New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill

I move, That the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill be now read a second time.

💬 Grant Robertson: That’s all they’ve got.

That is it. That is it.

Tēnā koutou katoa ngā mema o tēnei Whare, arā, te Pāremata o Aotearoa. Tēnā tātou i tēnei Wiki o Te Reo Māori, ko tāku īnoi kia kaha tātou ki te kōrero Māori.

[Acknowledgments to you all, members of this House—in other words, the New Zealand Parliament. Greetings to us all in this Māori Language Week. My plea is that we be robust and speak in Māori.]

This bill ensures that the debate about the New Zealand flag is resolved through a formal, careful, and respectful process where New Zealanders can have their say. I want to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its thorough consideration of the bill, and I want to thank those members of the public who made submissions. The committee received 259 submissions and one form submission representing almost 16,000 individuals.

I would like to address the report of the select committee. The committee has not recommended major changes to the bill. The majority of the committee recommended agreement with the structure, procedures, and requirements for the referendums, which are fundamentally sound and appropriate for the process. A number of submissions queried the structure of the referendums and the order of the questions. Many of these submissions supported the inclusion of a yes/no question about changing the flag in the first referendum. The committee considered this, but recommended no change. That is because a majority of the committee saw the importance of voters being able to give full consideration to alternative flag designs before deciding whether to keep or change our flag. It is pretty logical. People can make an informed decision about whether to change the flag if they can see what the alternative is.

I would like to briefly touch on two amendments the committee has recommended. The committee’s first recommendation is to exempt the second flag referendum from the requirement for a preliminary referendum roll. The purpose of a preliminary roll is to make an updated electoral roll available for public inspection. However, this will be done before the first referendum, so it is not necessary to require it again before the second one.

The committee’s second recommendation is to provide a regulated period for referendum advertising. Members of the House will be familiar with the importance of the regulated period, and, in parliamentary elections, the significant penalties for breaching its rules. The regulated period will ensure there is no parliamentary funding of referendum advertisements advocating that people vote one way or another during the regulated period. These are fairly technical amendments.

I would like to take the opportunity to briefly mention the activities of the independent Flag Consideration Panel. The panel’s process was set up and has been separate from the bill. The panel plays a pretty important role in engaging New Zealanders on this issue, and will oversee the process of choosing four alternative flag designs that will be put to voters in the first referendum. Online engagement with the public has been very high: more than 850,000 visits to the flag website—somewhat more, I suspect, than to the Labour Party website during the same time. The panel has had a number of public workshops, and distributed public information. These opportunities have been important for people who do not find the internet a comfortable environment.

Public suggestions for alternative flag designs closed on 16 July. The flag panel has received 10,290 flag designs, which indicates some level of public interest. It is now considering those designs. The panel will report to me in late August with its four designs, Cabinet will then authorise the four designs to be added to the first referendum voting paper by Order in Council, and that referendum will be held in November and December. The preferred alternative design chosen will then be put against the current flag in the second binding referendum. The Electoral Commission will conduct these referendums and has robust systems in place, as one would expect.

I am grateful for the input of members of political parties and members of the public who have participated in the development of this bill. There has been—and certainly in this House—some robust opinion about whether to change the flag and what kind of flag to change it to, but I can tell you two of the main reasons I have heard that are the wrong reasons. One is that the Opposition members do not like John Key. That is the main reason they oppose the referendums.

The second reason is that they want to change the flag but they wish they had had the courage themselves to put forward the proposition. We know that because putting up a referendum to change the flag is Labour Party policy. The Labour Party has always prided itself on being the owners of New Zealand—its brand, its identity, its spirit, and its principles. That may have been the case when Michael Joseph Savage was the Prime Minister, but in this intellectually bankrupt, unaspirational, modern Labour Party, it does not own any aspect of our national identity. The National Party, of course, believes that the people own it. We are not a Government that regards its job as promoting national identity. What would Governments know that they could add? The people own it and that is why the people should have a say about whether they want a new flag.

There is a third reason that is a bad reason for opposing this bill, and it is the one that New Zealand First members have picked—that is, they are simply against New Zealand being an open, forward-looking, progressive country. They think that New Zealanders are incapable of making a dangerous decision like whether to change a flag or not. In fact, so does the Labour Party now. I mean, what is the Labour Party going to say if New Zealand votes to change the flag? It will condemn it to even more irrelevance than the track that it is on.

So I look forward to hearing in this debate a debate about the flag and about the process of picking it. I do not look forward to hearing the whingeing, backward-looking complaints of the Opposition parties, which lack confidence in New Zealand and aspiration for New Zealanders.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just when 4.4 million Kiwis have been asked what they stand for, I thought that at least the Deputy Prime Minister might stand up and tell us what he stood for. He stood there for half his speech with his hands in his pockets, and he did not tell us a thing. He stood there—dare I say—whingeing and moaning and carrying on, because the truth is that New Zealanders do not want this change right now.

There are thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who want a banner that reflects and represents the mightiness that is New Zealand, but they know a bad thing when they see it and they know bad times when they see them. Many of the delegates who turned up to the National Party conference this weekend, the weekend just gone—they know a bad thing when they see it, too, which was when the Minister of Finance stood up to speak to that conference. They knew it was all bad, too. They were not convinced by a Minister of Finance who stands up and says: “Don’t worry. The electoral cycle will take care of it all. We’re just OK for 2017.” The same applies to the flag. This is not a question of the electoral cycle. This is a question about our national identity, but it is a question about the time when New Zealanders are comfortable with change.

Right now this economy, because of this Government’s appalling economic mismanagement, is facing some of the most serious headwinds we have seen in a generation. There is massive loss in the dairy price, massive loss of economic confidence. You walk up the main street of Whanganui and a quarter of the shopfronts are now empty. People in Whanganui are concerned, like in many other regions around New Zealand. People are concerned about the immediate future of New Zealand, and they want the Government to be there to help. They want the Government to be there to help with housing, to help with social housing, to provide insulation for housing, to look after our kids, and to make sure all those kids who are still going hungry in our schools might get a decent feed, whether for breakfast or lunch. What they do not want at these difficult times is a Government that has already spent $8 million on a referendum process without a referendum being held yet, with another $17 million left to go, when there are greater priorities at stake.

This Government has just got it wrong. If there is any further evidence required, just about the level of enthusiasm that there is amongst the public in New Zealand about this, then just look at these figures. They had 25 public meetings. These were the opportunities for mass public engagement. Hundreds of people were expected to turn up—that is at each meeting, I mean, not across all of them. Across all those meetings, 739 people turned up—an average of 29 per meeting. Do you know how many people turned up in New Plymouth?

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: How many on the website?

Maggie Barry has been to New Plymouth recently, because I enjoyed sitting alongside her when we opened the iconic Len Lye Centre. But I wonder, when she looked out at the vast throng of people who turned up at that most iconic building, whether she realised how many had turned up to the flag referendum meeting. Eight. Eight people in New Plymouth. The people of New Plymouth are good people. The people of New Plymouth are good people—they know iconic identity when they see it because they have now got it on their front doorstep—but they do not want a flag change. That is why eight people turning up to a meeting designed for several hundred tells you that people do not want a flag change. They do not want this referendum, and as you go up and down the country—15 people in some other place, 22 somewhere else; an average of 29 at each meeting.

What about the website submissions? The Deputy Prime Minister says: “Well we’ve had thousands of submissions. Over 10,000 submitted new designs of the flag.” We know what they look like, because Parliament was treated to the spectacle of some of those flags last week: a sheep with a rainbow coming out of its bottom—and that pretty much sums up the National Party. That is the state it is in—a pack of sheep. It wants something flash and fancy. It will not deal with the methane issue in our agriculture sector so it is left up to the flag designers amongst us to try to get a message to the National Party: will you please do something about the real issues? That is what that flag design represents. Then there were others: meat pies, Jelly Tips, jandals, kiwi, all the rest of it. There is nothing wrong with those. Unfortunately, the Leader of the House has gone, because I know that he will have a fascination with some of those designs.

But this is where people are at—they do not take it seriously. They do not take it seriously, because they have got other priorities. The rest of New Zealand, overwhelmingly, has other priorities at this difficult time in our history. This is not the time—when people are disengaged, when people are concerned, and when people are anxious about unemployment, about the state of our economy, about what is happening to our farming sector, and about what is happening in the regions. They do not need a $17 million referendum that asks the wrong questions in the wrong order. If we are going to have a referendum we should have at least turned it round and asked in the right order. But people have spoken loudly and clearly: they do not want the change right now.

That is not a poor reflection on New Zealanders, many of whom would like something different, many of whom would like a change. Many of them want a change to the national anthem, too, because they are sick of singing a dirge every time you turn up to a festive occasion. Most of them sing along to the Australian national anthem before they sing along to our own. They want something different, but they do not want it at a time—and they do not want this Government, which parades itself as the great financial managers and the great financial responsibility people of the generation, spending $17 million—when this country can ill afford it.

We have never been under greater pressure financially. This economy has never been under greater pressure, and yet the Minister of Finance, the Deputy Prime Minister, has the temerity to stand up in this House and sell us a dodgy bill of goods—a dodgy bill of goods: a flag that they do not know and an identity they cannot be clear about. This is the issue that New Zealanders are clear about: if this Government cared about New Zealanders, if this Government actually started treating New Zealanders as if they mattered, it would see the writing on the wall. It would see the sheep bottoms and the rainbows, and it would say: “Now is not the time.” It would be honest with New Zealanders and say it is time for a strategic withdrawal, we can come back to this another time, we will respect the wishes of New Zealand and we will abandon the referendum and save the $17 million, and we will use it for something useful.

I want to thank the select committee members from all sides of the House for their consideration in this New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. We had a good process with good engagement by the public and enjoyed many submissions. In fact, we enjoyed many suggestions for alternative flags. I think that comes to the heart of why this process is so important for New Zealanders, because it gives them—it gives New Zealanders—the opportunity to think about and to come to a view on what they think best represents us as a country in terms of a flag.

