid to National Party hacks to sit on the panel. That is wrong, and I am against that as well.

I would like to point out to the House, before I call on the next speaker, that the debate is relatively narrow. It is around process, around timing, and the previous speakers have covered that quite well. It is not an argument about what other things taxpayers’ funds could be expended on. It is not a wide-ranging debate. It is narrow, and, as we have heard from previous speakers, there is plenty to talk about around the process, the timing, and the other provisions within the bill.

This is a very great opportunity to be able to come and talk about something that is of such significance to New Zealand, to our nation, that we need to spend some significant time talking about it. We need to ensure we have a good process, so that we make a good decision at the end of the process.

This is a very important debate. It is not something you would do once every parliamentary term. It is not something you would do every 10, 20, 30, or even 40 years. But it is something that should, or perhaps could, be done every 100 years or so. The current flag was put in place in 1902, so it probably is a good time for us to stop and ponder the future of our flag in New Zealand. The last 100 years have seen some significant changes in our country, good changes a lot of them; different changes at different times. But if a flag is to be a unifying symbol of sovereignty, of our heritage and our values, then from time to time, albeit every 100 years or so, perhaps it is appropriate for us to have another look at it and ask whether the flag still reflects our heritage, our sovereignty, our values, and the make-up of our nation.

It is an important debate but it is also an emotional debate. As has been said by many speakers, this flag is one that has been fought under. It is one that people have died under. It is a flag that has been draped over the shoulders of gold medallists and has been raised while our anthem has been played on many different occasions. It is a flag that has been flown at half mast on sombre occasions. A lot of emotion is attached to those different events when the flag is involved. So we need to be careful in our process, how we go about it, and how we address any potential change to it.

It is also a potentially divisive debate. We have already seen from what has been said in the House this afternoon that there are differing views even on the process, and also differing views on what the flag of New Zealand should look like. If I may coin a phrase from the Australian State of Origin series, it is the kind of issue that would pit mate against mate. It is the kind of thing that there will be much debate over, at the barbecues, in the pubs, and in the school classrooms. Because it is a divisive debate, it is something we need to handle with care. It is something we should not necessarily lump in with a general election; it is something that is deserving of having that singular focus in terms of the way we address this issue.

Before really thinking about this, I asked myself a number of questions. They were questions I asked myself, but they were also questions other people have asked while I have been speaking to them as I have gone out and about on my business. The first question is why we are having this debate. Is it really worth the emotional trauma that seems to be going along with it? Is it really worth the potential divisiveness? The answer is yes, because there has been a growing level of interest across our nation in debating this issue and in people having their say about whether we should retain the flag we have or change it.

So it is worth it. It is something that reflects, I think, our society as it is, where people are questioning all sorts of things, from whether or not we should keep the monarchy—I do not want to get side-tracked into that debate today. While those questions are resounding around our communities, it is absolutely worth us having this debate and this discussion. Whatever the outcome of this process, whether it be that we keep the existing flag or we change the flag, we will be better for it, I believe, as a nation, because we will have really wrestled with the issues that surround our national heritage, our national values, and how we reflect that through a flag.

So I asked myself the question why people are looking at this now. Why is it an important decision for people to be making now? What is so wrong with our current flag? One of the big things I hear from so many people is that in one corner of the flag is the Union Jack, and that reflects only a very small part now of our New Zealand heritage. I know that for me, my English heritage looks and can find St George’s cross, and my Scottish heritage looks and can find the St Andrew’s cross. The part of me that is a bit Irish cannot find anything in there to celebrate. That is probably pretty much reflected, I think, by anybody with Irish descent when it comes to the Union Jack. But I think that although we have the Union Jack there, there are some people who would do it. It reflects only one part of our culture.

💬 Ron Mark: A small part.

Yes, absolutely a small part. We hear at the moment just how many people we have from other nations, not simply from the United Kingdom. This New Zealand place is not the United Kingdom. There is, in fact, a plethora of people from all sorts of cultures. There is nothing on our flag currently that, for example, really signifies anything of significance to do with Māori. I am not here to argue the fors and againsts of this flag but merely to highlight that a number of people have shown some issues with the flag, and therefore it is worthy of debate.

I find it really interesting, actually, that now New Zealand First members want to talk about it, but when it came to being participants in the cross-party meeting we had about it, they were nowhere to be seen. They did not want to be part of it then, but now they want to shout across the House and talk about it. I find that a little bizarre. [Interruption] Anyway, if I can possibly hear myself over the rant from the other side, I might be able to carry on with what I really want to say.

The question I then asked myself was whether this is the right process. This is such a significant process that it needs to be done formally. It needs to be done carefully and, for all the reasons that have been outlined already in the House today, it needs to be done respectfully. So we invited all of the parties to be a part of it, and we have come up with a process that I think is one that is going to really bring out the very best result that we can achieve. I think that the approach we are taking is the right one. I know there was some discussion, for example, about the voting system that would be used, and I am glad to see we are using a preferential system now. I think that that was a very good part of what came out of the cross-party discussion. I have got a bit of experience with preferential voting. We had the single transferable vote (STV) in my days as Mayor of Palmerston North, and it served me pretty well, I have to say; at least on the one occasion that we had STV when I was running for election. I think it is good because it ensures that whatever alternative comes up, the fact that more than 50 percent of people agree is better than any other option that is on the table. I think that that is a very good process.

I am not normally one in favour of referendums. When we had a lot of talk during the election about whether we should have binding citizens initiated referenda and the like, I was not very happy about the idea because so often when you have a binding referendum of any kind, the question can be very much flawed and lead to a level of ambiguity. But I think that the questions we have that are related to these two referendums clearly point us in the right direction to ensure we will get a very positive result for New Zealand.

I want to address the order of the two questions and the order of the two referendums, which has been sort of disputed, I guess, by the other side of the House. I am concerned that people do not want to engage in the debate before they simply write it off, and that is what is being proposed by having this yes or no choice up front. I for one have not made up my mind as to whether or not I believe we should change the flag, quite simply because I do not know what the alternative would be. There are many, many people I know out there who are yet to make up their minds whether or not they believe we should change the flag, because they are waiting to see what the alternative would be. Putting a yes or no choice up front eliminates them from the equation. So we have got the process right. We are moving in the right direction.

Finally, I just want to touch on the point that people have said there are more important issues right now for us to discuss. If I were to ask whether this is the most important issue for New Zealand right now, of course the answer would be no. But I have complete confidence in this Government—while it is still working hard to improve the educational outcomes of New Zealand, which we are doing; while we are working hard on delivering Better Public Services, which we are doing; and while we are continuing to work towards better health targets, which we are achieving—also being able to cope with this issue. That is something we are seeking to do.

So, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, no doubt it is of no surprise to you, in summary, that I absolutely support this process. It is a good process, it is a healthy process, and it is one that I believe will deliver whatever result is the right result for New Zealand and for our flag going forward. Thank you.

We have before us the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. In one respect, it can be seen as a matter of considerable political significance. In another sense, there is less to it than meets the eye. What meets the eye is the visual symbolism of our national identity. Flags count, at least in the sense of self-perception. They depict who we think we are, to paraphrase a recently departed colleague. The Canadians got it right, back in the 1960s. The simple but compelling symbol of the maple leaf beautifully illustrates who the Canadians are. The world recognises them immediately and positively. Those of us in Australasia are a little slower in the maturation process. We have lingered with the Union Jack as both the colonial symbol and our national flag. The other symbol, the Southern Cross, is shared between our two countries. It simply serves to sow confusion as to our separate identities, yet Brazil has the Southern Cross as well. So we could retain the stars and still have a separate identity. There is, therefore, a compelling reason to consider a change of flag. We would, so to speak, be proceeding down a road of national significance.

But there is also less to this than meets the eye. The way in which the process has been generated is a trifle weird, because it was the Prime Minister who took it upon himself to lead the nation in the idea of changing the flag. The explanatory note says: “For some time there has been public debate about whether New Zealand should consider changing its flag.” That is, of course, contestable, as a quick review of the flag’s history will show. We have had the current version since it was first gazetted back in 1869 and affirmed in 1902. The insertion of the Southern Cross was done on the instruction of the Queen-in-Council—not exactly a public debate. As early as 1920 Parliament was asked to consider whether to have a flag that was distinct from that of Britain. Queries were already being received from the Canadian Parliament. New Zealand MPs replied then that there needed to be “a groundswell of public opinion before the Government should consider any change.” During World War II suggestions were made to the Prime Minister that a Māori emblem be included on the flag, in recognition of the role of the Māori Battalion. Peter Fraser deferred the matter until the end of the war, and it was never revisited.

In 2004 a civic movement was formed to change the flag, with a campaign for a citizens initiated referendum. But there was not enough support to force a vote. To the extent that there was any public debate, the people pre-emptively voted for no change. The latest development was in 2009, with the refusal of Transit New Zealand to fly the Tino Rangatiratanga flag on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. The critical development that time was the decision by the Prime Minister to personally intervene. He said he would be happy to allow a Māori flag to be flown, including in Parliament, if there were agreement over a particular design. A series of hui followed to ascertain which of four flags Māori preferred. The choice was between the New Zealand flag, the independence flag, the red ensign, and the Tino Rangatiratanga flag. The last one was chosen, and it has flown on Waitangi Day ever since. But whether that represents a spontaneous and genuine public debate about changing our national flag is a separate thing and more than just a moot point.

The Prime Minister, with his instinct for vice-regal populism, has actually sparked this latest round himself, with his speech 1 year ago. He said then that he was outlining “a plan to hold a public discussion and vote, next parliamentary term, on New Zealand’s flag.” The Prime Minister cannot outline a plan to hold a public discussion about a change of flag and say, on introducing the bill, that for some time there has been a public debate. That is the debate he is planning to hold, not one that he can acknowledge already exists.

The second point of concern: in his speech last year the Prime Minister allowed himself the luxury of stating a personal belief. “The design of the current flag symbolises a colonial and post-colonial era whose time has passed.” he told an unsuspecting nation. He said: “I am proposing that we take one more step in the evolution of modern New Zealand by acknowledging our independence through a new flag.” Yet in the next breath the Prime Minister said he wanted to give a clear assurance and commitment that retaining the current flag was a very possible outcome from the process, and there was to be no presumption in favour of change. The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot gratuitously offer a personal view that the flag should be changed, and in the same speech say there was no presumption in favour of change. Of course there is a presumption. It is on the part of the nation’s leader. Had he kept his personal views to himself, the disclaimer might have come across as genuine. The conclusion is clear. The Prime Minister is not responding to a public clamour for change. He is personally stimulating a process for a decision, and in that process has already stated his view.

In fairness, the way his Cabinet has structured the national decision process is broadly democratic. The explanatory note says: “To provide New Zealanders with a forum in which to progress this discussion in a formal and respectful way, the Government decided to initiate a broad engagement process, followed by the opportunity for the public to vote on the New Zealand Flag.” The cross-party group, the citizens panel, and the dual referenda are that process. But the basic presumption that there was a strong mandate for a change remains in question. That doubt has not been allayed; if anything it has been intensified by the refusal of Cabinet to agree to the recommendation of the cross-party group that the first referendum include a prior question: “Do you think the flag should be changed?”. If a simple majority were to say no, there would not be a second referendum. That would have been truly democratic. That would have implemented the assurance that there was no presumption on his part for change. But Cabinet refused, so we are obliged to go through the process of the two referenda.

There are many people out there saying that this process is a distraction or a $26 million waste of public funds when there are more pressing social and political needs. It would have been consistent with those concerns for the Prime Minister to agree that the basic question be asked first, but he has presumed to override that. This fact alone brings into doubt the credibility of his claim that there is a public debate already existing but no presumption of change. In his 2014 speech the Prime Minister claimed that the decision over the flag is “bigger than party politics”. This is true. That is why he should have listened with more respect to the recommendation of the cross-party group.

The Green Party will support this bill going to the select committee, but we shall listen very carefully to the submissions and gauge the public mood. We shall not take the Prime Minister’s word for it that it is critically important to proceed. The decision to proceed should and must reflect a genuine national decision, not a personal preference of a populist leader.

I am really quite saddened to have to speak on this bill today, because I, and we in New Zealand First, do not see why it is needed at all. It is not clear why suddenly this legislation for a new flag has arisen under the leadership of the Prime Minister. The motivation is certainly not clear. For many years there has been sporadic public debate about whether New Zealand should consider changing its flag, but it has been at a very, very low level and it has nearly always been associated with the republican movement. So is National really just taking the first step towards republicanism? Has it become infected with republicanism and is that what it really is going to do later? Maybe this is just the first step. Or is it a career succession plan for John Key, first President of New Zealand? What really is the motivation for this? It is certainly not clear to us.

