New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister: I move, That the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I want to begin my contribution to this particular bill this afternoon by congratulating the Labour Party on getting out of sleepy hollow for the first time in 7 years and actually doing something this afternoon that looked a little bit interesting. Might I say that it is no surprise to me that when some people who would normally be calling the shots around these matters are not available, the Labour Opposition, left in the hands of the Hon Trevor Mallard, the old tusker himself, manages to pull one out of the bag and almost—almost—gets what it was after.

I return now to the bill. This is a bill introduced to the House by the Government but, significantly, it was constructed by Gareth Hughes and a team from the Green Party. They have recognised that a large number of New Zealanders would like to have the fifth option on the referendum panel that asks people to put a preference, from one to five now, for a flag, should there be a vote in favour of a change.

The Government considers that that is not an unreasonable position, but we do want to express our huge confidence in the design panel, which was put together for the consideration of the flag. That panel has been, in some places, criticised, and not least of those criticisms has been that there was no designer on the panel. Well, it was not a group of designers who put up the hundreds and hundreds of options that could have been considered; it was, largely, ordinary New Zealanders who have a patriotic view of their country and were wanting a view along those lines expressed on the flag. The panel behaved in, I think, a thoroughly professional manner and undertook a very good public consultation process. Remember, they were faced with 10,000 different flag options—10,000 different flag options expressed by various New Zealanders. So it was a challenging job for that panel to do as the law required of them and to whittle that number down to some four options.

One of the things it did was ask for public opinion about the 40 options that it thought may be of interest to New Zealanders. It is worth noting that the Red Peak came in 37th out of those 40. That being said, there has been considerable activity and, on a matter like this, you would expect New Zealanders to become a little bit passionate. So we have an option today to put another flag in the referendum.

💬 Hon Annette King: It’s not in here.

Well, Opposition members are waving bits of paper around in anticipation that it may be that particular flag that is included. Perhaps they should just have a little bit of a sleep overnight and see what comes of it in the next day or so. I think accepting the way that we are moving forward and completing the aspects of the bill—that is, the first reading, the second reading, the Committee stage, and the third reading—all in one day, so that instruction can be given to the people responsible for the referendum, is the appropriate thing to do.

I want to tell the House that by doing this we will not affect the planned referendum dates, the preferential voting system does not change, and the approach to regulating the referendum advertising etc. is also unchanged. I think it will be interesting to see how New Zealanders react to this over the next couple of days.

Changing a flag should create reaction, but it should not create the sorts of descriptions that we are getting from people across the other side of the House who are actually violently opposed to this approach now, but actually went into the 2014 election saying that if they were in Government—the same position that we are in today—they would be promoting a change to the New Zealand flag. The one thing this House can be certain of, and all New Zealanders can be certain of, is that had it been in Government, Labour would have changed the flag and not one New Zealander would have had a say in that other than those members of its Government. What we are seeing over the other side is crocodile tears, the wringing of hands at the disappointment at not being able to do this, and now, after a 30-second read of the bill, all sorts of claims that it will not do what it set out to do.

Well, I think it does not happen every day that a member can come to the House and propose a bill, have that bill defeated by a leave motion, and then have the Government pick it up, particularly when that member is a member of an Opposition party. So I think it is a day that I am sure Gareth Hughes will remember for a very long time. It does indicate that when there is a good idea put forward, then the Government is not opposed to listening to that idea.

The biggest surprise to us is that the Labour Party did not think of doing something like this. The Labour Party had not the wit, it would seem, to be able to come up with something that the Green Party has done this afternoon. So what we are seeing, really, is a lot of bitterness—and we will hear it over the next few hours—from a party that has been totally snookered by a smaller party in this House, but a smaller party that is increasingly listening to the voices of New Zealanders and representing their aspirations—

💬 Grant Robertson: It’s just politics, Gerry. That’s all it is—just politics.

—although Mr Robertson over there says “It’s just politics.”, I take him at his word, but I know that deep down inside, past the politics, he really does want to see a change to the flag and most definitely wants to see the process for it. [Interruption] Well, now we have got the contest between Mr Robertson and Ms Ardern—a contest that, apparently, is not on, because Ms Ardern is way out in front on this one—yelling across the best option they have got, Mrs King, and I think we are going to see that little scenario play out over the next couple of days as well.

This is a bill that reflects the fact that New Zealanders who have spoken have been listened to. It is a tribute to the ability of our Government to work with other parties to ensure that where there is a fair case that should be dealt with, we are prepared to move in that direction. Thank you.

Well, that speech from the Leader of the House pretty much sums up the National Government’s approach to a very serious issue for the country, and that is the consideration of whether or not we change our flag. For that member, as it is for the Prime Minister, it is just a game. It is about who has got what, and it is just about manipulating and pussyfooting and carrying on as if it is all just a big game.

You see, the National Government could have done this weeks ago. The National Government could have done this weeks ago. It could have done it last week when we sought the leave of the House to introduce legislation to add another option and to give New Zealanders a choice. We will support this bill because we support giving New Zealanders a choice—a real choice. The reality about the flag referendum process so far—and the whole flag-changing process—is that it has just, under John Key, become an absolute and utter shambles. He could not manage a flag referendum process to save himself, which now, it turns out, is what he is going to have to do.

New Zealanders are disillusioned. They are beyond disappointed. They are disillusioned and frustrated and disappointed that they will not be listened to by the most senior elected politician in the country. This is the Prime Minister who goes around to every meeting he can with anywhere between two people and 200 people, and insists that they hear his case for change, demands that they raise their hands in answer to his question, and then, when they do not give him an answer he likes, he berates them. That is where this has now come to.

Let us go back to the start of this process. This has always been John Key’s pet project. He said to the people of New Zealand “We must change the flag. We must have a flag change.”, and then he said it must be black, and he said it must have a silver fern on it. When nobody liked the idea of it being black, he said: “Oh, as long as it’s got a silver fern on it.” He pumped that up and he talked it up, and he selected a Flag Consideration Panel of his own. This was a consideration panel that was tasked with coming up with a new design for a new flag. Do you think it had a designer on it? Do you think for the biggest design project for the nation—a design that is meant to reflect the nation—the Government would put a professional designer on the panel? Not one—not one, which gave the lie to the Prime Minister’s claim that this was about us forging a new identity. It was about his project, and his appalling taste in aesthetics, for another thing.