We had a number of submitters, some of whom were entertaining and some of whom gave us some very impassioned views on how they saw New Zealand. I think that is the essence of this subject. It is that through the select committee process, and also through the flag consideration process, which is happening at the same time, it gave New Zealanders an opportunity to record what they believed an alternative flag might look like.

That brings me back to the structure of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. It was our job in the select committee to consider the structure around the discussion—the structure around the two referendums. If I refer to the bill, schedules 1 and 2 outline what the referendum questions are going to be. In the first question, which is the first voting paper for the first flag referendum, it asks: “If the New Zealand flag changes, which flag would you prefer?”—if the New Zealand flag changes, which flag would you prefer? That question is asking people to first consider this in their minds: “OK, if it changes”. It immediately asks a meaningful question of the public, which is: if it changes. The answer might be: “All right, so if it changes; you’re right, that is something I have to think about.” Then the second part of that first question is: which of these four alternatives do you prefer? So people are then directed to make an informed choice. That is the first question.

The second referendum then asks the question—it puts up the existing New Zealand flag, which we have had since 1908, and the preferred alternative, and then asks them: “Of these two alternatives, which do you prefer?”. It is an informed choice, and it is the choice that is put out to the New Zealand public to make.

It is interesting, is it not, that the online process for gathering alternative flags has been a pretty busy process. There have been more than 10,000 alternative flag designs published, which is really interesting—10,000 different flag designs. I know that all of us who are interested in these things have had a look at those alternative flags from time to time, and we are coming to a view, and it will be an informed view because of the structure of this bill. There have been 2.7 million views of the flag gallery and more than 850,000 online visits, and so this has been a particularly successful online investigation, which, of course, is very appropriate, given that this is such a visual question. What do we want for New Zealand? Do we want New Zealand to reflect our rich history? Do we want New Zealand to reflect our modern, forward-looking, open, progressive nature? Well, the structure of this bill gives New Zealanders the opportunity to do just that.

During the consideration of the select committee we did recommend some changes, one of which was the requirement for a preliminary referendum roll for the second referendum. The preliminary referendum roll for the first referendum makes a public roll of electors available for people to check, first of all, that they are on the roll and, secondly, that their details are correct. It was the view of the majority of the select committee that because the second referendum was to happen in fairly short order, it would be an unnecessary expense and an unnecessary process to make the preliminary referendum roll for the second referendum available.

The select committee, by majority, also recommended to Parliament that a regulated period be inserted into the bill to prohibit members of Parliament from spending parliamentary funding on referendum advertising. This is consistent with the Electoral Act and provides for a level playing field in the consideration of what will be a very focused discussion, no doubt, leading up to the referendums. So the committee agreed to insert that and make that recommendation.

We did consider other aspects that were brought to us. Some submitters said to the committee that they believed that the word “Aotearoa” should be included in the bill. We considered whether the title of the bill should contain “Aotearoa”—of course, it is Māori Language Week. But it was determined, due, really, to an issue of a technical nature, which is that the New Zealand flag is known as “the New Zealand Flag” within the Flags, Emblems, and Names—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: Really?

I know it is difficult for New Zealand First. I know it is difficult, because this is a little bit technical, but just breathe through your noses, boys, and you might get it. So in terms of the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981 it would therefore have been a little inconsistent.

The timing of the flag consideration process was also raised by some submitters, and the committee considered the views, which were strongly given to us, particularly by the RSA and other members who had the view that the consideration in this year was inappropriately close to the Gallipoli campaign centenary and Anzac Day commemorations. The reality of it is that it does not matter when these referendums were timed; they were always going to be adjacent to some national celebration or some national event. It was felt, and I agree entirely, that it is far more appropriate to be having this consideration away from an election year, because it would either be eclipsed by or maybe eclipse the consideration in a general election. We believe, by majority, that it is much more appropriate to give these referendums their own space.

The committee considered at the same time a petition from the Hon Trevor Mallard, who, no doubt, will make a contribution on that petition in the House today and in subsequent debates. The committee listened again carefully and with respect to Mr Mallard’s petition and the petitioners calling for the New Zealand Government to include in the first referendum a question asking New Zealanders whether they wanted a change of flag or not. It was considered but, by majority, the committee held the view that the order of questions as introduced provided for a more informed choice and a more informed consideration of the question at hand.

I am very pleased to speak in the second reading of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I believe that the structure that is being proposed in this bill is the right structure to provide New Zealanders with an informed choice. It is an opportunity to provide New Zealanders with the opportunity to consider where we stand in the world, what New Zealand stands for, and what the alternatives are that might reflect who and what we stand for now. Do they reflect us as the New Zealand we want to be? Do they reflect us as an outward-looking, progressive, open country? I think this bill puts the structure in place, and now it is up to the people. Thank you.

Ngā mihi o te rā. I never thought that I would see another select committee process as bad as the one that was run by Todd McClay when he chaired the Finance and Expenditure Committee, but under Jacqui Dean, the process for this bill has been an absolute disgrace. I want to name the members Jacqui Dean, Jono Naylor, Chris Bishop, Alfred Ngaro, and the Hon Louise Upston. They were the National Government members on this committee who decided that 747 people who had asked to be heard by the committee would be denied the right to be heard. Those members voted to give submitters 5 minutes to speak. They were the members who gave the very few submitters whom they allowed to come to the committee 5 minutes to speak. To be fair, there was an exception. The New Zealand RSA—the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association—was allowed 10 minutes. The representatives of the returned soldiers—people who had fought under the flag—were allowed only 10 minutes before the committee to express the views of their tens of thousands of returned members.

This Parliament has enough trouble with its public relations that when submitters to committees are treated in such a disgraceful manner by members of the National Government, who acted as if they knew everything and did not want to listen, this Parliament’s reputation will be diminished further. I want to say that Jacqui Dean, Chris Bishop, Jono Naylor, Alfred Ngaro, and Louise Upston were too damn lazy to sit the select committee during the 3 weeks of adjournment. They were too lazy to sit the select committee during the 3 weeks of adjournment, in order to hear the people who wanted to be heard. When that occurs and when 747 people who ask to be heard are not, then this Parliament’s reputation will be in tatters.

The main point that the RSA representatives wanted to make and that the people whom they had emailed and who had emailed submissions back wanted to make was that they thought that the timing was appalling. They thought that having both referenda during the period that we are commemorating the First World War was inappropriate. In April 1916 the entire Massey Cabinet went to the Pētone railway station for the first annual official Government commemoration of Anzac Day. The entire Cabinet was there. And what is going to happen in the couple of weeks before the centenary of that, and with the flag that was raised along with the Australian flag at the Pētone railway station? What is going to happen? This Government is promoting that that is when a decision on the flag should be made. The timing is wrong. The timing is wrong for lots and lots of reasons.

On the yes/no question, on the that day it was considered by the advisory group, by the cross-party group, there was only one dissenting voice—and it was one of doubt—as to whether this should be a yes/no vote. The dissenting voice—and it was a bit of a wobble—belonged to Jonathan Young. He was not sure whether he had checked with Bill English, he said. Every other party that was present on the day said that there should be a yes/no vote, as there was with the MMP referendum. Even those toadies who rely on the National Government to deliver their seats—Mr Seymour and Mr Dunne—even those two members said: “Of course this should be a yes/no vote. New Zealanders should have their say early in the process, and if we can save money, then we should.” But the National Government has decided to bulldoze its approach through the House and to not trust New Zealanders, as it trusted New Zealanders when we brought in MMP, to say, as part of the first referendum process, whether they want to consider a change or not.

I think it is fair to say that Labour went into the first reading of this bill opposing it but with the hope that the bill could be improved, through the process, to the point that we could support it going further. There are a number of us, myself included, who think that we should change our flag eventually—eventually we should.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Proper process.

We want a proper process, we want the timing to be right, and we do not want the referenda to be rorted. We do not want it to be biased in the way that John Key wants for his vanity project. When we are being told that there is not enough money for food in schools, that there is not enough money for rape crisis centres, and that there is not enough money to fix up State houses that have gaping holes in them, we think that this spending on a vanity project for the Prime Minister is something that is inappropriate. We believe that the referenda are poorly worded.

I just want to ask the members opposite whether they really think that spending on hall hire, meeting fees, and advertising for meetings—$2,300 for every person who turned up to those meetings—is good value for money. What sort of efficiency—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: That’s a lot of kids’ lunches.

Well, the member says that that is a lot of kids’ lunches. It is a lot of insulation. It would fix the holes in the State flats in Pētone—the total amount that was set there—that have been waiting for 5 years. Members opposite are so arrogant, notwithstanding that and notwithstanding the shift. My understanding is that about 5 years ago, when Lloyd Morrison was leading a campaign, there was a majority in New Zealand in favour of changing the flag. A couple of years later, it went from about 50 percent in favour down to about 30 percent in favour. My understanding is that we have now got to the point that it has gone below 10 percent. It has gone below 10 percent in favour of changing the flag. So the question I have got is: why are we continuing with this?

One of the important things for Governments is to work out, at some point, when they have got it wrong. It is important to work out when they have got it wrong and when it is the time to beat a strategic retreat, to say that we have listened. We have listened to the select committee process. We have listened to the former soldiers. We have listened to the people who said that there is a higher priority for the money, and we will send this bill on, we will leave it on the Order Paper, and we will leave it there for 5 years. We will leave it there until after the commemoration of the First World War, and we will bring it—well, the National Government will not, of course—bring it back up at that stage for further consideration. That, I think, would be an honest approach, it would be a fair approach, and it would be acknowledging what is happening.

At the end of my speech, I do want to acknowledge that right back at the beginning of the process the Rt Hon Winston Peters was right and I was wrong. I believed the National Government—I believed Bill English and I believed John Key—when they said that they were open and would take into account what the cross-party committee said. What they did was they did not take this into account, as far as the membership of the advisory group was concerned. Most of the advisory group are good people, but it was balanced out with National Government hacks who were not recommended by the cross-party committee. The other question is that no one else in the committee, with only the dithering of Jonathan Young, supported this shape of referendum, but because it is John Key’s vanity project, they have decided to rort the process. They have decided to spend the money. As a result of that, all over New Zealand people are saying: “Generally, I trust John, but on this one, he’s just got it wrong.”