At the very least, this is a way of diverting public attention away from much more urgent issues. It is a blue herring. We should be looking much more at spending our energy, our money, and our efforts on issues like child poverty; a rundown health service in many regions; a 1960s transport system on its last legs; an education system riddled with inequities and misguided investment; an undiversified economy far too dependent on one or two products, dairying and tourism, and one market, China; an out-of-control immigration system, resulting in excessive net migration—

💬 Paul Foster-Bell: What a load of rubbish.

—a worsening housing crisis, and the list goes on. If that member thinks it is a load of rubbish, he should ask the people of New Zealand, because they think those issues are much more—much more—important than a new flag for this country. You have only to ask them to find that out. The Government has appointed a flag consideration panel, which it is paying at a rate of, I understand, somewhere between $600 and $800 per day, its purpose being “to lead public engagement and to recommend alternative flag designs for New Zealanders to consider through referendum”. But this is not just a waste of millions of dollars of public money for no public benefit. In fact, New Zealanders will not really get to make the decision at all, because they will have presented to them only four options actually decided by others. The whole process is being so rushed that it is clear that the Government wants to make sure this is done before the next election, for some reason—maybe as John Key’s legacy to New Zealand after he loses that election.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Ha, ha! In your dreams, pal.

And we will soon see—and we will soon see. The first step of that will be when the Government loses the Northland by-election in a few days’ time. The bill establishes a process for the holding of two postal referendums, the first to determine which alternative flag design is preferred from only four alternatives, and the second to determine whether that alternative or the current flag should be the New Zealand flag. That is the final part of the referendum. So there are two referendums, effectively. If the voters decide in the second referendum that the flag is to change, then legislation to actually put that into effect would have to follow.

Although New Zealand First is usually in favour of referendums of this kind, on matters that the people should decide, as I have already said on this occasion the people will not in these referendums actually be deciding themselves, because the Government has got it the wrong way around. Before spending millions of dollars on the two referendums planned, there should be only one referendum before any panels are appointed or other expenses are incurred. The one referendum should start out by simply asking a simple question: do you want a new national flag to replace the current one? That is all we need to ask for a start. That should be the question. That is the primary question, and that is the one that is being asked second in these two referendums and it should be first. And only if the answer is yes should we spend money on taking the matter any further. In actual fact, as Phil Goff has said, you could have both questions asked in one referendum, but this Government wants a double diversion and to double the cost. How silly can you get?

The process set out in this bill appears to be a way of the Government rigging the result, actually influencing the public and making sure that the public do what the Government says. I do not think they will anyway, but this is what the Government is trying to do. It is trying to pre-empt the real question, which is “Do New Zealanders want a new flag or not?”, by producing four flags that other people have chosen to be thrust upon New Zealanders. It is a back to front process. It is a blatant means of trying to influence the result. It is trickery, but Kiwis will see through it. It is transparently clear that the Government and Mr Key are out of touch with what Kiwis want. This is not what they want. There are a lot of things they do want, as I have said, but this is not anywhere near a priority for the great majority of New Zealanders.

In addition to that, no detailed information has been given to people about the full cost. The first $26 million will be just the beginning. There will be many, many more costs amounting to tens of millions of dollars after that because we will need to not just change flags on official places and also all military flags at embassies overseas and for the armed forces but pay many other costs of official publications and emblems. Even drivers’ licences and, especially, passports will have to be changed to catch up with the changes. So the real costs have not been identified and are huge. That money is better spent elsewhere on new homes, on education, and on better health services, including New Zealand First’s new bill to give SuperGold cardholders three free doctors visits per year. The people who will get that would much rather have it than a new flag, I am sure.

There is also another very important reason for us to oppose this bill, and this is that it will betray the men and women who fought and died under this flag, our flag, in many wars. We had 100,000 men go to the First World War from New Zealand and 18,000 of them died—not under the flag, as one speaker said, but they were buried under the flag. The respect that the current flag generates throughout the world will be lost because the new flag will take decades upon decades to even be recognised. Our current flag is rooted in history and that history needs to be respected and preserved. We need not adopt some fad—the fad of design this year or next year—for New Zealand’s flag. We have a wonderful flag, which is respected, which is recognised, and which is New Zealand’s flag. It does not need redesigning. Everybody knows it. Everybody respects it. What else could you possibly want from a flag? What are we going to gain from a new one, apart from the expenditure of a lot of money just to make one party feel better and to try to divert people from the real issues? This is not just “a flag of historical significance”, as it will become if this bill is passed—because that is what it says it will do—it will really mean that this flag will be lost to us for ever.

There is no genuine or significant public pressure for this change of flag, nor for the flawed process to be followed. Instead, there are much more important constitutional issues for us to be looking at, such as the Māori seats, a written constitution, the size of Parliament and the size of electorates, the length of the parliamentary term, the Māori electoral option and participation, and the role of the Treaty of Waitangi. Those are all genuine constitutional matters that are urgent, but what is the Government doing about them? All it has said as a result of the recent review is “Let the conversation continue.”, or, in other words, “Let’s do nothing about all of that. Instead, let’s have a diversion just to change the flag.” That is not good enough and New Zealand First will not countenance it.

I am pleased to stand and take a call on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill in its first reading. Yes, it has been rather entertaining listening to the member from across the way over there talking about the flag. You know, Mr O’Rourke, this is the time for you to perhaps put your mailbox with a flag emblem on it up for consideration, because I know that that is exactly what you would like to do when saying that. When the National Party came into Government—

💬 Denis O'Rourke: What a load of nonsense.

—listen, listen—we made the commitment that we would hold a binding referendum on the New Zealand flag. That is what we said we were going to do and we are committed to doing that. We are determined to have this flag debate and we are determined to have this referendum, so let us start by looking at everything that has been said in the House today.

I was quite entertained when the member Mr Goff turned round and said in this House today that our Prime Minister, John Key, was having this flag debate because he wanted it to go down in history as one of his key things to do as a Prime Minister. But Mr Goff forgets that the thing that our Prime Minister will go down in history for—one of the many things—is that he wiped the floor with Phil Goff in 2011 when we won that election. So that is one of the many things for which he will go down in history, in his success as our Prime Minister.

So I just want to look at our flag because I want to say that we have had a long history of flags in this country—changing flags, using flags, and having flags.

💬 Denis O'Rourke: There is not a long history of changing flags.