So we went off with a Flag Consideration Panel that had no design expertise. Then, when the Prime Minister was called out on it, after it had toured the country, getting an average of 29 people at its meetings, and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on that exercise, it then thought: “Gee, we’d better get a designer to come in and have a look.” A designer came and had a look for 2 hours and that was it. That was the input. But it was too late by that time because everybody was dancing to the Prime Minister’s tune.

Then the Flag Consideration Panel came up with its recommendations. The Prime Minister set up a personally selected panel, having told the world at large: “We must have a flag with a silver fern on it.” The Flag Consideration Panel was told it had to come up with four options. What do three of the four options have on them, mysteriously?

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: A silver fern.

Oh, a silver fern. How unusual. What a coincidence—just what the Prime Minister wanted, and one other. The panel overlooked some other obvious contenders. That is how shambolic it has been.

It does not stop there, of course. They had a cross-party group of this House. Only one party was not on it, but every other party was. Every other party bar National said that we ought to ask New Zealanders—not only because we are a democracy but because we as politicians respect the electorate—whether they want to change the flag or not. There was objection from one party only—the party opposite; the Government party. And even though the recommendation went to Cabinet, what did Cabinet do? It just dumped it. It pushed it aside and said it was not relevant. The Government said it was not going to give people that choice because, who knows—people might not want to change the flag. Uh, oh! That is democracy under the National Party in New Zealand today.

This has been an utter shambles. It is John Key’s utter shambles, and every attempt to try to get some responsiveness, some democracy, since has fallen on deaf ears. We tried last week. I offered to work with the Prime Minister. I said: “Let’s at least have a talk about it.” It is not good. We saw the public reaction. We know the public is terrified that they are going to get to the end of the second referendum, after we have spent $26 million, and we will still have the same flag.

We offered to work with the Government on it. John Key publicly said: “Yeah, I’ll meet with Andrew Little. We’ll have a talk about it.” I wrote to him and said: “Here are some issues. Let’s have a talk about it. No conditions—let’s have a talk about it.” Then he wrote back and said: “No, you put conditions on it. We can’t meet.” So I wrote back to him and I corrected him. I said: “No, no, Prime Minister, you seem to have got this wrong.” I said: “Let’s meet, with no conditions. Let’s at least have a talk about this because this is about public confidence in this process.” It is not about political gain. It is not like Gerry Brownlee’s speech, which was about calling out who has outmanoeuvred whom, who has got this or that point up, and who has scored a particular point.

This is far too important. National Party members might think this is all a big game. They might think it is all about their egos or the Prime Minister’s ego, but this is way more important than that. There are New Zealanders who are deeply concerned about this. There are those who do not want to change because they consider that the current flag is the flag that they identify with as they have gone into conflicts around the world. They are concerned about it, and they must be entitled to have a voice. They should not be rubbished, or talked down, or “outmanoeuvred” as the Government might have it.

We will take this opportunity to ensure that New Zealanders have more choice, but we will also take the opportunity, with the passage of this bill, to ensure that New Zealanders have a real choice. We are not going to overlook the thousands and thousands of New Zealanders who are concerned that they are not being afforded the dignity of being asked the very basic question: “Do you want to change the flag?”. That is the first question New Zealanders should be asked. They should be shown some respect by the Government. They should be shown some respect by this Parliament. We will argue for it and we will put that up in the Supplementary Order Paper during the course of the debate. Then we should let New Zealanders decide. Let New Zealanders make a real choice and a real decision.

This is not about game playing. This is an important exercise that reflects the flavour of New Zealand to the world—our sense of our own identity. It may well be, if the polls are anything to go by, that most New Zealanders are thinking that this is not the time—this is not the time. If that is the sentiment of a large number of New Zealanders and if we are to go through with a referendum and give people the democratic choice, then they should be given a real choice. They should be allowed to answer that question.

Personally, I think it is time we reconsidered our flag. I am prepared to support that change, given that now a referendum is inevitable, but let New Zealanders speak. Let them have their choice. This is not the plaything of 121 politicians. It is not for them to score points and work out who might be smarter than whom. That would be an abomination for such an important issue.

As I have said, we will support this bill. We will argue it all the way though. We will argue for the rights of New Zealanders on such an important issue. It goes to their sense of identity, our identity, what we show around the world, and what we show to ourselves on our occasions of national significance. This is not a matter where anything other than the maximum choice should be given to voters, who decide and give us the responsibility to do what we do. So we will do that. We will hold our heads up high and proud that we have stuck to our principled position, which is that New Zealanders must be given a choice on this issue and must be given their voice. We will argue and take every opportunity to make sure that the ballot papers for this referendum truly reflect that.

If we get to the end of the referendum process and there is no change in the flag and this Government has seen $26 million spent, that will sit firmly at the feet of the Prime Minister and of every single member of the National Party. They have led this country on a silly, foolish folly, a merry dance, and it is an absolute and utter shambles. They cannot sort it out themselves. They are terrified of the electorate of New Zealand.

Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Today I introduced and tried to seek leave for a bill that would include the flag design known as Red Peak in the official referendum happening in about 6 weeks’ time. One party blocked it and did not let New Zealanders have that choice. I respect its opinion and the thousands of New Zealanders who also share its opinion, but I genuinely believe that Kiwis simply want more of a choice. So I would like to thank the Government. I welcome its decision to adopt my bill as a Government bill, the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill. I would like to thank all parties for their support. It is good that we can work together.

Watching politicians over the last couple of weeks, despite the massive groundswell of public support, what we saw during the official consultation process was a handful of people engaged and joke flags uploaded. [Interruption] Yet what we saw over the course of a single week—a single week, Mr O’Rourke—were 50,000 people engaged with a single flag. The fact is that we have seen those people. They have voted with their feet, online, on the petition, and in emails to parliamentarians, and it is good that those people get a choice. If those members think those people should not get a choice, they can stand up and say it in their speeches. I am standing up today so that Kiwis get more of a choice. No matter what that party says, and no matter what the pundits, the columnists, the people on Twitter have said, it is pretty clear that Red Peak has not peaked yet. My bill, which has been adopted by the Government, is about giving Kiwis a choice in the referendum. What we saw was a phenomenal public reaction.