I just want to start this contribution by putting the New Zealand flag into a little bit of context. From some of the speeches that we have heard from the other side of the House and some of the debate that we have heard from submitters at different times, you would begin to think that this was the only flag that New Zealand had ever had. How could you ever possibly change the New Zealand flag, because it is the only one we have ever had! What we do know is that this is in fact the third flag that New Zealand has had. But I think there is a really important thing to notice about the three flags that New Zealand has had. None of those flags were voted on or chosen by the people of New Zealand. Those flags were decided on by the Government of the day, which decided to choose the flag, which decided to tell the people of New Zealand what their flag would be. It denied them the opportunity of choosing their flag.

It does not really matter, to a certain degree, whether you want to keep the flag or whether you want to change the flag. This referendum gives New Zealanders the opportunity to choose their national emblem, their national symbol. It is not the Government’s choice. We have got these people who are saying “Don’t have a referendum. Don’t give the people the choice. Don’t let them choose to keep this flag or perhaps choose another one.”, and they are simply going by the original decision of 1905 to impose this flag on the people of New Zealand. Let us face it. We are not saying it is a horrible flag. We are not saying that we are not proud of our country. What we are saying is that this is an important issue of national significance, and it is one that the people of New Zealand will get to make a choice on.

I think it is really interesting too that we are told that the people of New Zealand do not want this. This is based on opinion polls. I am just wondering whether the members opposite think we should just go by opinion polls. In February of last year the Colmar Brunton poll said that the National Party would have 51 percent of the vote if an election were held. I am wondering whether the members opposite would have been happy, at that point, to concede and just say: “OK, let’s give the National Party 51 percent, because that’s what the polls are saying. That’s what the people of New Zealand want, and so therefore we’ll let the National Party have 51 percent of the vote.” I do not think they would have been quite so happy to quote the polls at that point. I do not think they would have been quite so happy to let the choice of New Zealanders be determined by a poll at that point. But, no, when it suits the agenda of members opposite, when it suits their desire to impose on the people of New Zealand what their flag should or should not be, then they want to go by the polls. They do not want to give the people of New Zealand the right to choose their emblem. They do not want to do that, because they know better. I can tell you that we do not claim to know better, and that is the purpose behind this referendum. The purpose behind this referendum is to allow the people of New Zealand to indicate to us what they would like for their national emblem. It is what they would like to take forward.

Now that we are bringing this issue through, now that it is on the table and we have got this bill before us, there has been a lot of talk about the order of the questions. They have been saying that we should give people a yes/no vote for this one first, before we ask about the others. I have spoken to quite a few people, and am probably in this position myself as well, who say that they are open to the idea of changing the New Zealand flag. I am open to the idea of changing the New Zealand flag, but it will all depend, I know, from my way of thinking and the thinking of lots of the other people whom I have talked to, on what the alternatives are. Lots of people would say “Well, if you gave me a yes/no question at the moment I might say no.”, because they are concerned that it might end up being a sheep with a rainbow coming out the back of it. If I had the choice between a sheep with a rainbow coming out of its bottom and the current New Zealand flag, I think I would vote for the current New Zealand flag. I am pretty sure we all would—pretty sure we all would. However, if we were going to get the choice between the New Zealand flag and one of those Kyle Lockwood designs, then perhaps I might be more likely to choose, or I might be more likely to choose something that at least has some other symbols of New Zealand on it.

I just want to draw people’s attention to one of our submitters, who I think summed up the idea of why it is important for us to do things in this process. We got a submission via teleconference from a young man called Jordan Ward. He raised the following concerns, so if you will just excuse me, I want to read out what he said. He believes, in respect of the yes/no question, and I think I agree with him, that “electors voting ‘no’ to change in the first referendum”—or in the first part of that referendum—“may be less likely to express their preferences for an alternative design”, which might come after. What we need to do is we need to simplify this. We need to keep it simple. We need to say to people: “If New Zealand were to change its flag, which one would you prefer?”. It is a pretty simple question and it is pretty easy to understand. There is no problem whatsoever. At that point, whichever flag is the winner would be run off against the current New Zealand flag. It is really simple and really easy to understand. It is really easy to comprehend. If you put that yes/no question at the very front end of all of that, it makes life a little trickier because those people who have not yet made up their mind whether or not they do want to change the flag, because they are waiting to see the alternatives, will then be able to vote accordingly.

I did a little bit of a search on New Zealand logos and symbols. People will have heard this comment made before. How many people have got a T-shirt with a New Zealand flag on it in the cupboard? Not too many. How many people have got a cap that has the New Zealand flag on it? Not too many. But if we look around, we see the symbolism that is most commonly associated with New Zealand, and we can look at a few different things. For example, the New Zealand Air Force aircraft have a kiwi on them. That is what is on the side of our New Zealand Air Force planes. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, for example, has a sort of a fern design. Actually, what is on our New Zealand war graves is a silver fern. In fact, even if we look at an organisation such as the New Zealand Labour Party, within its logo it incorporates a fern, not necessarily the New Zealand flag. So we need to have something, I believe, that is easily identifiable. That is just a personal belief. I think it is great. I think we need to give the opportunity for people to decide what is important to them.

There have been a lot of great events that have happened over the years, and we associate the current New Zealand flag with them. For example, when Edmund Hillary climbed Mount Everest—oh, wait; he did not take the New Zealand flag with him, did he? He took the Union Jack with him. So we look at things like that. We see Olympians draped in our New Zealand flag and we feel proud. We feel proud of them because of what they have achieved, not necessarily because of the flag that they have got around them. Whatever we choose, whatever the people of New Zealand decide is going to be the most appropriate emblem to drape our Olympians in and to mark significant events with, that is what is going to be important. It is going to be important that it symbolises what is at the heart of our nation. That is why this debate, to my mind, has been so important, because regardless of whether we keep this flag or change this flag, our nation will have been through, hopefully, a very mature discussion—well, apart from the banter that I hear from the other side of the House, which is not particularly mature or helpful.

But we have been hearing some very good debate across our nation about what it means to be a New Zealander, what it means to be a Kiwi, and what is important to us as a nation. I hope that whatever flag we choose, whether it is the one that we have currently got or a new flag, we will be stronger as a nation, more united as a nation, and we will have a better understanding of who it is that we are, what we represent, and we will be able to move forward to be a great nation—an even greater nation than we are now. I look forward to the outcome of this bill, to the outcome of the referenda, and then for us to be able to move on together. Thank you.

E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. There is an ugly word that is used by political operatives and political spin doctors. It is also used quite a lot in the public relations industry and by those who have an interest in manipulating public opinion. It is a word that is the very opposite of substance. It is the word “optics”. Optics is all about how something looks. It is not about what the reality of something is; it is not about what the real content of something is. Optics is all about how it looks. What kind of an appearance would it give? How would something look to a person if they were passing by it and did not really look at it closely? The bill that we have in front of us today is all about optics. It is all about how it looks, and it is all about the legacy of our Prime Minister. What he wants to give is an appearance of substance. What he wants to give is an appearance of being a progressive, forward-looking, aspirational Prime Minister leading an aspirational, forward-looking Government. He wants to use this symbol and this referendum on the flag in order to get the right optics—how does it look?

How would it look to a person who was not really paying any attention? It would look like: “Well, the Prime Minister is forward-looking; he wants to change the flag.” He wants to adopt a modern, aspirational, forward-looking flag, as we have heard from all the National Government speakers—a flag that enshrines our national identity. But by changing the flag, what are we really changing? Are we changing the fact that our head of State is, in fact, a foreigner; that our head of State is, in fact, chosen by birth; and that our head of State is, in fact, a hereditary monarch? By choosing a new flag, does it change any of those fundamental constitutional arrangements? No—the Prime Minister does not want to deal with that. That is hard; that is leadership.

If you want to have a constitutional republic in New Zealand, if you want to be a Prime Minister who actually wants to make New Zealand constitutionally independent, that would take leadership of substance, not leadership of optics. This bill is about optics. It is about how it would look. How would it look if we adopted a new flag? It would look like this was a Government that was addressing some fundamental issues about our constitution because we were changing the flag. It would look like a Government, perhaps, that was addressing some of the fundamental issues of our identity, like our relationship with tangata whenua and the Treaty of Waitangi. No, it is just changing a piece of cloth and the pattern on a piece of cloth. The constitutional structure will remain exactly the same. So we will have a hereditary head of State.

Hereditary heads of State are very strange things. I mean, imagine, for example, if you had an accident this afternoon and you had to go to hospital and you said: “Well, I need heart surgery, but it’s all right, because the father”—or mother—“of my heart surgeon was a heart surgeon. They are a hereditary heart surgeon, so I’m sure that they are going to do a really good job.” Ha! A hereditary heart surgeon! Honestly, would anyone here say: “I’m going to go and give my body over to a hereditary heart surgeon, because their father or mother was a very good heart surgeon, so I think they must be a good heart surgeon as well.”? When I get my hair cut—I am going to get my hair cut in a week or so; it needs to be every now and then—would I say: “Oh well, my hairdresser’s mother or father was a very good hairdresser, so I’m sure that they will do an excellent job.”? But when it comes to the constitution and to the head of State, we say: “No, no, it’s all right. We are going to hand over the office of head of State to a person who was chosen by birth.” Ha, ha! By birth—that is right. That is how we are choosing our head of State. Not by a democratic process; they did not have to go through a test to prove how good they are. I was not: “Oh, yeah—if you are good on the constitution, let’s test you on the constitution.” No, we choose them by birth.