There is. I had two grandfathers who were in the Māori Pioneer Battalion and who went to war in World War I. Yes, they went in under the Union Jack, but when they came back, King George designed a flag to give to the Māori Pioneer Battalion, but it was not recalled. It was called the king’s colour. It was designed and had on it big areas of red colour that recognised the blood that was shed in the First World War. So, you know, when you start to talk about that, that is when I am reminded about that Māori Pioneer Battalion flag. It was one of 13 flags that were awarded to units of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force in the First World War.

But, unfortunately, the king’s colour flag was not consecrated, presented, or paraded because the Māori Pioneer Battalion was not recalled, as I said. So we had to wait. It went into storage. It was put into storage by the last commander of the battalion, and in 1939 his widow presented the king’s colour flag to the Minister of Native Affairs back then, hoping that it would be used for the 28th Māori Battalion. If you look at a few articles around that, you will find that that flag lay in the museum until 1988, when the last commander of the 28th Māori Battalion, Sir James Hēnare, and others looked for it and brought it back. It was consecrated in 1993.

💬 Denis O'Rourke: It’s not a flag.

This is all relevant to a flag referendum. It is all relevant. Look at your speaking notes, Mr O’Rourke, if you have any. We are lucky to have some.

Let us have a look at the Māori flag—OK—the Confederation of the United Tribes of Aotearoa. In 1834, 25 chiefs from the far north were called to Waitangi—

💬 James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I beg your pardon. I am sorry, I am having real trouble hearing the member who is speaking at the moment and I wonder whether you could ask the House to quieten down and allow her to speak.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well, I am a judge of that. So long as I can hear—[Interruption] Order! So long as I can hear what is being said; I am the judge of that. But I do ask that the barracking across the cross benches should be lower than that and I ask Jo Hayes to continue.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I do not like yelling in the House either, to be heard. As I say, in 1834, 25 chiefs from the far north gathered in Waitangi to choose a flag to represent New Zealand. This flag was actually initiated by James Busby—are we all listening? That meeting included 10 British commanders; so it was not just 25 chiefs sitting at the table. There were 10 British commanders and personnel from three American ships who attended that occasion.

So the 25 chiefs chose out of the designs the Methodist one, which became the flag of the Confederation of the United Tribes of Aotearoa, and everybody knows that one because it is on a white backing. The Union Jack, as we all know, came into being post the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, yet we still keep that Confederation of the United Tribes flag for the iwi. New Zealand uses six other flags—there are six other flags we use. We have the Queen’s personal flag, we use the Governor-General’s flag—

💬 Denis O'Rourke: We use one.

These are all for occasions, Mr O’Rourke. We use the New Zealand red ensign, which was adopted in 1903 for merchant ships. These are all flags that signal great things that have happened in the history of this country and its development. We use the New Zealand white ensign, which is the British one. We use the Royal New Zealand Air Force ensign and the New Zealand civil air ensign. Then, of course, there is the plethora of flags that iwi use. I am from the Whanganui River and when I go up into Ngāti Rangi—you want to see the plethora of flags that they fly. These are the flags and some of them have the little ensign that shows British rule, but most of them are ensigns that represent their history, so this is very important to them as well.

What I also want to say is that my grandfathers—yes, they fought under two flags; they did do that, but I can stand here and argue that they would not have refused to fight because of the colour of the flag, the shape of the flag. They went over there because they represented this country. They fought for our freedom; that is what they fought for. They fought for our freedom so our grandchildren can live in a world that is peaceful. That is what I can say and there is nobody in this House or outside this House who would refuse to do that because of the debate over this flag today—no, they would not.

As I am saying, this whole debate around the flag is a good debate. It is the referendum that this Government said we would do and we are doing it. We are doing it, we are listening, we will be listening, and it is all laid out within the bill.

💬 Ron Mark: No, no, no, you’re not going to listen.

Mr Mark, you can sit over there and you can say “No, no, no, no.”, but we will be listening. I am sure that if my grandfathers were alive today they would be saying to me: “Mokopuna, make sure that we have this flag, so that when an Australian Prime Minister goes overseas he is not welcomed by a flag that is New Zealand’s flag, because people cannot tell the difference between the Australian flag and the New Zealand flag.” It was written up in the media that that was what had happened. We want a flag that is representative of all of us and it is going to be the people’s choice as to how we do that and how that happens. I mean to say, it is shameful when another Prime Minister goes into a foreign country and that country has the New Zealand flag to welcome him.

So when you sit here in this House and say that everybody knows our flag, they do not know our flag. We need a flag that resembles who we are, so that everybody in this world can see that we are Kiwi, we are the silver fern—we are all of those things. We need a flag that when it is raised will send chills up people’s spines and will bring tears not only to those watching the flag go up but to those who are watching them. That is the type of flag we need. We need a flag that tells the world that we are Aotearoa New Zealand. That is what we need. We need a flag where we can all stand proud and nobody in the whole globe is going to be confused over where it comes from.

When I listened to the member of the Greens Kennedy Graham talk about the Canadian maple leaf, everybody knows that. That is the type of thing we need so people of this globe know where we come from. They need to know that the flag represents people who are strong, independent, and believe in freedom. That is the type of flag we are looking at and we need a flag that represents pure New Zealand because that is what we are—ake ake ake, āmine, I tell you now.

In closing, I strongly urge all New Zealanders to take the opportunity to participate in this referendum. Do not sit back—participate in it. Participate in it and have your say, because that is what we have asked for. We are committed to that as a Government and we are going to continue to drive that. I am very proud to stand here today and commend this bill to the House and I also urge everybody throughout Aotearoa New Zealand watching this debate to please participate. Kia ora.

The next call is a split call. James Shaw—5 minutes.

A number of people who have spoken before in this debate have mentioned the level of public interest in this issue, and the fact that the House of Representatives is fairly empty for this debate is actually quite representative of the level of public interest. So this is one of those occasions where interest in the House does seem to roughly represent the level of interest outside it.

My personal view as a modern New Zealander is that we do need to change our flag and that we need a flag that tells all of our stories. In general, the Green Party supports the idea of a public referendum to adopt a new flag that better represents the more independent and multicultural identity of present day New Zealand. We do want the public to have a say on this issue, and we will be supporting the bill’s referral to a select committee.

There are three points that I would like to make about this bill, however. First of all, I would like to say, as my colleague Dr Kennedy Graham indicated, that the flag has long been regarded as an antiquated relic of empire. Although between 1840 and 1902 the Union Jack was the official flag of New Zealand, the current flag was gazetted in 1869 and used aboard New Zealand ships. In 1902 a statute instituted the current design as the official flag of New Zealand on land and sea. This flag’s design reflects a desire to identify New Zealand as a self-governing but essentially still British colony in nationality, culture, and outlook. Does anyone here think that New Zealanders today still think of themselves as British? I say this as a proud Kiwi who was born and raised in this country and is also a naturalised British citizen.