I would like to explain my personal relationship with Red Peak. I will admit that I was incredibly lukewarm on this particular flag at first—incredibly lukewarm. I do not think I would have picked it out of that 10,000. I think my favourite pick was probably the “Laser Kiwi”, which had garnered so much international attention and was such a symbol of the entire process and the seriousness with which the Kiwi public was taking it. But what I saw in respect of the background explanation of this particular flag design, Red Peak, were the words of the designer—the different symbolic interpretations, such as the meeting house over the mountain. What we saw was that it actually built a connection. What many New Zealanders told me is that it actually looked like a flag, unlike, maybe, some of the marketing-type associations people felt with the four official flag choices. What we saw was an incredible 50,000 people in a single week engaged. What we have seen is the public print their own flags and run them up mountains. Garage Project, one of my favourite microbreweries in the entire country, a Wellington-based company, has even made its own Red Peak brew, which I am looking forward to trying if this bill passes, and I am hopeful and optimistic that it will.

My message to the people who may not support Red Peak is that regardless of where you stand, whether you support keeping the existing flag, whether you support having a silver fern, or whether you support Red Peak or something else, this is simply about choice. It is about this House listening to the public and listening to the groundswell of support. What we do know is that a huge percentage of the population do not want to change the flag. We saw that TV3 poll with 70 percent against, and I respect that opinion. A flag is simply a bit of cloth up a pole, but it is also something a bit more than that. It is a symbolic representation on behalf of all of us, and in multicultural modern New Zealand in 2015 we need to make sure we get this right, because our existing flag is more than 100 years old.

What we know is that this referendum process is going ahead. Despite my misgivings—and I do not think that this is the most appropriate use of the Government’s time, or the most appropriate use of $26 million—the fact is that this referendum process is going ahead. That law was passed. My party voted against it; we thought that there were more important priorities. But the referendum process is going ahead, and what I wanted to make sure of was that it was not the farce that it looked like it was turning into, that it was not ignoring those tens of thousands of Kiwis who wanted a say. So, regardless of where you stand, Kiwis will get a say, and, as this law passes, they will get more of a choice, which is a good thing.

When it comes to the $26 million being expended, I think that there are more important things to be spending it on. We should be spending it on feeding every kid a healthy lunch in our schools. There are so many more things that are so much more important. The process was incredibly flawed. We saw 10,000 entries, but many of them were jokes, and a handful of people turned up to the meetings. What we saw was a process that did not truly engage or capture the interest of New Zealanders. An interesting juxtaposition, I think, is Massey University’s Design and Democracy Project Flagpost. For the cost of tens of thousands of dollars, a website was built that genuinely engaged New Zealanders. It gave New Zealanders the ability to actually comment on the flag entries. It gave New Zealanders the ability to vote on the flag entries. In 2015 in modern, digital New Zealand, I am astounded that the flag process did not allow New Zealanders to take advantage of some of these digital technologies and the ability to instantaneously provide feedback, which ultimately would have delivered a better decision than what we saw in the 4 hours of consideration from the group without a designer.

I would also like to point out that Parliament did not have to take this step of going into urgency to pass this today. I am not talking about New Zealand First blocking leave; I am talking about the Government, through Order in Council, amending some of the options, which was always a live option. What we know is that Kiwis care about the flag. They are engaging with it. Many people do not think that it is right to change it, and I am looking forward to hearing their opinions, loud and clear, through the referenda process. But why the Green Party acted today is because we wanted to break that political deadlock. We wanted to offer a constructive, positive solution, because we did not want to just be sitting around watching a political deadlock emerge when we know we could work together. This is what people at home, on Twitter, reading the newspapers, watching the telly wanted to see: they wanted to see parties working together in the common interest. What Parliament is doing tonight is simply about working together to give Kiwis more choice.

In purely practical terms the bill, essentially, does three things. We drafted it incredibly simply. I wanted a simple bill that dealt only with this single issue. I know that other parties feel incredibly strongly about other issues; I respect that. I think that there is great merit in their opinions and I am disappointed that there is not an ability to include them in this bill—because, ultimately, I was looking for a pragmatic solution so that we were not just sitting around playing politics, so that we were not just sitting around talking about it but were actually getting on and giving Kiwis choice. So this bill does three things. It adds a fifth option in clause 4. It is not prejudicing the Governor-General’s ultimate decision-making, so in clause 5 it makes this clear, but the bill has reference to Red Peak in the explanatory statement so that no one can be confused in thinking that the Governor-General could pick the “Laser Kiwi” flag if he chose. Lastly, in amending schedule 4, as set out in clause 7, the bill amends some of the mathematical formulas for the fifth option’s inclusion.

In summary, I would like to say how it is important that this Parliament can work together, that our parties can come together across party lines—and this is something that the Green Party has had as its mission ever since we entered Parliament in 1996. We have worked successfully with Labour when it was in Government. We worked successfully with the current Government through the home insulation legislation and the national cycleway. We have worked with the ACT Party. We are proud of some of the wins we have had with New Zealand First. Our place in this Parliament, literally right in the middle of this debating chamber, is to work with parties. I am proud that my party’s bill was picked up by the Government. I am proud that we could act constructively, positively—that we could maybe put politics aside for a little while so that Kiwis could have the choice that they so clearly desired. Thank you.

I have to concede that I find it utterly bizarre that we find ourselves in this situation today. I just want to traverse what has happened over the past couple of weeks, because I would not want any member of the public to be left in any confusion that it was always within the power of the Prime Minister, John Key, to bring about the resolution that we are debating now. In fact, we are debating it only because the Government has finally put it forward as a bill, something that it could have done 2 weeks ago if it had chosen to do so.

Here is my first question: why did the Government not introduce this bill immediately after the post-Cabinet press conference at which the Prime Minister said that it was something they could support? Why did the Government not introduce this bill then? That is a genuine question we would like to ask. Why, then, did John Key say that he wanted cross-party agreement in order to introduce a fifth option? A cross-party agreement, but minus New Zealand First, I have to say. Apparently it was OK if one party did not agree, but it was not OK if anyone else did. And what was Labour’s response? What was Labour’s response? We said: “Fine.” We said: “Fine, give New Zealanders that extra option. There’s a groundswell pushing for it; let’s do it. But while we’re there, why don’t we also give that huge number of New Zealanders who want to be asked first if they want change that chance, too?”. In order to be constructive, we drafted a bill that would do that—both things: it would add a fifth option and it would put in a yes/no question. We tabled it in Parliament.