This bill, which gives the appearance of dealing with some really substantive issues about our nation—the flag—does not deal with any of the really substantive issues that confront our country. From John Key’s point of view, that is the beauty of this referendum. It is manipulation of public opinion. It gives the appearance of substance without actual substance. It looks like the Prime Minister is addressing the big issues of the day—the big issues of the nation. Well, the Prime Minister is doing nothing of the sort, and that is exactly what he needs, because what he really wants is a fourth term as Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister talks about independence from the United Kingdom—“This flag will symbolise our independence from the United Kingdom.” Actually, it will do nothing of the sort. The head of State will still be a British person—Charles. He is a perfectly nice fellow. In fact, on green issues, he is pretty good, you would have to say. I have got a lot of sympathy for Prince Charles on green issues. But as for being a person who should be the head of State of New Zealand—I do not think that is the right way to go about it.

Think about the fundamental issues around the Bill of Rights. The courts have just ruled that this Parliament breached the constitution of New Zealand by saying that prisoners are not allowed to vote. Are we going to talk about that?

💬 Hon David Parker: Can’t debate that here, though.

We cannot even have an urgent debate about that. The Speaker said “No, no—that’s not serious enough.” The fact that according to the courts this Parliament breached the constitution of New Zealand by taking away prisoners’ right to vote is not important enough to have an urgent debate. It is certainly not important enough to have a referendum about! For goodness sake, we have got to have one about the flag—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member is now relitigating a finding that has already been committed to the House by the Speaker. It is not up for debate. The member should get back to this debate, which is about the flag referendum, please.

Thank you for your wise advice, Mr Deputy Speaker. In terms of the flag, the Prime Minister has been very clear that he wants to have a debate about optics—that is what he wants—not about substance, not about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and not about the constitution. Even though the Prime Minister talks about the constitution in relation to this flag, Mr Deputy Speaker will not let me talk about the constitution in relation to this flag. But the Prime Minister, of course, does. He gives the appearance that this is about substance; it is nothing of the sort.

The process itself is manipulative. That is the giveaway. When we had the MMP referendum, the first question was: do you want to have first past the post or MMP? You had to decide: do you want to keep first past the post? If the majority said yes, we kept it. The majority voted for change. When we had the second MMP referendum, the first question was: do you want to keep MMP or not? It was a yes/no decision. But with this referendum on the flag, the Prime Minister is purposely manipulating the process to push it towards the outcome he wants. That is manipulative. That is about optics. That is about spin. That is about Government by spin. That is about Government by optics. It is trying to manipulate the people of New Zealand in order to get the outcome that it wants.

The honest question is this—first question of the referendum—do you want to change the flag? My answer to that question is yes. I want to change a lot of things, actually. I want to have a proper democracy, which is what a constitutional republic is all about. I want to make sure that this Parliament operates within the constitution of New Zealand and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I want to do a lot of things. But on the question of how to do this flag referendum, it is manipulative—in the way that the Government has set up the referendum question in order to push it towards the result it wants.

As a matter of fact, when the first referendum comes along and you have got to pick between four different kinds of flags, if you do not want to change the flag, you are not likely to participate in that referendum. Is there a quorum? What is the quorum? Ten people could participate in this referendum. Is there any quorum for this thing, I ask the National Government members over there? What if 10 people vote in this referendum? What if the turnout is 20 percent? What if the turnout in that first referendum is 10 percent?

💬 Louisa Wall: No mandate.

Where will the mandate be for this new flag, then? There will not be one. So this is all about optics. This referendum is all about optics, and it is all about making the Prime Minister look like he cares for something.

May I remind you that Keith Locke put up a bill—the Head of State Referenda Bill—and the Prime Minister blocked it from even going to a select committee. That would have meant a true debate about our identity and a true debate about our constitutional arrangements, but John Key said: “No, we will not have a real debate. I’m not going to allow that. We can have a debate around my flag proposal”—which is all about optics and deception—“but we cannot have a real debate.”

One of my reading habits lately has been Tom Paine, and there is a great Tom Paine quote about the monarchy. Tom Paine said that “a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right”. He was talking about the monarchy, and that was just before the American Revolution. This is exactly the same situation we find ourselves in today—a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it the appearance of being right. We should address the real constitutional issues facing our country—constitutional monarchy, constitutional republic—rather than getting caught up in the Prime Minister’s optics around this referendum on a flag.

The Government should be withdrawing this unpopular bill. The submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee showed the magnitude of the degree of unpopularity of the bill. There were literally hundreds of submissions against it. However, only a few were actually heard, because of the arrogance of the National members on the select committee. The consultation process was no better. It showed very little public pressure for any change at all, and the truth is that this Government is pushing this bill through against public opinion, not following it. The roadshow that accompanied the public consultation process was an absolute farce, and you would have got more people turning out to a snake oil auction than went to that particular farce. There was also only modest response to the internet-based facility for comment—only very modest response.

Many submitters have also, properly, been concerned about the total cost—$25.7 million—being spent on this farcical process. Those people said that it was a waste of taxpayers’ money, for no gain. They said to spend the money elsewhere. They said to spend it on new homes, on education, and on better health services. Of course, there will be many, many other costs if this process to change the flag actually succeeds. It will include a large number of official publications and emblems—even including driver’s licences, for example—not to mention the millions needed to run the referendums and for the advertising of them. Passports will have the wrong flag on them, and all of those will have to change. And there are many, many other costs that are almost impossible to quantify for businesses and other organisations that will need to change the flags on their promotional material. Those costs have been estimated by some as likely to exceed $100 million. That is the true cost of this exercise—that is the true cost.

Many submitters were also opposed to the process of holding the two referendums. Using preferential voting, the first referendum will determine, from only four alternatives to be prescribed, which alternative flag design is preferred. The second will determine whether the alternative flag or the current flag should be the one that is accepted. Only if voters decide in the second referendum that the New Zealand flag is to change will that then lead to further legislation to actually do away with the current flag. The point is that there could have been one referendum only. If there is going to be a referendum, one would be enough, simply by adding the current New Zealand flag to the four that are going to be put up in the first referendum. So this is a deeply flawed process, and the Government has got it totally the wrong way round. Before spending millions of dollars on the two planned referendums and before appointing any panels or incurring any other expenses, there should have been one referendum only. That referendum should have asked the simple question: “Do you want a new national flag to replace the current one?”. Simply that question alone would have been enough, and only if the answer had been yes, by a majority, would it have been justifiable to spend any money taking the matter any further.

The process set out in this bill appears to be a way for the Government to rig the result—nothing less than that. It is rigging the result, getting what it wants—a new flag—by having only four options decided first. That pre-empts the primary question, which is simply: “Does anyone want a new flag at all?”. Instead, we have this ludicrous, back to front process as a blatant means of trying to influence the result. New Zealand people will see through it and will tell this Government, in no uncertain terms, where to put its new flag proposal.

Many submitters have asked, validly, why we would even consider a new flag. The current one is not out of date. It is as appropriate today as it was in 1908, when it was officially adopted. In fact, it is actually a young flag when compared with many others. It represents, through having the Union Jack, the British heritage of New Zealand. The English language, legal system, and culture, and the Westminster system of government are just as much Kiwi as they are British. The flag represents that perfectly, and it also represents our Pacific and Māori culture. The Southern Cross on a blue background represents the Māori navigators who resulted in the Māori settlement of New Zealand all those hundreds of years ago. No flag could better reflect the Treaty of Waitangi partnership. No flag could better represent that partnership.

By contrast, John Key originally wanted a black flag, but he then realised the connection that that would have with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and he suddenly went quiet about that. And, in any event, a black flag is much too funereal. He also wanted a silver fern, but that confuses a sports symbol—as Jono Naylor did in his speech—with the needs of a national flag. They are two totally different things. The flag needs to represent the partnership between the two cultures: the British heritage, and the Pacific and Māori culture. That is New Zealand, that represents New Zealand, and that is the way it should stay. John Key wants to sell out all of that and the current flag without thinking it through, without any genuine public support, and without regard to the damage that it will do to New Zealand’s interests and heritage.

On that matter, the current flag has a good reputation where it matters in the world: in the UK, in the Commonwealth, in sporting events, in the United Nations, and so on. We benefit from the prestige that that flag gives us, of having a British and a Pacific and Māori culture, and it could not represent that better. We will gain little or nothing by having an unknown new flag, which would take decades even to be recognised in overseas places—or even in New Zealand, for that matter.

There is also another very important reason for us to oppose this bill for a new flag, and it is that it will betray the men who fought and died under that flag in many world wars and in other wars. The respect that the current flag generates, from having flown everywhere where our men have fought, should never be disregarded in the cavalier way that the National Government is doing with this awful bill. Why would we want to lose that heritage, that history, and that connection? And, make no mistake, they will be lost if a new flag is adopted. They will be lost—that is the truth. In clause 69 the bill purports to preserve the current flag, as depicted in new schedule 1A, but only as a flag of “historical significance”. What a terrible way to treat our New Zealand flag. It will not really be preserved at all. It would actually be relegated to history, and, as such, that would be something of an insult, I believe, to all of the people who fell defending that flag and this country in two world wars.

This is not an honest or a respectful way to treat that flag. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for a new flag, and nobody has yet described to me in a way that I can understand or appreciate why the flag has to be changed at all. Some members opposite have talked about the future and about having a progressive nation. Are they saying that the current New Zealand flag cannot represent a forward-looking and progressive nation? It has so far—it has so far. Why would it not in the future? There is no genuine or significant public pressure for a change of the flag. There is public pressure for genuine constitutional reform—Māori seats, a written constitution, the size of Parliament, the length of the parliamentary term, the Māori electorate option and participation, the role of the Treaty of Waitangi, and so on. So what do we do? We have a referendum on one thing only—the least important thing of the lot: the flag. What about all of those other things? Why are they not part of this referendum? Why are the things that will actually make a difference not being referred to the New Zealand public by way of a referendum? For all of these reasons, New Zealand First will continue to lead the campaign against this bad legislation, its flawed process, and any suggestion that this country needs a new flag.

Kia ora, e te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe e te Whāre. Ko tēnei Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori me whakanuia e tātau!