The New Zealand of 2015 is a multicultural, independent society, and our links with Britain are more economic than cultural. Having lived in the United Kingdom for the better part of 13 years, it is very clear to me that our countries are extremely different. Although it is clear that we still have family, historical, and cultural relationships with that country, we are a different country. According to the 2013 census, 12 percent of the New Zealand population identifies as Asian and that number is expected to grow in the next few decades. Twelve percent of our population identifies as Māori, but our current flag ignores the indigenous people of this land. If a flag is supposed to be a symbol of national identity, the current flag is inadequate.

The second thing I would like to say is that we do have concerns about the proposed process that has been outlined in the bill. Having two referendums is costly and unnecessary. The Government argued against the citizens initiated referenda on asset sales last year on the basis of cost—that it was costly and unnecessary—and now it is giving us two referenda on a flag rather than on the economic direction of the country. The Government is proposing having one referendum to determine a viable alternative before having a second, first-past-the-post, referendum between the alternative and the current flag. In our view it would be much cheaper to simply have one preferential voting referendum between the current flag and a number of alternatives.

Other countries’ experiences suggest alternate approaches that the Government might consider. In Canada the Maple Leaf Flag, which has been referred to as one of the more successful changes of flag, was adopted in 1965 after the country’s Prime Minister formed a committee to consider the flag question. In Jamaica Parliament approved a new flag on the recommendation of a special committee that had sifted through public submissions.

The third and final point that I would like to make is that there is a need for a wider constitutional debate and that we are putting the cart before the horse in looking at the symbol of our country. As this Government moves into its third term its focus on populist gestures over meaningful reform is becoming ever more apparent. Instead of tackling broader questions about the constitution, the Prime Minister is attempting to distract the public with a flag debate. As I said previously, we support the principle of changing the flag but we would prefer that to be part of a broader debate, not a political stunt.

For instance, the Government could tackle electoral reform. The Electoral Commission recommended changes to MMP after the 2011 referendum, but the Government refused to enact them because it wanted to protect its support partners. There was a constitutional review in which a huge amount of extremely good work was done, and that, similarly, has gone to ground. One other question is: should we remain a constitutional monarchy or should we have a Kiwi head of State? What are the prospects for greater Māori autonomy or self-governance? We do not pretend to have a monopoly on wisdom regarding those issues—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I am sorry—the member’s time has expired. I call Marama Fox—5 minutes.

I am also pleased to be part of the cross-parliamentary team that has been established to engage with this issue of the New Zealand flag, to ensure the debate has integrity and that we put in place a process to create public confidence in the nature of the debate.

I want to remind us all not to duplicate the process that was spearheaded by the Māori Party in 2009, where a national conversation was held about the preference of the people for a Māori flag. In July and August 2009, 21 public hui were held across the motu and it came down to a matter of four flags—the New Zealand flag, the New Zealand red ensign, the United Tribes of New Zealand flag, and the tino rangatiratanga flag. For those who do not know that flag, that was the flag carried during the hīkoi to Parliament on that auspicious day, 5 May 2004. We will never forget that incredible sight when the forecourt was filled with tino rangatiratanga flags—just saying. But the pathway to tino rangatiratanga was seen not only in the red, white, and black colours. At the time of our consultation process in 2009, kaumātua Matiu Tarawa, a fine 85 years old, said that he had supported the flag of the He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nū Tīreni for some 70 years. He saw it as the tuakana to all flags—the elder sibling.

What I loved about the comment from Matiu is the pride and the passion that he had for the flag that he thought most denoted his nationhood. I feel much the same way about the concept of a new national anthem, for example. I would love to engage in discussion around the motu about what we might consider would best represent the diverse voices of this land. As a result of the national consultation process championed by the Māori Party, a Māori flag will fly alongside whatever flag is eventually chosen, to recognise the partnership that the Crown and Māori entered into when signing Te Tiriti o Waitangi. As a result of that process in 2009 the national Māori flag flies from the Auckland Harbour Bridge, Premier House, and any other significant sites on Waitangi Day.

Is this a necessary step at this expense, and is it worth it? I have come to the House to fight for those who suffer hardship and disparity. For me, I would relish the chance to vote for a flag that recognises my duality of nationhood. The first symbol of nationhood recognised around the world should reflect our duality of nationhood. It is the tip of the iceberg of what else we might, could, and should address to address inequality and recognition of our place in this country. Let us be clear: the Māori Party has celebrated momentous occasions throughout its time in this House, one of which was when we travelled to the United Nations Human Rights Council and Dr Pita Sharples signed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in April 2010. Article 3 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states: “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Today, as we debate the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill, I think back to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which New Zealand is now a proud signatory to. I firmly believe that the placement of equal weighting between the Māori flag and the flag that will emerge out of this process of the referendum is an excellent way in which we can enhance relationships between tino rangatiratanga and kāwanatanga as provided for in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

On that basis, the Māori Party stands to support this first reading through to the select committee process to receive submissions to hear what the rest of New Zealand thinks. Again, it is the tip of the iceberg. It is the beginning of recognising duality of nationhood. Yes, it is a great expense, but it is an expense that will, hopefully, be the beginning of addressing a number of inequalities and disparities in our country. For this reason, we support the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill to the select committee process. Kia ora.

I am delighted to take part in this debate, because I think it is important to nail down a few particular issues. First of all, this is not the silver bullet, the be all and end all, or the change that will make us the biggest, wealthiest nation in the world, but it is, actually, an important step along the way to nationhood. We need to understand we were a little colony at the bottom of the South Pacific. We called her “Mother England”. She literally took all of our goods and services, and we were more British than you could get. Michael Joseph Savage’s famous speech in 1939 was: “Where Britain goes, we go. Where Britain stands, we stand.”

Well, that is no longer true. That is no longer true. They cut the apron strings. They kicked us out like a teenager gets kicked out of home. They did not even give us a bit of spending money to go. I have to say I am a bit down and dirty on the way the Poms got rid of us. They just gave us the boot. But that is fine. We have had to find new markets. We have had to become a country in our own right. And guess what? Of recent times, brand New Zealand is getting to be so important around the world. There is stuff that Peter Jackson has done, stuff that our wine industry is doing, and stuff that is value-added to some of our technology, our dairy, and our meat products and so on. Brand New Zealand is getting to be more and more important, so I think it is well overdue for us to look, as a nation, at what our symbol is. Obviously, one of the symbols of your nationhood is your flag.