At that point, it would have been very easy for the Government to say: “Oh, I see there is agreement from Labour on the fifth option. We don’t agree on the yes/no question, so we won’t vote for that, but we’ll vote for the Red Peak option.” It could have done that. What did it do? It denied leave for that bill to be debated. It said no. We said: “Fine. Well, why don’t we have a meeting and sit down and constructively discuss whether we can make progress on this?”. No preconditions—we wrote it down in a letter to John Key. Let us talk about this—no preconditions. What did the Prime Minister say? No. We were so exasperated at that point by the games that the Prime Minister seemed to be playing that we wrote to him and said: “Fine, if you don’t want to change the law as we’ve suggested, and as you suggested, then why don’t you send it back to the flag consideration panel to trade an option? We’ll support you to do that.” What did he say? No. So do not tell me that Labour has not tried to be constructive in this debate. We have tried multiple times to engage the National Party and the Prime Minister on this issue, and we have been denied at every opportunity. That has been enormously frustrating. No preconditions—I want to restate that there were none whatsoever.

So let us be absolutely clear about the debate that we are having today in this House: the Prime Minister could have instigated it a week ago, but he chose not to. He never ever needed permission from any party to put this bill before the House. What better proof is there of that than the fact that the entire New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill, which set out this whole process, was passed without Labour’s support? He passed the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill in the beginning without Labour’s support, and yet, suddenly, to make an amendment to it, he then claimed that he needed us. I am not sure if John Key has suddenly forgotten, but, sadly, he does still hold a majority in this House. He could have done anything he wanted. Oddly, we actually supported him to make this change, and he still said that he was not going to do it. If anyone else out there is as confused as I am, it is for good reason, because, ultimately, you cannot explain political game-playing. Yet that is what we have seen. This has been a game.

The reason that Labour has been so disappointed in this is that, ultimately, we have been driven by one factor: to give New Zealanders a say—a proper say. Let me be absolutely clear: from the very beginning, I supported having a debate about the flag. I wanted to hear what New Zealanders thought about one of our national symbols. I wanted a debate about who we are as New Zealanders, how we wanted to display ourselves to the world, and where we were going. I would not have minded that debate being part of a much wider constitutional debate; that seemed to be a more appropriate order of things, for me. The Prime Minister did not want to do it that way—so be it—but that is what I hoped for. I also hoped that we would have a debate that was done in such a way that was fiscally prudent and that we kept in mind that in amongst this conversation, we have some very demanding challenges to address, and that includes child poverty. So let us not be silly about the way we conduct this. Yes, I had a problem with $26 million being spent on it—a big problem.

The other thing that I wanted to see in this debate was for it to be genuinely open. Now, I have a view, and my view was coloured by the idea of having change. But am I scared to ask New Zealanders the question first, of whether they want change? No, because I genuinely believe that people should have a voice and have a say regardless of what I think. Does the Prime Minister think that? Clearly not. If he genuinely believed that he could convince people that change was the right thing to do, he would not have been afraid to ask the question: “Do you want change?”. He put up the argument that you could not ask that question without putting the options forward. We agreed—in fact, we always argued that. At the first meeting of parliamentarians that he brought together on this question, we always argued that the first ballot should be laid out like this: “Do you want change: yes or no? If there were to be change, which flag options would you prefer?”. That is ballot No. 1. You get to decide whether you want change within the context of the options. Then we counted it up. If 50 percent say “No. Regardless, I don’t care what it looks like; I do not want change.”, then you do not run round 2. If enough people say yes, then round 2 runs, and it includes the top polling alternative run off against the status quo.

If, for instance, you liked one option but you were not happy with any of the others, then you would get a second say in round 2—that was what Labour advocated. It is also an option that the Ministry of Justice put forward. The Prime Minister keeps saying that he listened to the experts. The experts said that this was a valid option. In fact, almost every party in this House argued for that layout of the referendum, but it was National that said no—it was National that did not want to ask yes or no. As someone who likes the design of Red Peak, I say that I still want to ask people yes or no first. Yes, I want choice, but I want all New Zealanders to have choice. That has always been the position of the Labour Party. So when the Prime Minister said “OK, let’s open up the potential of a fifth option.”, was it unfair of us to say “Yes, let’s do it, but let’s add something else.”? I do not think so. If the Prime Minister disagreed, he could have done that. We still would have voted in favour of Red Peak being an option, which is exactly what we are doing today. What we saw instead was a game.

I am disappointed that this happened, because, ultimately, if we want a genuine debate that carries all New Zealanders, surely we should be inclusive of all of their views. The fact that we have come to this point today demonstrates to me that we have a Prime Minister who did not think about choice, but instead sat back in his office a week ago and faced the genuine reality that he might have no change in flag. He sat there and decided that at least Red Peak represented change. So he is hedging his bets. I wish it was not so cynical but I think that is exactly what has happened. I am disappointed that it has happened this way. Yes, I supported Red Peak. Labour has supported choice from the very, very beginning. We have done it, I think, in the right way by New Zealanders. We wanted everyone to have choice, and that continues to be our position today. Thank you.

You know, you have to hand it to the Green Party, which has played this amendment with a very straight bat. It has listened to public opinion, which has been running pretty red hot around Red Peak. There has been an awful lot of discussion online, and there has been discussion through all sorts of the media, and it really has set this process even more alight than it already was. So in this instance I want to congratulate the member in charge, the member who attempted to introduce this bill, which was regrettably blocked by New Zealand First but which has the support of the rest of the House. I want to say congratulations to the Green Party because it was prepared to have an open mind in this debate. It was prepared to listen to what was happening out in New Zealand about this debate, and so too has this Government. We have been prepared to listen to what the people have had to say about this flag debate, we have been prepared to support this bill, this simple little bill that previously was brought to the House by Gareth Hughes, the Green member, and we are prepared to add another option on to the referendum paper.

It seems like such a simple thing to do, and it is a simple thing to do, because what we have done is said: “Yes, OK.” Under the consideration process the panel has put up four alternatives, which is what was prescribed in the first referendums Act. What the people of New Zealand have said is: “Yeah, OK, all right. There are probably some quite good options in there, and we all have our favourites—or not.” But what the people of New Zealand have then said is “Well, actually, there is another one that we really like.”, and they have been prepared to get out there and to support that choice. So let us do it. Let us give the people of New Zealand an extra choice in the second referendum. All we really need to look at is the schedule, which has added another option. Option A, option E—who knows—it will be one of those. I think it is an elegant solution, I think it is a simple solution, and I do congratulate the Greens on bringing that to the House.

I also want to congratulate the other members of this Parliament who are supporting this initiative, because this is about what we think about ourselves as New Zealanders. What says “New Zealand” to the rest of the world? That is what we should be arguing about today. That is where the debate is at: it is about where we see ourselves as New Zealand.