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, greetings to you the House. This is Māori Language Week and we must celebrate it!]

I am delighted that we are having this debate today, and I am fervently hoping that it will lead to a new national flag that is not constantly confused with Australia’s, but around which we as New Zealanders can proudly unite. It is not just because I want change for the sake of change—far from it. For me it is very personal, and, in many respects, it relates directly to arguments that have just been put by Mr O’Rourke, which I completely refute. It is because the emblem that New Zealanders unite under, and, most important, that is on both moving and very numerous New Zealand headstones and tombstones throughout the battlefields of Western Europe, is not the New Zealand flag; it is the silver fern.

💬 Darroch Ball: Why are you changing it now?

I will come to that as well. I never met my maternal great-grandfather, Hugh Francis Wright, but I know three things about him. The first is that my mother loved him and admired him. The second is that he was, in his day, one of New Zealand’s leading mountaineers, which I have to say is a talent he certainly did not pass on to this particular great-grandson. And the third is that at the outbreak of World War I he was considered too old to enlist, and so even though he offered to do so he was declined on the grounds of age. But then, after the devastating losses in Western Europe throughout 1914, 1915, and 1916, there was a new wave of enlisters, and older men were accepted for enlistment, and my great-grandfather was one of them. He went and fought in the First World War, and, I am pleased to say, returned to New Zealand at the end of it.

I did not know my paternal grandfather, Charles Grierson Macindoe, and, at the other end of the age bracket, legend has it that he lied about his age and ran away at the start of the Boer War, and he served there. This year on Anzac Day for the first time I proudly wore his medals on my right lapel, something I had never felt I could do before but I was very proud to do. I did, of course, know my father, and my father served in the Second World War. He was an Aircrew Allocation Centre instructor, and, along with his brother, he served in the Pacific, he was injured in an accident there, and his brother carried on to Europe. My uncle, whom I never met, Raymond Kenneth Grierson Macindoe, was killed in action just a fortnight before the end of the war—just before VE-Day. The war was virtually over, and he is buried in Forli in southern Italy where he fell, and the silver fern is the emblem that identifies him as a New Zealander.

So for me this is very personal, and for me the timing is absolutely right to be making the change in this year as we honour the legacy of all of those who have served our country in the major conflicts through to the present day, because it is the silver fern that is the emblem that they fought and died under and that honours their legacy. So I utterly reject the argument that changing the flag in this year is disrespectful. Mr Mallard said it is wrong; the timing is wrong. I say: what finer way could we find to honour the legacy of those courageous New Zealanders than to honour their contribution with a change of the flag of the type I have said? So not just any change, but a flag that shows what we have in common.

The Union Jack reflects my heritage. Obviously, with a name like Macindoe, I have Scottish ancestry, but I believe it is totally incongruous here in the 21st century for us, as a proud and independent nation, to still have another country’s flag on our flag. The New Zealand First Party has argued against the cost of this exercise. I say to them: what cost is democracy? It may not cost as much as $26 million, but put it in the context of our annual expenditure, which is in the region of $73 billion. A referendum is the best way and the fairest way to consult all New Zealanders and to give them their say, and I am proud that we are doing it.

This is the same process, to those who argue against it, that New Zealanders followed about 20 years ago when we changed our electoral system from first past the post to MMP. Those members who now object so strongly to what we are doing would not be here if we had not had that exercise, and they should reflect on that. Would Canada go back to its flag of pre-1965? Of course it would not. It is very proud of its maple leaf, and wherever you go around the world if you see someone wearing something with the maple leaf, you know either that they are Canadian or they have recently visited that country. I want the same for New Zealanders.

I do not want us to be constantly confused with Australians and, in many cases, others, and I am utterly appalled by the disingenuousness and, frankly, the blatant dishonesty, particularly of the Labour Party, which now wants to pretend to this nation that it is opposed to this process when its own 2014 election policy it said: “Labour will: … review the design of the New Zealand flag involving flag design experts and with full public consultation and involvement.” “We believe that the time has come …”, said Labour, “and it is right for the issue to be put to the public.” And what did Mr Andrew Little say when asked: “Should NZ change its flag: What’s your personal opinion? Should there be a referendum?” Mr Little said: “I think a referendum is a suitable way to deal with an issue that can be very polarising.”

What absolute claptrap and disingenuous behaviour from Labour members now—to resile from that position purely for populist reasons. There is no principle in their argument at all, and they know it. That is why their heads are down. They know that they want it, and, as the Prime Minister and Bill English have both said, the only reason they do not support us in this debate is that we are doing it. If they were doing it, they would be leading the charge and we would be supporting them. If New Zealanders reflect on this issue, and I hope they will, and decide to retain our current flag, then I will respect their opinion, but I hope that they will think about it seriously. And, more important, I have to say I would be very disappointed at such a lost opportunity, which we will not enjoy again in our lifetime, and members should reflect on that. We will not have this opportunity again in our lifetime if we do not seize it this time around.

If the flag review panel—and I want to commend the members on the outstanding work that they have been doing—provides an attractive option that includes the silver fern, for the reasons that I have already outlined, I shall proudly vote for that option, particularly to honour the legacy of our forebears including my own relatives about whom I spoke earlier in this debate.

I am happy to accept the invitations that the New Zealand First Party members have challenged me to accept, to go to the RSAs to meet with veterans and to have this discussion with them, because I will prove to them that I honour their legacy, that I do respect them, that I share and understand and value all of the things that they stand for, and, that I want to acknowledge their sacrifice and their service with the change that we are debating today. I respect those who hold a contrary view because of their great passion for the current New Zealand flag, but I utterly reject any suggestion that this is the wrong time to consider changing it. On the contrary, this is the ideal time to honour the outstanding service of men and women who have served our nation. This is the ideal time to say we can have something about which we feel proud, and there is an emblem that we proudly wear when we go to sporting events, that we proudly see on New Zealanders who travel abroad, and, in a very sombre and moving way, that we see as we move up and down the rows and rows of those war cemeteries of Western Europe.

So I want to honour the legacy of Hugh Francis Wright, of Charles Grierson Macindoe, of Harley Lieman Grierson Macindoe, and, in particular, my Uncle Ken, whom I never met, by making this change. I cannot more strongly commend this bill to the House.

A 5-minute call from the Green Party.

E Te Ūpoko o Te Paopao a Piringa tēnā koe.

[Mr Speaker of the House of Idle Talk, greetings to you.]

What we are debating today is actually a symbol. A flag is a very powerful and very important symbol. It is a symbol of a nation State, a symbol of a political identity, and, to a lesser extent perhaps, a symbol of a shared cultural identity. It is important. This symbol has already triggered one shooting war in New Zealand. If you recall our history, our northern tupuna Hone Heke took exception to the fact that the symbol of British power was being flown above Kororāreka rather than the flag of New Zealand, which 10 years earlier had been acknowledged by the British monarchy and by the Admiralty. One hopes that this debate currently will not come to blows, but, nevertheless, it is a critically important conversation we are having about this symbol.

I guess our objection to this bill is that, in my view—and it is a common enough phrase—form should follow function. Of course, that comes from architecture—that the purpose of a building should drive its design. In this instance, the function is our constitutional arrangements that underpin our political identity; the form is the symbol that we fly to represent our nation State, which is, of course, a flag. We are having this debate and a referendum—$26 million of expenditure—worrying about changing the form, when we should be addressing the function, which is the underlying constitutional arrangements.

It is true that in 2010 the Government did establish a panel, the independent Constitutional Advisory Panel, which in 2013 reported back with its findings. With all due respect to the eminent New Zealanders who sat on the panel, their recommendation, which was perhaps a little underwhelming, was that we should continue the conversation. It was a very genuine and a thoughtful enough recommendation, and a very real one.

It is fair to say that this current flag consultation process has struggled to get the numbers. We have all seen the pictures of halls prepared for 100 people, with five or six embarrassed-looking people and probably a larger number of officials.

The Constitutional Advisory Panel back in 2010, or thereabouts, received something like 5,259 submissions, which, in the words of Mr English—who spoke earlier today—indicated some interest in the nation’s constitutional framework. Mr English then went on to say: “although there is no sense of an urgent or widespread desire for change”. So, by Mr English’s admission in 2013, New Zealanders are not jumping up and down in the street for this. I think there is a groundswell and a feeling that we need to look hard at our constitution and, therefore, at the symbols that represent us as a nation State, but there seems to not be the urgency. It seems peculiar that we are spending an inordinate amount of time and a remarkable amount of money debating the form, rather than the function, of our constitution.

I think we would not need to spend $26 million to think hard and to perhaps develop a new, more fit for purpose constitution. We have a very good model, a matika mai, which is a project being led by Moana Jackson, a lawyer specialising in constitutional and Māori and te Tiriti issues particularly, who, along with a very well-informed powerful team of people, and for very little money, continues to go around the country talking about what our constitution could look like.

I think it is fair to say that too often the question posed is: how might Te Tiriti o Waitangi fit into our constitutional arrangements? That is the wrong question. The question we need to ask is what form of constitutional arrangement logically emerges from our Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which, I think, we collectively recognise as the founding document of our country. That is the debate we should be having, rather than this rather tangential debate about the symbolism, about the flag—about what has been described as the piece of coloured cloth. Thank you.

Karanga ahau a Marama Fox, tēnā koe. A 5-minute call.

Tēnā koe, e te Mana Whakawā me tō kaha ki te whakahua i tō tātau Reo Māori. Ā, he Reo Māori taku kōrero. Ā, tēnā koutou e te Whare, nei te mihi atu ki a tātau katoa, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou, ā, nei te mihi atu ki te Whare.

Ā, āe tika rā te kōrero, he āhua taumaha tēnei i runga i te pokohiwi o Te Iwi Māori me te whenua—te pōharatanga, te pani, me te rawakore. Ā, kua rongona mātau ki taua kōrero: “He moumou pūtea tēnei kōrero mō te haki.” Āe, kai te whakaae au ki tēnā, kei te whakaae au ki tēnā. Heoi anō, kai te whakapaua taua pūtea, ahakoa tō mātau whakaae. Nā reira ki au nei, me mau tēnei take kia tutuki pai tēnei kōrero kai mua i te aroaro o te whatu.