So to those who are worried about the changing of the flag, let us go through a few things. First of all, the flag we have currently got is not New Zealand’s first one. It is not our first flag. Actually, until 1902 it was the Union Jack. That was our flag. Let us just make sure that everyone understands what the Union Jack is. It is a combination of three sets of crosses: St David of Wales, St George of England, and St Andrew of Scotland. How does that have any relationship to us at the bottom of the South Pacific? How does a Union Jack have any relationship to us at all? It does not.

The next thing I think is worth telling—and this is actually a true story Don McKinnon told us once in Cabinet. He was our foreign Minister, and he attended a big United Nations function, I think, and so on. All the foreign Ministers were asked to come up, pick their flag out of a big rotunda thing, go and place it in these holders, and then stand underneath it. It was done alphabetically, so when McKinnon went up, he was about halfway through, as “n” for New Zealand. Our flag was not there. Don McKinnon went: “Uh oh.” Then he suddenly spotted the Australian flag was still there. Gareth Evans, the then foreign Minister of Australian, when he had walked up, had gone up, picked our flag, and gone and stuck it up, not realising he had got the wrong flag. So that is how similar they are. Why the hell our stars are red and theirs are white no one has ever been able to tell me. Other than that, that is the only way I can spot the difference. They have got white stars; we have got red ones. They have got a bigger one, but it is hardly that much of a difference. Frankly, we want to be a nation in our own right. So I give absolutely full credit to the Prime Minister for saying it is time we began a process of identifying ourselves as a nation and having a symbol that represents it.

I want to make it clear that a whole lot of my family members served. My father and his brother served on the HMNZS Achilles at the Battle of the River Plate, two of his other brothers served in the New Zealand Army in the desert, and two of them served in the air force in part of the Battle of Britain. I do not believe any one of them, who have all passed on, would say: “I served under a particular flag, so I want that flag kept.” You know why they served? They served against the tyranny of—in that particular case—the Nazis and what they were doing in the world, and they served for New Zealand. They served for their country and for the people of this country, in order to keep it safe. The piece of linen that might have been fluttering above them on one day is not what they did it for. They did it for their nation and their people, to keep them safe and secure.

I have got a feeling that a lot of old soldiers, many of whom have passed, would be very happy for us to be now moving to the idea of a different flag that stood out and that was us—a flag that is New Zealand and that is us, so when we go on the world stage, everyone does not go: “Oh, is that the Australian flag? No.” There are a number of other nations that have got the Union Jack sitting up in their top left-hand corner, and everyone is saying: “Ah, what country is that again?”. It would be great.

Again, we have heard about Canada and the maple leaf. What a stunningly good example of change. Ask any Canadian—please do, because I have done it—whether they would go back. Ask any Canadian whether they would like to go back to their old flag. It is not even up for discussion. The maple leaf is now hoisted and they feel proud of it. It gives them some identity. It is their nation. It is not the same as anybody else’s. That is what I would love to see happen.

I do not have a particularly strong view about the design, other than a couple of things. I would like it to be as simple as it can be, because kids like to draw flags. You want to stick a flag on the side of your car when your rugby team is playing, so please do not make it so you have to be an artist of greatness and spend 3 hours drawing all the fancy bits to make it work. It should be something quite simple. In the case of the maple leaf, you can flick your hand around and draw the maple leaf within a couple of seconds, and that is it, on a plain background. Just make it that it is a New Zealand icon that we can all be proud of and that can be put on products that we sell around the world, or we can wear it as part of our sporting teams.

I make this point: when we see the All Blacks go to the Rugby World Cup and we are cheering them on, are they wearing the Union Jack? Come on! Have a look at any rugby stadium and see whether the kids are out there waving the Union Jack to support the All Blacks. They are not. They are out there waving the silver fern because, at least at this point, until we get this flag thing sorted, it is the closest thing we can get to our nationhood. How awful would it be if we were up against the Poms in the final of the Rugby World Cup and we are waving a flag with the Union Jack on it? We would not do it.

So it is not our first flag. We have changed it in the past. I do not accept the argument that people, because they fought under it and died—and many hundreds of thousands along the way have given their lives in that service—do not want to see that change now. In fact, I think the point has been made already that on many of our war graves around the world the silver fern is above every one of the commemorative little plaques for each of the soldiers—the silver fern is, not the Union Jack with a couple of stars on the bottom of it. So this is a really important step forward for us as a nation and for where we go from here, and I am delighted that we are taking it.

To those members from the Labour Party—and I have heard a few of them getting stuck into this Government and saying: “Ah, you know, you’re boxing forward with this without the consent of the people.”—I want to say that they took some much bigger constitutional issue changes of this country than the flag, with no consultation whatsoever and not to an election. What are they? Well, let us go through them. How about we take getting rid of the Privy Council? I support it. I am not criticising them. I actually think that the time to cut the strings with the Privy Council was well overdue. I support it. But Labour just boxed on and got rid of it. It threw the Privy Council out. That is it. There was no referendum, there was no consultation, and it was not part of an election referendum—done. It was similar with our knighthood honours and so on. Labour decided that it did not like the knights and the dames, that it was just going to change all of that—bang, done, did not consult on it, and so on. So it is a bit rich when some people come into this House and say “Oh, you haven’t consulted with us.” or “You’re not taking account of this.”, when those Labour members alone went out and sort of banged things through.

I want to finally say to New Zealanders that this is not massive. This is not the game-changer that will see us be the economic powerhouse to take on the world, but it is a really important element of our becoming a nation. It is a really important part of us being an entity in the rest of the world, and I would love to think that we ended up with a flag—and, as I said before, I do not have any preconceived ideas on it—that when New Zealanders are travelling they will have on their backpacks, or have on their shirts. When we are at rugby matches and we see that flying, or we see it at the—someone actually showed me a clip the other day of a couple of Commonwealth Games medal ceremonies. The flags were all going up in the air. All three had Union Jacks and one had some red stars and one had some white stars, and you could not work out whether the Australians had got the gold or whether it was the New Zealanders who got the gold. If anyone from overseas was looking at it, they would say: “Oh, that country cleaned up on all three.”

So it has to be different. It has to be unique. I agree with a couple of the people speaking from the perspective of Māoridom. It would be great if we could include something like the koru that Air New Zealand has done, something that is uniquely Māori as part of it. I would love to see that. But, in the end, this country deserves to have a stake in the ground that people around the world recognise. It goes with our pride as a nation as we go forward.