Finally, in this first contribution I just want to talk about the yes/no argument that has crippled Labour so badly throughout this process. It has had this argument; it has lost this argument. It did not have the support of the House. The House has moved on. The people of New Zealand have well and truly moved on from Labour’s position. Regrettably, Labour has not, and it will show that again and again and again throughout the course of this debate. What I say to Labour, and what I say to the people of New Zealand, is, yes, you do get the yes/no option, but guess what? It is an informed choice, and that is a good thing.

Can I say that listening to Gareth Hughes’ speech actually underlined some very important components of what this referendum is about. Gareth Hughes started by saying that the flag that appealed to him most of all was the “Laser Kiwi”. I can appreciate Mr Hughes liking that flag, but as he thought about it and progressed or engaged in the process, he said that the flag that he now supports—evident by the motion that he brought to the House today—is Red Peak.

I believe that what is important in this referendum process is exactly what Gareth has shown: that there is an engagement process of New Zealanders being invited to think, to engage, to discuss, to debate, to disagree, and then to choose. The reason why I did not, and do not today, support the yes/no vote proposal is simply because it is the process of least engagement—it is the least engagement.

A yes/no vote is “Do you want to change the flag without ever considering what the opportunities or possibilities are and going through the process?”—because that is what is being purported. I think that having a choice means a choice between alternatives, and the referendum process promotes alternatives for people to consider. So many people whom I talk to say: “It will depend on what the alternative is whether I am going to choose between the present New Zealand flag or a future New Zealand flag.” I think that is important.

I also believe that this is a chance where New Zealanders can engage in this process and not just looking at an emblem of the past but consider what sort of emblem and what icons bring us together as a modern New Zealand that represents nationalities, ethnicities, and age ranges right through this country, which is considerably different from what it was 10 years ago. This is a very exciting proposal.

You know, we have been attacked left and right for having a public process that costs money. The public of New Zealand may not know that it costs $1,472 per minute to run this Parliament, and that is $2 million a day. Democracy is expensive, but what we value are the thoughts, the ideas, the imagination, the goodwill, and the engagement of New Zealanders right through this country about this process—the young and old.

Is it not amazing that schools are engaged in this process? We know that the schoolchildren do not have a chance to vote, but they do have a chance to influence their parents. So I think that that is a great thing.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I think that what we are doing right now is that we are increasing engagement, and I think in a democracy in a free country, where we value everybody’s ideas, that is a good thing.

New Zealand First will definitely vote against this shonky legislation. I want to talk first of all about the Electoral Commission and the requirements of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Act because this bill violates that process, which is actually already under way. The commission—and the Government, I might say—has a duty to uphold it, but under this shonky Government it has no chance of doing so. Everybody else, of course, does have to obey the law, but John Key—with the tame compliance of the Greens and Labour, I am sad to say—simply overrides all that for his own convenience.

John Key and his assistants have already been in breach of the requirements of the regulatory period many times. That period began on 16 August, and soon after that the Prime Minister and his assistants began contacting the media to provide information to support flag alternatives. They have been responding to media for the same purpose, they have been arranging meetings and opportunities for the Prime Minister to promote the flag alternatives, and they have certainly been writing material for the Prime Minister to use. And yes, oh yes, they will say that it is the Prime Minister’s own words—yeah, right! His own words—only the gullible would believe that, so why has the Electoral Commission not already acted against the Prime Minister and those people? You could not imagine a worse-policed process.

This bill makes a mockery of the parliamentary system. We are passing a bill with a Government majority in one month, and then using urgency to override it in the next while the process is already in train, not because it is in the best interests of good government or in the best interests of New Zealand—nor is it a sound democratic process—but solely for the National Government’s political interests. The New Zealand Flag Referendums Act, as we know, and the process, is deeply unpopular, so this is nothing more than a backside-saving measure without peer by this Government.

This bill will throw away the $8 million already spent to date. In John Key’s view, this is “not a lot of money”, but the prudent people of New Zealand will not agree, because they expect good government with careful spending of public money, not this kind of waste. That money, as we know, could have been better spent on many things: better health services, more State houses, and so on. Not only is this process now a gross farce but John Key wants to pay the piper and play the tune. He employed a very expensive panel to choose the final four designs for the first referendum, but now he says that he knows better.

And where will it stop? Will there be another bill next week, the week after, or the week after that to add another poll-driven alternative? John Key wants to second-guess his own expert panel and add his new favourite, the so-called Red Peak. He has said much about the expertise of the Flag Consideration Panel, but now that is cast aside. He has said much about the two-referendum process being the best for Kiwis to participate in and to suggest designs, but he also now treats that with disdain. He originally said much about this being a non-political process, not dictated by politicians, but it is now utterly controlled by the Key Government, and, sadly, with the collusion of both the Greens and the Labour Party, which are going to actually vote for this bill, which I cannot understand. Labour and the Greens usually favour good government and democracy, so I think that it is a shame that they have decided to vote for this bill.

This is a completely media-driven bill. It has been carefully designed so that it will attract public attention, to take attention away from a failing economy and gross social, economic, and environmental mismanagement by one of the worst Governments in the country’s history. With this bill, the whole sorry process has become a poll-driven farce—a five-flag farce. John Key knows he is on a hiding to nothing, with the flag referendum clearly going against him. The vast majority hates the white feather of cowardice designs put up so far—some call it a silver fern, but it clearly is not—and nothing can save this referendum process now. The Red Peak has been touted by some as that saviour, but the online poll upon which it is based has absolutely no integrity. New Zealand First has already had one person who said to us, point-blank, that they have so far voted three times in that poll on the internet, and goodness knows how many people have voted goodness knows how many times. So people who call that a groundswell are deluding themselves—that, it is not.

This is the shonky way we are now expected to choose a new flag for this country. It could not be a worse process. It will become the laughing stock of the Western World and we will become new prime material for television and for the stand-up comedians, with our grinning Prime Minister being parodied far and wide. And he will deserve it, but New Zealand does not. John Key is now grasping at straws—or perhaps red peaks—to save his pet flag project and, in the process, has so compromised that process that it will now go down as his worst failure. The new flag idea has become not legacy, but legless, and is a prelude to the loss by the National Government of the 2017 election. But the Prime Minister does not care any more for his preferred logo, which was a black flag with what I think is a white feather on it. It was parodied as being far too close to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria flag by comedian John Oliver on worldwide television.

John Key has never cared about the dignity of the current flag. He does not care about its history, he does not care about its heritage, and he does not care about the fact that it truly represents the fundamental bicultural nature of Kiwi nationalism through the Union flag in one corner along with the Southern Cross on the Pacific blue of Polynesia on the other side.