I ahau e huri rauna i te motu, kai te kōrero au ki aku hoa, ki aku whanaunga, ā, ki ngā marae o te motu, ki ngā kuia, ki ngā koroua, ki ngā kaumātua. Kāre rātau i te kite i Te Iwi Māori i roto i tēnei haki o Aotearoa e rere nei i tēnei wā. Kāre rātau i te kite i te kaha o Te Iwi Māori kai roto i tēnei haki, o tēnei wā. Nā reira, i whakaae au kia tīnihia tēnei haki. Kai te hiahia au kia rapua tētahi tohu, e whakamārama ana i ngā taha e rua o te whenua nei: kia kitea Te Māoritanga i roto i te haki; te haki e tū nei ki runga i ngā Whare Pāremata, te haki e tū nei ki runga i te pokohiwi o te tangata e oma haere ana mō Aotearoa. Kai te pīrangi au ki te kite i Te Iwi Māori i roto.

I rongo au i te kōrero o tēnei o te mema, Denis O’Rourke, e kī nei, āe, ēnei whetū, me tēnei tae kahurangi nei hai whakahua, ko Te Iwi Māori tenei. Mehemea e whakaae ana mātau ki tēnā, he aha te take ka hiahia mātau i tō mātau ake haki? He aha te take, ka whakairia te iwi o Ngāpuhi, o Ngāti Hine, i te haki o Te Whakapuakitanga? Ā, ko te take, kāre rātau i kite i a rātau anō i roto i tēnei haki o Aotearoa.

I kī mai ētahi, i mate ō tātau tūpuna i runga i ngā whīra pakanga o te ao i raro i te haki, i whawhai mō te haki. Kai te whakahē au i taua kōrero. Kāre rātau i whawhai mō te haki, i whawhai rātau mō te toto, mō te whakapapa, mō ā rātau hoa, mō ngā hōia kai ā rātau taha, mō ā rātau whānau, mō ā rātau marae. Koirā te take e whawhai ana. Kāre rātau e whawhai mō tēnei haki. Kai raro i tēnei haki haere atu Te Hokowhitu-ā-Tū ki ngā pakanga o te ao. Kāre tēnei Kāwana me te haki nei i hoatu i te pū ki a rātau. Karekau! I hoatu kē i tētahi spade, kāre au i te mōhio i te kupu mō te “spade”, hai keri i te whenua, kia hono ai te tangata. Kāre rātau i whakatakoto i tō rātau kaha i runga i ngā pakanga o te ao mō te haki.

I a rātau e hoki mai ana ki Aotearoa nei, kāore tonu tēnei haki, tēnei Kāwana, i whakamana i a rātau, i a rātau i hoki atu ki tō rātau whenua. Kāre rātau i whiwhi pūtea, kāre rātau i whiwhi whenua. I tangohia kētia te whenua o Te Māori i a rātau e hoki atu ana ki te kāinga, kai raro i tēnei haki.

Nā reira, e kī atu ana au, kāre au i whakaae ki tēnei haki. Kai te pīrangi au kia tīnihia, kia kite whānui tātau katoa, kai roto i tō tātau tohu, Māori, tauiwi, ki raro i te haki kotahi. Āe, tika rā te kōrero—maha kē atu ngā take kai mua i a tātau, ā, ngā pūtake ō tātau, āe, kia tutuki pai. Heoi anō he tīmatanga noa tēnei. Tīmata ki te haki, whai atu ki te waiata o Aotearoa nei, whai tonutia ki te ture ki raro i Te Tiriti o Waitangi—kia whakamanahia ki roto i Te Ture. Ā, koinei tāku, he tīmatanga noa ka pā atu nei Te Iwi Māori me te iwi tauiwi. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā mai tātau katoa.

[Greetings and congratulations to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your efforts to speak our Māori language. My address will be in Māori as a consequence. So greetings to you collectively, the House. I commend us all: you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and, indeed, everyone present here—well done, the House.

Yes, the statement—the poor, the orphaned, and the underprivileged—is a fair one, and somewhat of a burden upon the shoulder of Māoridom and the country. We have heard the comment: “This talk about the flag is a waste of funding.” Yes, I agree with that quite emphatically. None the less, that funding is being spent, even though we agree it is a waste of money. And so, to me, we progress this matter so that this consultation before us is completed well.

So as I went around the country I was talking with my friends, relatives, marae around the country, elderly women and men folk, and the aged. They are not seeing Māoridom in this flag of New Zealand that is flying currently. They are not seeing the intensity of Māoridom in this current flag. Hence, I agree that this flag be changed and I want a search to be undertaken for a symbol that will reflect both sides of this country so that its Māoritanga is seen clearly in the flag: in the flag flying on the Houses of Parliament, the flag on the shoulders of an athlete running for New Zealand. I want to see Māoridom in it.

I heard that member Denis O’Rourke’s address. Yes, the member said, these stars, this blue colour to announce that this is Māoridom. If we agree to that, why would we want our own flag? Why would the Ngāpuhi tribe and the Ngāti Hine tribe fly the flag of the Declaration of Independence? The reason is that they do not really see themselves in this New Zealand flag.

Others said to me that our ancestors died on the battlefields of the world fighting under the flag. They fought for the flag. I reject that assertion. They did not fight for the flag; they fought for blood, genealogy and their mates, the soldiers by their sides, their families and marae. That is the reason why they were fighting. They were not fighting for this flag. The Māori Battalion went to the world wars under this flag. This Government and flag did not arm them. No! They gave them a spade instead—I do not know what the Māori word is for “spade”—to dig trenches so a person can link up. They did not exert themselves on the battlefields of the world for the flag.

As they came back here to New Zealand, this flag and Government did not empower them as they went back to their own part of the country. They did not receive any funding, any land. Under this flag, Māori land was being taken instead as they were going back home.

Therefore, I am telling you that I am not in favour of this flag. I want it changed so that we can all see broadly that our symbol contains a Māori and non-Māori perspective in it under the one flag. Yes, the assertion is correct—there are many other issues before us, yes, our very own issues that we need to address to achieve a satisfactory outcome. But this is simply the beginning. The flag is just the beginning. The national anthem follows next, and immediately afterwards the Treaty of Waitangi given effect under the Act. Yes, from me personally, it is merely a beginning that will impact upon Māori and non-Māori. I commend, acknowledge, and applaud you and us all collectively, thank you.]

Tēnā koe e Minita o Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. It is an honour to be able to speak in the second reading on this bill, the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I have to be honest. When this thought—this idea about us heading towards a referendum, and even the changing of the flag—initially came out, my first impression was to ask what the reason was. What was the purpose, and what was the sense in us heading in this direction?

I then began to reflect that in 2012 and 2013 there was a consultation process in regard to the constitution, or the forming of a constitution—just as has been spoken about by the previous speaker, Marama Fox, and other speakers—and about the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and other aspects of what defines us as a nation. In some of those consultations there was a discussion by some people about the national anthem and the things that constitute national identity. There was an issue that was raised by some about the flag, as well as other areas. So the constitution discussion actually began to bring up this question about what defines us as a nation.

Then, in going through this process, I began to look into where this began—this whole idea around the call for a New Zealand flag. Well, this happened over 40 years ago. I want to just mention this because there is a thought out there in the public and in the nation that this is simply an idea by our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key—that he has just thought this up as a great idea. In fact, this has been happening over many decades previously. So let me just give us an idea about where this has come from.

There have been numerous calls in the last four decades for a new flag to be adopted.

💬 Darroch Ball: Citizens started that last one, Alfred, not the Government—citizens did.

So if Mr Ball listens, he will maybe have just a little bit of education here. In 1970 National MP and the Minister of Internal Affairs, Allan Highet, also put forward the idea. He asked: does this flag not only represent our history and heritage but is it a reflection of our future? That idea was actually removed—it did not have the traction. In 1988 Labour MP and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Russell Marshall, also put forward the idea. The thought about this fact was that, again, here is the flag—around the idea of national identity and nationhood, should we be reflecting on the idea of having a new flag?

In 1989 the Listener magazine ran a competition for designs. There were over 600 entries and seven finalists, including the current flag, the 1902 flag, and what was surprising is that that flag won by only just a small majority—a very small majority. Here is what Gordon Campbell, who was the editor of the Listener at that time and who ran the competition, said. He said that despite the result, it was confirmed that it had exploded the myths about New Zealanders’ devotion to the flag.

In February 1992 the late Hon Matiu Rata, a former Minister of Māori Affairs and the founder of Mana Motuhake, called for a redesign to re-establish a national identity. He called for a redesign to be able to look at this, and here was his point of difference. He asked whether, even in this House, this current flag represents our history and our heritage. We have heard arguments today that, yes, it does. But then he said this: “But does it represent our future, heading into a bicultural nation?”.

At that time, the RSA had a petition from over 10,000 signatories who argued, again, that they did not want to change the flag. Over several of these attempts, the RSA came to the point where it said that it realised that, unlike with the previous three attempts, if this decision was to be made, then the decision to change the flag should be done via a referendum—it should be done via a referendum. So what are we doing at the moment? We are actually talking about a bill that is about having a referendum as well.

In 1998 Marie Hasler, the Minister of Cultural Affairs, also talked about and argued in favour of the existing flag, but said she would support a change if it was shown that the will of the people was there for a referendum. This has been going on. In 2004 Wellington businessman Lloyd Morrison formed a trust called the NZFlag.com Trust. The purpose was, again, to ask whether we should be changing the flag and whether there should be a referendum. There were supporters like Cath Tizard, Keith Quinn, Susan Devoy—a number of them there. We know that they were not able to get a referendum as they did not have enough signatories, but what I want to say is that the point I am making out of this is that this issue has been going on for a long time. The idea of changing the flag in regard to reflecting our history and our heritage and, most important, our future, has been going on for a long time.