The next call will be a split call.

What a load of absolute bollocks! If that member thinks that a flag defines who we are as a country, then that represents the greatest level of colonial insecurity that I have come across in a long time. I tell you what, a flag never defines how I view our country. Mr Williamson talked about his ancestors who had served this country. He talked about the fact that they did not stand under a piece of linen. Well, I have had several members of my family who have put a hell of a lot of service into this country and if they thought for one moment that we were prioritising a flag over child poverty, over unemployment, over economic development, then they would actually roll in their graves. This is an absolute disgrace.

Mr Williamson said that we need something that we can take overseas and be proud of. Well, for me, I would be a hell of a lot prouder if I could go overseas as a Kiwi and say: “You know what? In New Zealand there is no child poverty. In New Zealand there is no unemployment, and there is no Government debt.” But we cannot say those things at all. In fact, all three of those are just examples of the absolute disgrace that this Government has presided over for the last 7 years.

I get quite riled up about this because when I hear people say that a flag is what defines us as a nation, I think how ridiculous. If New Zealanders think we are that shallow, then heaven help us. I know that the vast majority of people whom I talk to and whom I associate with are not that shallow in any way, shape, or form.

What I would like to talk about in the next 4 minutes is the actual process. The thing I like doing when I look at these bills is going through the regulatory impact statement, because what the regulatory impact statement is supposed to be is a rather objective view of how the bill is going to impact on New Zealanders, written by Government officials who are not supposed to be in the pocket of the Government but who provide the Government with advice and the members on the select committee with a way forward in things they need to consider.

The first thing this says is: “Any process considering change must be robust in that it needs to lead to a legitimate outcome which is accepted by the public.” We all agree on that. That is vitally important. But then we go through this and it says: “A number of decisions have been made by Cabinet limiting the focus of the [regulatory impact statement].” So, immediately, the Ministry of Justice has said: “OK, well, we can’t consider a whole lot of options because the Cabinet has said so.” Then it says: “We have not considered status quo as a feasible option due to decisions already made by Cabinet.”—already made by Cabinet. So, immediately, what we have got are decisions made by Cabinet that are going to influence this whole process.

Then we have got here: “We have not considered holding a ballot together with a general election due to the Prime Minister’s indication that the process should be completed before the 2017 General Election.” So, yet again, we have got the Prime Minister dictating this whole process. This is not going to be accepted by the public as a legitimate outcome.

Why this process? If it is done in a general election, we get about 80 percent turnout. You are going to get the majority of Kiwis who are going to vote because they go to the polling booth anyway. The history of postal ballots is around about 50 percent, the absolute maximum, so we are not going to get the vast majority of Kiwis engaging in this. In fact, it says “we might expect”—we might—“that consideration of the New Zealand Flag is an issue New Zealanders will find engaging. This could mean higher voter turnout,”—in a postal poll—“as long as the referendum is well-timed and the question(s) well-framed.” If that is not an official saying: “This is not a very good idea but we can’t say that because we don’t want to annoy Cabinet”, then I do not know what is.

This is a process that is being driven by Cabinet and the Prime Minister in a way that I actually believe is possibly—well, if it is not unconstitutional, then it is certainly unfair. If we really do want to change the flag, if New Zealanders really do want a change, then make it easy—as this document says it has to be. In fact, in this statement it actually outlines the fact that public accessibility on the option put forward by the Government—it says it is medium. Public accessibility means “a referendum process that is easy to understand and participate in, where voters understand the implications of their vote.” And the Ministry of Justice says that is not that high. New Zealanders will not engage. Thank you.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. It actually is a privilege to speak on this bill, the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill, proposed by the Hon Bill English, and I do so acknowledging that this is the beginning of the end of the $3.9 million constitutional conversation that Bill English oversaw. In fact, what was really interesting about that constitutional conversation is that Mr English said that if there was to be any significant change it would “require either broad cross-party agreement or the majority support of voters at a referendum.” So the mandate for this piece of legislation comes from the “other issues” section of the recommendations of that constitutional conversation that said “the role and functions of the Head of State and symbols of state”—I presume that is where the mandate for this comes from, from Bill English’s perspective.

The reality of the question: “Are you in favour of changing the New Zealand flag?”—actually, New Zealanders have been asked that question. On 27 September last year, in a poll of over 1,000 voters on One News, 65 percent of New Zealanders said no. On 25 February 2014 they had also been asked that question—this was a bit earlier in the process—and 72 percent said no. And if we look at 2004, which was 10 years ago, 58 percent said no. So maybe there was a little bit of a window in 2004, and that was on the end of the Don Brash Ōrewa speech and the foreshore and seabed legislation.

But what I want to contribute is that, in fact, the flag that we are discussing today is actually the third flag this country has had. The first flag, actually, was the flag of the United Tribes of Aotearoa. On 20 March 1834, 25 chiefs in New Zealand asserted our sovereignty as a nation for the very first time. That was our first flag. On 6 February 1840 our flag changed again, and it did become the Union Jack. Guess why? We signed a treaty with the British, so New Zealand became part of the British Empire. The flag that we have today we actually adopted under the New Zealand Ensign and Code Signals Bill of 1902, in recognition of the 6,500 New Zealanders who went and fought in the Boer War between 1899 and 1902. It was a very significant event because it was the first time as a country we had actually asserted ourselves internationally, not as British citizens, but actually as New Zealand citizens.

So, significant events have happened for us to look at our flag, and my question is: has a significant incident happened for us to be debating this today? It is going to cost the country $26 million and, as my colleague Stuart Nash pointed out, we have got a whole lot of other things that we would rather spend $26 million on. So for the Government to make this its priority, I guess we are a bit dumbfounded on this side of the House.

So why change the flag? Actually, there has been a history of MPs wanting to change the flag. In 1979 National MP Allan Higget—

💬 Grant Robertson: Highet.

Highet—thank you, Grant. Thank you, I was worried about that pronunciation. He was the Minister of Internal Affairs. He wanted to change the flag, and guess what happened? There was no interest—no interest in changing the flag. In 1988 Labour MP Russell Marshall, who was the Minister of Foreign Affairs, mooted a change to the flag. Did New Zealanders support him? Of course they did not. In 1992 the leader of Mana Motuhake, Matiu Rata, a former Minister of Māori Affairs, mooted a change to the flag. For him it was about our indigenous culture and our indigenous identity. In 1998 National MP Marie Hasler, Minister of Cultural Affairs, wanted to change the flag. No traction—no one wanted to do it. In 2004 Lloyd Morrison started the NZFlag.com Trust and he wanted to initiate a citizens initiated referendum to change the flag. Only 100,000 New Zealanders signed that petition. It needed 270,000 signatures, so it failed.