The introduction of this bill will bring disgrace on this Parliament for the very bad process and very bad governance that the bill represents. One could not imagine how to actually set up a worse process than this. First of all, we criticised the original legislation because of the bad process in it. This addition to it makes it five times, 10 times, or 100 times worse because what it shows is that the process set out in the original legislation can be disregarded, and a Government with enough votes can simply add whatever flag it wants, irrespective of the judgment of the expert panel and of the hundreds of people who suggested designs and the hundreds of people who wanted their designs considered. But this Government is going to choose only one of those, with little or no justification, and add it to the current four. And that is not good enough. This process will bring shame on the most arrogant Government this nation has ever seen for the way it is behaving in the whole referendum process.

The Government is now in a blind panic over the misfiring of what is supposed to be John Key’s legacy project, and it is a Government that will stop at nothing to save its burnt bacon—a Government that is prepared to play games with New Zealand’s democracy. I think the people of New Zealand will give only one answer to all of that. That answer will be a resounding no, and it is a no that this process and this Government deeply deserve.

It is interesting that this is marking 1 year since the recent election—1 year since the people have spoken and this House listened. The people have spoken that they wanted five alternatives and not four, very similar to 1 year ago when the people spoke and said they wanted this National Government. The reason they wanted this National Government is that this National Government listens to the people, and this bill, this New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill, is an example of this Government listening to the people. It is an example of this Government working collaboratively with other parties, and I commend Gareth Hughes for putting this bill forward.

This bill shows that we will put politics aside to listen to what the people want, and that is exactly what we have done. When you talk about this process—this logical process—it makes sense to first identify the alternative flag, and that is exactly the process this will take. We will identify the alternative flag—now we have five alternatives; I must say there will be many Cantabrians excited that they will have an option that is now red and black—and from the alternatives selected we can go to the next referendum and put it up head-to-head against our current flag.

What this bill does is it gives the people of New Zealand choice. This is about democracy. This is a once-in-a-generation, once-in-a-lifetime chance for the people of New Zealand to choose. When I go out into my electorate of Waimakariri and I listen to my constituents there are people saying yes and there are people saying no, and that is fantastic, because what this will give them is an opportunity to get out there and vote and choose what flag best represents New Zealand.

That is why it is fantastic to see this Government working with the Green Party—the start of a blue-green movement—to think about how we can better listen to the people of New Zealand. [Interruption] You would think that that party opposite would have listened last time, when it had its second-worst electoral loss because the people did not think it had listened to them, and that is why I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

The next call is a split call. Dr Kennedy Graham—5 minutes.

This is an unusual moment for the Parliament of New Zealand. It is a rare thing for a country to consider a change of national flag, and it is rarer still for it to change course in the midst of the process by which it chose to do so. But this is what we have been forced to do. By a twist of fate we find ourselves obliged to have Parliament intervene in the process, just 8 weeks ahead of the first referendum, to increase the number of new flags the public can choose from.

How did we come to this strange situation? In initiating the debate in the first reading the Deputy Prime Minister, as Minister in charge of the process, advanced a few high-sounding phrases. He said: “it is now an appropriate time for the debate about the New Zealand flag to be resolved through a careful and considered process,”. A cross-party group would advise on the legislation and recommend a panel to choose the flags. The panel would be independent because, as he put it, “the process here is as important as the result.” The choice of flag, he said, “is not a matter for Parliament and it is not a matter for Cabinet; it is a matter for the panel.” That was on 12 March; 6 months later Parliament sees fit to intervene to add a fifth flag to the four that the panel, exercising its best judgment, had already chosen from more than 10,000 designs.

So why is Parliament intervening at this late stage? For two reasons: because it can, and because it should. Parliament can intervene because it is the sovereign body of this country. Parliament is the ultimate authority, elected by the people and from which the Government is chosen. It decided on a process for choosing the flag, and if it judges it to be sufficiently important it can alter that process, even mid-course. It can change the legislation by which the process was launched, provided the process has not terminated. There will be those who criticise Parliament if it decides to do this, but there is no one who can accurately say that the Parliament lacks the right to do so. The process we are considering today, therefore, is constitutionally proper.

So to the second question: is the process politically sound? Should Parliament be moving to amend the legislation at this late stage? In the second reading, the Minister called for a continuation of “a formal, careful, and respectful process”. Is the vision of Parliament intervening in the decision of how many flags to choose from part of a formal, careful, and consistent process, or is it informal, careless, and inconsistent? Is it impugning the integrity of the panel? In our view, Parliament should intervene. This is not to criticise the panel or any of its members, who have, in our view, done a sound job. Their integrity is not brought into question by adding a fifth flag. The fact that 4.4 million citizens have 4.4 million views on the choice of the four flags was always a given.

What has changed is that an unexpected phenomenon has occurred. Unexpectedly, a groundswell of opinion has emerged in favour of one flag, which was among the 40 but not among the final four. Over 50,000 signed a petition for Red Peak. Should Parliament heed the views of 50,000 people and alter the legislation to add Red Peak? Yes, it should. Democratic life is about choice. Democratic life is about leaders listening to and responding to the people. An unexpected phenomenon has occurred, and Parliament has a right to respond. So in circumstances as rare as this we have the rare phenomenon of the Green and National parties collaborating to respond to the will of the people. So be it.

The Hon Annette King—5 minutes.

I have to say today that I am ashamed of the way that this Government and this House are going about making a change to the flag of New Zealand. This is the worst example of political posturing that I have seen in this House in many, many years. We are told that we are responding to the wants and needs of New Zealanders. What hogwash—what hogwash. New Zealanders have not said that they want to change the flag, and that is the fundamental question that should have been asked first. Do New Zealanders want to change the flag? That is where you start from in any argument. So when we are told that we are responding to what New Zealanders want, I do not believe it. When Kennedy Graham said that Parliament has been forced to intervene in the process, he is right, because the process has been an unprecedented shambles. It has been poorly thought through. It has been poll-driven fruitcakes over there thinking that they need to make changes—just like they do on everything—based not on principles or ideals but on what the polls tell them.