We have heard speeches in the House that have clearly said this. From the Greens, Russel Norman supports changing the flag. He may not like the process, but he would support a change, as would others, in regard to our constitution. We know that on the other side the Hon Trevor Mallard came to our select committee. He even indicated that he would support a change to the flag. However, what he did not like was the process.

We know that across the House the majority of members, bar New Zealand First, support the change to the flag. The truth of the reality is that members on the other side will not support it because those members—who are supposedly the nation-builders of the country in describing this identity—are not the ones who are in control of this process. That is the reason why we are heading towards this.

I just want to come to a couple of other points. There were some points that we were talking about. People also know that we have a Māori flag. It is the flag that is flown on Waitangi Day, and the name is just escaping me at the moment. Peeni, you might be able to help me there—

💬 Peeni Henare: Tino Rangatiratanga.

The Tino Rangatiratanga flag, thank you. That is flown and has been acknowledged and recognised. The Government allowed for that initiative to be able to happen so that there could be the opportunity for that flag to be flown. So I want to just rebut some of the comments by Denis O’Rourke when he said that even Māori support this current flag. I suggest that those comments are not true. I suggest those comments would be rebutted, even by other speakers. This flag was not chosen by referendum, nor by Māori. I would suggest that there are others, like Matiu Rata, who would say that this current flag of 1902 does not reflect our future—it does not reflect our future.

In 1989 the Government also approved—let us talk about the cost. People have been talking about this cost of $26 million. Look, we know that the timing of that is quite challenging, but in 1989 the Government took the time to acknowledge the fact that 1990 was the sesquicentennial year of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi—$20 million was put aside to acknowledge that. Why? Because it was important in the building and the acknowledging and the shaping of a nation. So we think that is really important.

In fact, when we think about the submitters, there were only 113 of those submitters who considered the referendum process to be too expensive. The Government considers that to have a process that is legitimate and democratic and for the outcome to endure, it is important to do it properly, and that is to do it via a referendum. We have heard again that this is so that the nation may choose—not the Government, but the nation may choose.

I just want to make a couple of comments from the Hon Trevor Mallard. He named the National Party members on the Justice and Electoral Committee and talked about the democratic process of having oral submissions—in fact, he talked about there being 740 oral submissions. It is true to say that those came in as form submissions. It is standard process and protocol that those form submissions, whatever form they take, are often collated to be one submission before the select committee, so we did not believe that we were denying any rights whatsoever for others to be able to do that.

There were many submitters who had actually submitted and actually took the time—in fact, there were 259 submissions, of which 27 submitters chose to make an oral submission. It would not have taken much for those 740 people to have written something quite different—not a form submission—to indicate their right and their willingness to come and submit before the committee. They did not do that. It was a form submission.

I just want to finish on the last comments that I think are really important. There was a comment, again by the Hon Trevor Mallard, about how in the cross-party group there was unanimous agreement—bar the Government members at that time—towards having one referendum. That was contested. I can say that that was contested. Even from the Māori Party, those members had agreed, and do agree, with the process that the Government is taking. It is wrong to indicate that it was only the Government members who were willing to take this process of having two referendums. We believe that this process is important.

I look forward to the Committee of the whole House stage. But, most important, I actually look forward to the process of going out into those RSAs, as I have been—I am a member of Te Atatū RSA—and to be able to talk continually about the importance and the role that this referendum has in the shaping of our nation and the changing, potentially, of the flag. Whatever the nation chooses, at the end of the day, it is what we will all also abide by. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, otirā, tēnā tātau katoa ki roto i tēnei tūāhuatanga, arā ko Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, kei te pātaitia e tēnei Whare te mana o te tangata ki tētahi haki. Koinā tāku e mea atu ana, koia rā tērā ko te pai o Te Reo Māori. Anā, he aha nei nakena ngā haki tūturu o te whenua nei? Ko Te Reo tēnā i tupu mai i te whenua, koinā tāku e kōrero atu ana ahau ki a tātau, tēnā tātau katoa.

Ka tīkina ake ahau ngā kōrero a te mema ki tērā taha o te Whare, Alfred Ngaro, e kōrero ana mō te ture Kāwanatanga constitution. Anā, i tīmataria ai e tēnei Kāwanatanga te mahi kia whiwhi ai i ngā whakaaro o te motu whānui mō tēnei mea te ture Kāwanatanga. Anā, i roto i ngā whakaputanga o taua Rōpū Whiriwhiri Take e pā ana ki te ture Kāwanatanga, kīhei rātou i mea atu, me tīni te haki nei. Koinā tāku e mea atu ana, kei te whai tēnei Kāwanatanga i tō rātou ake whiore. Koinā te take, kei te kūiti tēnei Kāwanatanga i te motu whānui. E kūiti ana tēnei Kāwanatanga i roto i tētahi kūititanga, ki te mea atu, mehemea e hiahia ana koutou ki te tīnihia i te haki, tēnā, anei hoki ko ngā whiriwhiringa kei mua i a koutou. Ēngari, ko tā mātou e mea atu ana, me tukuna te pātai tika i te tuatahi. He aha nei nakena ki te pātai tika, anā. Mehemea e hiahia ana te motu whānui kia tīnihia te haki, koinā hoki ko te pātai tuatahi, ki a au nei.

Ka whakaaro ake ahau ki wētahi o ngā kōrero ka puta mai i te rangi nei e pā ana ki te taha pūtea. E mōhio ana tātou katoa, ko te tini o te pūtea ka whakapauhia ki runga i tēnei take. He mea moumou. Nui ake ngā take kei mua i te aroaro o tēnei motu whānui, arā, te pōharatanga, te mātauranga, he tini. Koinei tāku atu ki te Kāwanatanga i tēnei tāima. Mehemea e ngākaunui ana ngā hunga nei ki ngā RSAs, tēnā, hoatu te pūtea ki ngā RSAs tā te mea, mōhio ana tātou kei te hinga haere te rahi o te pūtea ki aua wāhi rā—he wāhi maumaharatanga mō ngā hōia. Kāti!

Ka whakaaro ake ahau ki ngā kōrero o te mema o tērā taha o te Whare, Alfred Ngaro. Hei tāna, ko te mana o te hōia ki roto i ngā pakanga kua pahure ake nei. Ka whakaaro ake ahau mō tōku tupuna a Te Hāringi, Te Hāringi Rīwhi. I whawhai te kaumātua rā ki roto i Te Pakanga Tuatahi o te Ao, ki roto hoki i Te Pakanga Tuarua o te Ao. I te ata ka āra mai a Te Hāringi ki raro i te maru o tō tātou haki. I te mutunga o te rā, kīhai a Te Hāringi i hoki mai ki te kāinga. Anā, ka mate ki raro tonu i te maru o taua haki. Ko te mate kē, kīhai ōna hoa hōia i kimi i tōna tūpāpaku. Nō reira, ka takoto ake a Hāri ki roto o wāhi kē. Ēngari i te mutunga o te rā, ka tuohu te mātenga o ōna hoa hōia ki te haki e hāwhe kake nei ki runga i te pou haki. Nō reira, koia rā wētahi o tāku e mea atu ana, i whawhai ngā mātua, ngā tūpuna mō te haki te take. E mea atu ana, ā, e kāhore! Ko Te Kīngi, ko te whenua o te mana motuhake. Ēngari e mea atu ana ahau, i haere rātou ki raro i te maru o te haki, i hoki anō mai rātou i raro i taua haki.

Nō reira kāti! Ka whakaaro ake ahau mō ētahi atu o ngā take, ko te take nui ahakoa te aha, mōhio ana tātou ko te whakapautanga o te pūtea mō te kore take noa iho. Tukuna te pātai tika i te tuatahi, mai i te tīmatanga o tēnei kaupapa, ā, kāti, ka tahuri atu ahau ki roto i te reo tuarua hei whakakapi ake i tōku kōrero i te rā nei.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and at the same time I extend my greetings to us all in the circumstances of this, Māori Language Week. This House questions the integrity of an individual against that of a flag, and that is the reason why I have said to you collectively that the Māori language is so appealing. Now then, what is there about the flags of this country that is so indigenous? On the other hand the Māori language evolved from the land, and that is the real reason why I am addressing us in Māori, so hello there to us all.

I take up the sentiments of the member on that side of the House, Alfred Ngaro, about the Government’s action relating to the constitution. Now then, this Government instigated a process to obtain the views of the nation at large about it. Now, that Constitutional Advisory Panel never stated in its releases that the flag of this nation must be changed. And that is why I am saying to you: this Government is chasing its own tail. That is the reason this Government is putting a squeeze on the nation at large. It is narrowing the confinement and saying: well then, here are the options as well in front of you. But we are saying to Government, release the proper question first. But what, indeed, is the proper question? That is it! Now if the nation desires a change that, in fact, to me is the first question.

I ponder over some of the comments relating to funding that emerged today. We are all aware that an enormous amount of funding will be spent on this matter. It is sheer waste of funding. There are so many other issues confronting the nation, like poverty, education—myriads. At this very moment, this is mine to Government. If these ones in Government are committed to RSAs, well then, give the funding to RSAs, because we are all aware that funding in places like those—memorial places for armed forces.

Enough! I reflect on the sentiments of the member on that side of the House, Alfred Ngaro. To that member the status of the soldier in battle has passed. I reflect on my ancestor Te Hāringi, Te Hāringi Rīwhi, that elderly one who fought in the First World War, and in the Second World War, as well. In the morning Te Hāringi woke up from under the shelter of our flag. At day’s end Te Hāringi did not come home. He died there under the shelter of the flag. The real misfortune was that his comrades did not look for his body. So Hāri was interred somewhere else. But at day’s end his fellow soldiers bowed their heads to the flag flying at half mast on the flag pole. So those are some of my reflections that I am alluding to about parents and ancestors fighting for the flag. It is asserting: no! It was for the King and independence of the country. But I do assert that they went under the shelter of the flag, and they returned, as well, under that flag.