And today we have National MP John Key, who is the Minister of Tourism, the Minister for National Security and Intelligence, and the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services—he wants to change the flag. If he really wants to change the flag, why does he not go through a citizens initiated referendum? He needs only 330,000 signatures to do that, but what is he doing? He is using the privilege of being in Government to push this through, and I think it is absolutely appalling at a time when child poverty is what it is. For this Government to abuse that power is absolutely disgusting. Kia ora.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I am not on the Justice and Electoral Committee, which has been given this bill, so it is a real privilege for me to be able to make this contribution to the bill. I acknowledge the Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English, as the Minister responsible for the flag consideration process, and I acknowledge the work that the Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English, has put into this bill.

What we are hearing from the other side tells us about their lack of a futuristic approach. They do not believe in giving a fair opportunity to Kiwis to contribute to this issue. We know that this issue is not a new issue. This debate has come up many times before, since the 1970s, so it is time that we give Kiwis a formal and respectful platform to have this discussion. It is a non-partisan public engagement process that this Government is initiating. We have been very open about this. New Zealanders have given National a strong mandate for this term. We intend to work in the interests of every New Zealander. Over the past 6 years we have been very transparent and straightforward about the decisions we have made and the direction we have taken. We will continue to do so and to take New Zealanders with us. The National-led Government is already getting to work quickly on our priorities.

A flag is the symbol of the realm—our Government and our people. Our flag’s royal blue background represents the blue sea and clear sky surrounding us. The stars of the Southern Cross emphasise the country’s location in the Pacific Ocean. The Union Jack represents our strong ties to the United Kingdom, both historical and ongoing. I have had many opportunities to discuss this issue with our communities when I go to community events, and there are many different sides to this discussion. Initially, I found that there was some confusion about the process. The public did not know how this process would be followed and whether they would be able to make an active contribution on the issue of the flag. I explained that this is not how the National Government works, that this is a very sensitive issue, and that public participation will be allowed. Then I started getting very positive responses. New Zealanders realise that the Government’s role is to put structures and mechanisms in place so that New Zealanders can engage in a discussion and then make a decision.

The support I saw in communities for these two referendums was from a group that believes in having a flag that better reflects our current status as a modern and independent nation. I remember that during campaigning I was approached by a resident in Mount Roskill. She had already done a design that she wanted to propose. I promised her that I would get back to her when the process was set up and we started to accept designs. So I feel very proud of the fact that we are doing what we promised to do. Now this individual will have the opportunity to submit her design to the Flag Consideration Panel.

As I said, there are many sides to this discussion. One says yes, we want to go ahead with this formal process so people can make their contribution, and another says, as we heard from the other side of the House, that it is an expensive process. Yes, it is an expensive process. We are not taking this issue lightly. It needs a genuine democratic process, and I believe that the value of the emotions attached to a flag—emotions on both sides about the current flag, and emotions about changing the flag—is much more than the spending that is going into this process. There is emotional attachment to our current flag as it has been part of our country’s history. This should be respected for the sacrifices our people made. As a migrant I immensely appreciate and respect our veterans and those in the Defence Force who serve under our current flag.

For some, a flag is about our current society, and for others it is about our history. There are loads of sentiments on both sides of the discussions I have been having in the community. Therefore, this discussion cannot be taken lightly. The Canadians went through this discussion in the 1960s and, as a result, they adopted their new flag, with the maple leaf, which is now one of the most striking flags in the world. Talking about the striking nature of the flag, as we have heard from other members on this side, there has been some confusion over our flag and the Australian flag.

This bill is needed in order to proceed with the thorough process we want to follow. A two-stage binding referendum is planned to take place next year after public consultation and input. It is evident from this bill that the National-led Government is not taking it lightly. This is a process where full consultation is done, and then we will proceed to the next step. If—and only if—voters decide in the second referendum that the New Zealand flag is to change, then that will automatically lead to the necessary legislative changes, and the status of the current flag will be recognised. It will be for the public to decide, not members of Parliament, and it will be done through public engagement and a referendum process.

I have seen some support for the change of design, but retaining the current flag is a very possible outcome of this process. Therefore, there is no assumption that the flag is going to change. As we heard from the Hon Maurice Williamson, New Zealand has had three flags in its history. The Prime Minister has said he supports a design incorporating a fern. The silver fern is a distinctive and unique New Zealand symbol. Having said that, I want to make it clear that no decision has been made on alternative designs. It will be up to New Zealanders to submit possible designs.

The first step was nominating suitable candidates for a Flag Consideration Panel. The Government has appointed 12 New Zealanders as members of the Flag Consideration Panel, which will engage with the public about a possible new New Zealand flag. Each member of the panel has committed to undertake the flag consideration process carefully, respectfully, and with no assumption in favour of change. The next stage is to enable the proposed two binding referendums on the flag to go ahead. The first referendum will invite the public to choose a preferred design from a range put forward by the Flag Consideration Panel. The second referendum, to be held in 2016, will be a runoff between the preferred design and our current design. The projected timeline and cost is already made clear. The public engagement process is required to ensure that the public is well informed and has the opportunity to participate. The public engagement process is expected to begin in May. This will be to invite New Zealanders to send in designs or ideas regarding a possible alternative flag. The shortlisted designs will first go through a postal referendum—and that will be a preferential voting system—inviting voters to rank the designs in order of their preference.

The second referendum, against the current New Zealand flag, will be a binding referendum, and that will be the first-past-the-post voting system. This process will give New Zealanders the rare privilege of having a say on one of the most important symbols of our country. The Flag Consideration Panel is going to work independently to carry out the process. The members reflect a number of criteria. They reflect our new New Zealand: national geographical coverage, Māori representation, representation of Pacific Island and ethnic communities, a variety of age groups, and gender balance. Along with the public engagement process, this panel will also undertake any research that will be required to make sure there are no issues with those shortlisted or proposed designs, to make sure they are available, and to make sure there are no legal issues attached to them. It is a fair process. It is about giving choice to New Zealanders.

Again, it is a real privilege to be able to contribute to this bill. I support the bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.

on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister: I move, That New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill be reported back to the House by 29 July 2015.

Motion agreed to.