The polls, if they had been listening, were telling them two things, but one more strongly than the other. Yes, people wanted more choice. They wanted another option—one that arose out of the fact that they did not like the four that had been put up. So they then looked around at the 40 or so designs and said “We like that one better.”, and then a groundswell of over 50,000 people signed a petition. But what Government members have not listened to are the more than 50,000 people who have said: “We don’t want change at all. We haven’t been asked if we want change, but, actually, we don’t.” What was interesting to me was that in question time today, the Prime Minister went on about how wonderful National riding high in the TV3 poll was. He quoted the TV3 poll, did he not? But did he then quote the part of the poll that asked New Zealanders whether they wanted to change the flag? Did he believe that part of the poll? In that part, 70 percent said no, they did not—70 percent said no, they did not.

💬 Tim Macindoe: The vote was 70-plus percent who voted for it last year.

I say to the member for Hamilton West: they did not want to change the flag. So I think that Denis O’Rourke was actually right when he said that this is a backside-saving bill. But I do not think it will, because the Prime Minister’s arrogant, high-handed way of handling this has been seen by many New Zealanders as bullying, dismissive, arrogant, and dressed up as what New Zealanders want. Well, I see it as shabby, shonky, and a shambles. We have seen U-turns, we have seen twists, we have seen deceit, and we have seen political conniving, from the panel that was set up right through to the legislation that has been brought here.

So Labour will vote for the Greens-inspired bill, but I say to the Greens that if they are listening to what New Zealanders want, they will vote for Labour’s Supplementary Order Paper, because that also says: “Ask the question whether people want to change the flag.” I say to all parties—we will not get support from the National Party members; they have already turned it down, but every other party: Peter Dunne, the ACT Party, the Māori Party, and every other party—if you really want to give New Zealanders choice, you will vote for the Supplementary Order Paper that we have put up. It is very simple. It says: “Should New Zealand keep its current flag, or should New Zealand change to another flag.” You could not get more simple than that.

So I say to members: let us give New Zealanders choice. We want choice and they want choice, but they want the choice of that question as well. If the National Party members do not want to vote for it, there are enough votes in this Parliament, with every other party, to pass this bill. Then we will be giving New Zealanders a real choice—what they are saying to us. Some of us have listened to our constituents, but I suspect that many members over there have been hoodwinked by the man who walks on water, in their eyes—their Prime Minister. If they listened to their constituents, more of them—and certainly, Mr Young, in your electorate, I bet you have not been near the RSA lately, because if you went there, they would say: “Give us the choice of whether we change it or not.” I urge members to vote for this bill and also to vote for Labour’s Supplementary Order Paper.

Annette King, I think, knows a lot better than that because it was not that long ago that Andrew Little was standing up and seeking leave to introduce his own bill to do exactly what we are trying to do here, which is to give New Zealanders the fifth option, the Red Peak design, in which, through social media—and the media have been campaigning on it—a strong interest has been shown. We will find out just exactly how strong that interest is once New Zealanders get the opportunity to vote not too long in the future.

New Zealanders should have that opportunity to vote. For Labour members to be opposing this bill, crying crocodile tears, and saying everything is a disaster when they were trying to do something very similar not that long ago is, I think, quite deplorable. This bill, which we are debating today under urgency, is all about giving New Zealanders that opportunity to vote. We have an established process. We have a process whereby there will be a two-stage referendum. That has been debated in this Parliament and has been voted on. It has been communicated to the public for many, many months, and that is exactly what is going to happen.

In fact, having the option to vote on the flag has been debated for well over a year. The Prime Minister raised this before the election. Labour members say that we are going against the wishes of New Zealanders. Well, I point out, firstly, that that is something we will find out for sure in a few months’ time, and, secondly, that we had an election campaign. Labour members continue to stand up in this House and complain about things that we are doing as a Government when we said before the election we would be doing exactly that. Do elections not mean anything to the Opposition members anymore? Do they not care about the outcome of election campaigns? Do they not think that statements made before election campaigns should have any credibility? We do. We said that we would be doing this and that is exactly what we are doing. I have to say I am not a fan of Red Peak myself. I think it is an unusual collection of coloured triangles that I will certainly not be voting for, but if there is strong interest in it—and this has been demonstrated—then that is what New Zealanders should have an opportunity to vote on, and they will get that opportunity.

Before I sit down I want to say that the Green Party should be congratulated on playing this with a straight bat. They have done that on this occasion. We cannot say the same for all of the parties sitting on that side. Well, New Zealand First has been consistent the whole way through and the Greens have been playing this one with a straight bat. But the Labour Party is flip-flopping again. It is saying one thing, but a few weeks ago it was doing something completely different. There are parties on that side that have integrity, and I congratulate them on that. We believe that New Zealanders should have the choice and that is what we are giving them here.

That was an interesting little speech from the junior whip from the National Party and it followed, I think, a number of speeches, some of which bordered on the sanctimonious. I think we need to look really carefully at the options that we are putting before New Zealanders. We see a Prime Minister who is prepared to move on the basis of a petition of 50,000-odd people, and a Green Party that is prepared to support him in that, to support a flag that many of my colleagues like but I actually think is rubbish. Many of us like it, but I think it is rubbish. But, apparently, National is not prepared to follow the petition of more than 50,000 or the people who submitted to the select committee. There were 14,000 people who submitted to the select committee that there should be a yes/no vote; 700 of them asked to be heard, and there was a whole pile of RSA-based separate points. The Green Party members are so much up on process, but they were not prepared in the Justice and Electoral Committee or in this House to follow the democratic process and to let New Zealanders have a yes/no vote.

I want to point out to the Green Party members that not one of their members of Parliament would be in this House—and many National Party members would not be in this House—if there had not been an MMP referendum with a yes/no vote. From memory, 85 percent of New Zealanders said that they wanted to vote for change. But what I understand is that the Green Party is going to join the National Party and John Key, who said that New Zealanders are not bright enough and could not understand, and that the process would be too complicated if they were asked yes or no. Well, that was the process that brought us MMP. It is a process that I think, generally, has worked pretty well, but unfortunately the main beneficiaries of that process are rejecting it with some sanctimonious, non-constitutional claptrap that we are hearing now.

Kennedy Graham knows full well that the Prime Minister has had all the power ever since the legislation was passed to include Red Peak if he wished to. It is a matter of an Order in Council. It is very, very simple for him to do that if he wanted to. Ever since he pretended that he wanted to have Red Peak on the ballot he has had the ability to bring a bill to this Parliament, and right through the process we have said that we will support it. What we have also said is that we will add to that—and we want to be added and we will vote for and we will debate and we will push for—the right of New Zealanders to say at the beginning of the process “No, we don’t want a change.” and thereby save $7 million. I know it is not much to Green Party members and it is not much to National Party members, but Labour Party members say that $7 million spent on food for children or houses or decent insulation for people who need it is a much better use of $7 million than a referendum that 70 percent of New Zealanders say that they do not want. I say shame on the Green Party.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kia ora mai tātou, tēnā tātou katoa. Members, when we adjourned for the dinner break we were debating the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill. The Hon Trevor Mallard was speaking, and he has 6 minutes remaining to speak should he wish to avail himself of that opportunity.