And so enough. I can think of other matters, but the most significant one, above all else, is our awareness that funding is being spent for no reason at all. Release the proper question first from the outset of this proposal. Well now, to conclude my address today I turn to the second language.]

In conclusion, it seems pretty set from the Government that this change is going to happen despite the call of this nation that now is not the right time. So if it is going to happen it seems that the only way that this flag will rise up the flagpole and also continue to blow proudly in the sky is on the hot air coming from the other side of the House. Kia ora tātou.

I think it says everything about the current Government’s priorities that at a time when the economy is in serious difficulty, when there are riots at privatised prisons, when charter schools are falling over, and when the Government is hocking off State houses and literally driving pensioners out of their homes—literally driving pensioners out of their homes—it wants to devote the time of this House to a referendum on the flag. And it is not just the time of the House it is using in this referendum process; it is also $26 million of taxpayers’ money. That says everything about the current Government’s priorities.

John Key went on television a couple of weeks ago and said: “I, as Prime Minister, want overt signs of patriotism.” That is his goal—overt signs of patriotism. Well, my message for John Key is quite simple. If he wants New Zealanders to be more patriotic and more proud of their country he should give them something to be proud of. A flag is a symbol, but, actually, what Governments do is far more important.

There have been moments when New Zealand Prime Ministers on both sides of the House have inspired New Zealanders to be proud of their country. David Lange stood up at the Oxford Union debate and, regardless of what flag it was under, he made New Zealanders proud to be New Zealanders. When Helen Clark stood up and took in the Tampa boat people she made New Zealanders proud to be New Zealanders. I have got to say, as a New Zealander, that I was proud of New Zealand when Jim Bolger and Doug Graham and those other people on the National Party side were leading the Treaty settlements process. That made me proud to be a New Zealander. That was not involving a flag; that was involving genuine action by the Government that made New Zealanders proud.

So my message to John Key is that if he wants New Zealanders to be more patriotic and proud of their country, he should give them something to be proud of. And it is not going to be kicking pensioners out of their State houses like this Government is doing. It is not going to be turning the other way when our primary producing industries struggle in the current economy, which the National Government is turning a blind eye to. Those things are not going to make New Zealanders proud, and a simple referendum on a change of flag is not going to make New Zealanders proud at the moment, not at a time when there are so many other things New Zealanders are worried about.

I have been very clear all along. I would like to see a flag that better reflects the New Zealand that we are today and the New Zealand that we will be in the future. I have been very clear about that—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Support the bill.

—and I have got to say to Nick Smith that it is one of the reasons I do not want a referendum that is doomed to fail. What the referendum will do is actually take the whole issue away for generations. We will not get to discuss this again when this referendum is voted down, and it is doomed to be voted down because of the mismanagement of this National Government.

Let us be clear about how badly this issue is going for the Government. How many people showed up at public meetings? Just 700 people showed up at the meetings that the Government has been having around the country—739 members of the public. That is $550 per person just for the cost of the meetings. But if you add in the amount of money the Government spent advertising the meetings as well, it is over $2,000 per person who showed up at those meetings at a time when New Zealanders have much more important priorities on their mind. The Government sent out 1.6 million postcards. Only 15,000 of those were returned. That is $93 per postcard returned. That is the cost that we are talking about. These are not trivial sums of money at a time when there are so many other things that New Zealanders want to their Government to be spending money on. But, of course, New Zealanders have come to accept waste as part and parcel of this Government.

Finally, I want to talk to Tim Macindoe, who gave a very good speech in this debate. I want to commend him for his speech. He spoke about veterans of both world wars and his relations who were veterans of both world wars. I say to him that I admire the contribution he made to this debate, but if the Government is so concerned about veterans and so interested in the views of veterans and what they fought for, why did it give the RSA only 10 minutes at the Justice and Electoral Committee? Why is the Government willing to spend tens of millions of dollars on a referendum process when it is not willing to spare more than 10 minutes for the RSA at the select committee? So when National Government members show up to Anzac Day services or World War I commemorative services all around the country let them explain that to all the veterans who are at those events. Let them explain why they think the RSA is so unimportant in this process that they were willing to give it only 10 minutes. This is not the time to be doing this. This referendum is doomed to fail, and that is why the Government should pull up stumps now.

Let us put on the record for the House the reason why the Labour Party is opposed to this bill. It is spite—simple spite. That is the simple reality of it. The Labour Party has this view of itself—this vainglorious view of itself—that it is the party that does nationhood. It is the party of Norman Kirk at Waitangi. It is the party of sending the ships over to Mururoa. It is the party of David Lange at the Oxford Union giving that glorious speech. Look, I quoted David Lange in my maiden speech. I agree that he was a great statesman, but the Labour Party does not have a monopoly on nationhood, and it does not have a monopoly on taking New Zealand forward.

Let us be very clear. The reason why the Labour Party is opposed to this bill is spite and jealousy. They are jealous that it is a National-led Government, led by a Prime Minister whom they despise, that is putting to the people the idea of changing the New Zealand flag. They are jealous of it because it is Labour Party policy to have a referendum on the flag. As late as September last year—in fact, as late as last week, on its website—it was Labour Party policy to consider a flag referendum.

My good friend Charles Chauvel—the much-lamented Charles Chauvel—had a member’s bill for a flag referendum in the ballot some time ago. The Labour Party is all over this, except for the fact that it is a National Government doing it. It is really sad because, actually, I reckon most Labour members agree with changing the flag. Andrew Little certainly does. Last year he said: “My personal opinion is we should have something more relevant to an independent, small Asia-Pacific nation. I think a referendum is a suitable way to deal with an issue that can be very polarising.” So the Government, which took a policy of having a referendum to the election, and duly got elected, has introduced legislation. And what do we have from the Labour Party today? Well, it is going to oppose it. It is really, really sad.

New Zealand does not discuss nationhood and the issue of national identity enough, in my view. This bill, and the process that we are undertaking, is part of that ongoing conversation about what New Zealand is and what we should stand for. The question of the flag is important. Yes, it is a just a symbol, but symbols matter—symbols matter. The issue of whether, in the 21st century, modern-day New Zealand is best represented by a flag that has a Union Jack and the Southern Cross on it or whether we move to a flag that better represents New Zealand’s national identity is an important one. We are no longer a colony of Great Britain. We are no longer tied by the apron strings to that country—to the mother country. We have moved on from that, and the question as to whether or not we should have a flag that better represents that new reality is something that New Zealanders are going to grapple with, and have been grappling with, during this referendum process.

The process is important. We heard from Mr Chris Hipkins over there that New Zealanders do not care about it, that they are totally unengaged, and that, to the extent that they do care about the flag referendum process, they are absolutely opposed to change. The ultimate referendum is the referendum that we are going to have. The logical extension of the Labour Party’s argument on this stuff is that we should just govern by opinion poll. It is that we should just put everything out to the people and have a fleeting, cursory view of public opinion at one moment in time. No, actually, that is not the right way to go about things. The right way to go about things, on an issue as important as this, is through a deliberative, consultative process in which people get a chance to consider the issues widely and fully, have a say, and then get a vote on it.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: They have. They have, and they have given it the thumbs down.

It is not a New Zealand Herald online poll, Mr Cosgrove. It is not some smidgen of public opinion at any one fixed point in time. It is through a deliberative process, through a referendum. If the Labour Party is correct, and if Mr Hipkins is correct—he very rarely is on most other matters—and the people do not want to change the flag, they will say so. This Government will respect that view—we will respect that view. But if they vote for change, then the flag will change. The question for the Labour Party is—after having exhausted all of this hot air arguing against giving New Zealanders a say about the flag and the future of the flag in this country—will they respect the outcome if people vote in favour of a change of flag? That is the question for the Labour Party.

This referendum does not disrespect veterans. It does not do that. On the issue of whether or not something is the right time, again, you could make that argument about almost any change that the Government does. Well, it is never the right time. There has not been a right time since 1970; there has not been the right time since 1980; it was not the right time back in 2005, when hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders signed a petition to change the flag. That is an argument for the status quo. It is a conservative argument, and it is just hilarious that it is coming from the so-called progressive party of social change over there—the party that likes to tell itself that it is all in favour of moving New Zealand forward but that gives speech after speech saying: “It’s not the right time. You know, we’re not sure New Zealanders are in favour of this.” They sound like the conservative, fuddy-duddy party that the Labour Party has become. It is truly tragic.

The Justice and Electoral Committee, which considered this bill, did a very good job of considering the process. We considered the suggestion from Trevor Mallard and from others that we should put a yes/no question in the first referendum that we are going to have and that we are going to have quickly. Actually, we considered whether or not that was a good idea, and we came to the view, by majority, that it was not a good idea. The reason for that is, firstly, the Ministry of Justice officials recommended against it. The reason is that it biases the referendum in favour of the status quo; it does not lead to a mutual, objective referendum. In our view, that was not a good public policy outcome, and that is why the majority of the select committee decided that the structure that we have at the moment, which is the one recommended by the officials as being the most neutral and objective referendum possible, is what we should do.

There were some suggestions that we should have a yes/no referendum to start with—just put one question to the people: do you want to change the flag or not? The problem with that, as somebody explained to me at a public meeting yesterday, is that they may very well be in favour of changing the flag but that they just do not know what it is going to change to, and until they have the options available, they are not sure. That, with respect, is a silly suggestion by people who make it, including New Zealand First. Denis O’Rourke, during the select committee process, asked one question of all the submitters, which was: why do we not just have a yes/no referendum question first? I have just given the reason, for Denis’ benefit. The reason is that it is hard to make up your mind whether or not you are in favour of change unless you know what you are changing to. We decided to have the view that you should let people have a say on the options first, and then it will be a binary, up or down vote on what the change will be.

We do not discuss constitutional questions enough in this House. We do not discuss in this House issues of national identity. This is a good bill put forward by a good Government. It is opposed by parties out of pure spite and jealousy.

The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee be agreed to.