Six minutes—that is so generous of you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think as I completed my speech I was making some comments about the Greens and their approach to it, and I will go back to that, but I do want to note how the Government is treating this legislation with contempt. The major promoter of the flag change did not speak once on any stage of the substantive legislation when it went through the House. He has not so far spoken on this bill, and without pushing too hard at the conventions, he has not even deigned to listen to any of the speeches in this House. I think that that is a disgrace.

We had chaos at the introduction of the bill. Gerry Brownlee, the Leader of the House, was not here to move the urgency motion. The member in charge of the bill, the Hon Bill English, was not here to make his speech. There were no notes provided for Mr Brownlee to speak, and, frankly, the National Party approach to this has been lacking.

💬 Hon Member: Woeful.

Lacking, woeful—woeful, I think, is an understatement. I do want to go back to the Greens, from whom we had a combination of the high and mighty “We are between all of you and we can sort out the problems of the world.” from Gareth Hughes and an approach that I think might be best described as a pretty poor constitutional bush lawyer approach from Kennedy Graham. I want to ask them why they were not straight with the House. They did a deal with the National Party to not support the yes/no vote—to not support the Labour Party on it. That is the party that pretends to be transparent, that pretends to be straightforward, but its members could not stand up in the House and say: “We have made an agreement with the National Party not to support the Labour Party amendments.” We would have disagreed with them, it would have been wrong, but it would have been honest and straightforward. That is something that the Greens pride themselves on. They tell themselves that they always take that approach, but in this particular instance the principles have fallen away to the pragmatism.

I do want to specifically address the bill. I know we will get into it at the Committee stage, but I see that the member in charge of the bill is here now and he can, if he wishes, take a call. I want to ask him: why five options? Why five and not six? John Key clearly prefers the Rugby Union’s silver fern flag. Why can the Prime Minister not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for the design that he believes is the appropriate design and the one that he would like to have on the ballot paper? Why do we not have six? In fact, we are going to help the Prime Minister. We are going to move an amendment during the Committee stage to have the ability, if the Government changes its mind yet again, to have six options and not five.

The next question I want to ask is: who drafted this rubbish—who drafted this rubbish? We have got an explanatory note on this bill that, frankly, if it went before anyone who looked at misleading advertising, would be found guilty of being misleading, because what it says is it puts Red Peak in, or may put Red Peak in. Well, actually, it does not. All it does is increase the number of options from five to four. The note says that the bill adds another one to the ones that came from the panel. It does not. Actually, the way the bill is drafted you could have five completely different designs coming out of the Order in Council process that this bill allows.

💬 Clayton Mitchell: Order in Council.

In this case, I say to the member there, there is an Order in Council process here without reverting to a previous bit of legislation. There is a difference between a ministerial statement and an Order in Council. After the member has been here for a little time he will understand the difference. He will understand.

But I do want to get back to the essential point that the Government has agreed on the basis of a petition of 40,000 to 50,000 people to have another flag go in. It had a petition and a submission process that had far more Kiwis than that who wanted to have a yes/no vote. We have the unfortunate situation of a group of members of Parliament who are only here because of a yes/no vote—I think 85 percent of New Zealanders voted at the first ballot to move towards MMP—and they are agreeing with the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister said that it is too confusing for New Zealanders to make the decision as to whether they want a change. It is a pack of nonsense, and although we will support the voting on this bill we will put up lots of alternatives to make it better.

There has been a great deal in the contribution of Hon Trevor Mallard that I would like to refute but I am going to start by saying that the process we are following here is on the basis of the best advice provided by officials who are independent of the Government. That is a very important process.

The second thing that I would like to put on record is the fact that just before and, in fact, after the dinner adjournment Mr Mallard attacked the Green Party. Well, could I simply say to the Green Party that tonight I salute you for the fact that I think you have been both constructive and pragmatic in trying to find a very sensible way forward to ensure that the vast majority of people in New Zealand can feel positive about this process—particularly Gareth Hughes, whom I know has worked hard and under some time pressure. I want to acknowledge him and thank him for that constructive approach.

Mr Mallard made the point, or rather he suggested, that 70 percent of New Zealanders do not want this option. I can only assume he did that on the basis of the poll that showed 69 percent would retain the current flag. But what he, of course, was quite disingenuously ignoring is the fact that his party and our National Party went to the election last year with a policy that we would have exactly the process that we are now having and three out of four New Zealanders voted for this process, so in fact more than 70 percent supported exactly what we are doing here. That is far more important because that is the people of New Zealand having their say in a general election.

Could I say how disappointed I was this afternoon to hear the contribution of Ron Mark in the general debate. When a member of this House suggests that the Red Peak flag is a Nazi symbol, I think he is hitting a new low. There is absolutely no one in this House, not one member, who has any Nazi sympathies whatsoever. To suggest that is an argument is so intellectually and morally bereft that, frankly, that member should not be here at all. To resort to that sort of argument shows that he really had no argument at all.

I have also been very disappointed to hear Labour and some New Zealand First members attack the integrity of the Flag Consideration Panel. When you have people of the high standing and enormous contribution to our country of Professor John Burrows, Sir Brian Lochore, Beatrice Faumuina, the former Chief of Defence Force Rhys Jones, and all the other fine New Zealanders on the very representative panel of New Zealanders who served with them, being attacked by Opposition members I think it is a very sad day indeed.

I want to thank them for the terrific service they have given to our nation across a whole range of activities but particularly in this particular exercise, which I think they have approached with diligence and integrity. They deserve to be respected and thanked, not chastised and demeaned in this House.

There are other things that I would like to say. Let me just finish tonight by pointing out that I am wearing a badge that is 113 years old. Underneath the stylised poppy that we all now know—and that, intriguingly, has the silver fern on it, which recognises that it is the silver fern on the graves of New Zealanders who have served and died in battle—I am also wearing a badge that belonged to my grandfather Charles Grierson Macindoe. He, as a very young man, went to the Boer War. It will not surprise members to hear that I never met my grandfather; he died long before I was born. But at the end of his service he was given this silver fern, and along with his Boer War medals, which I wore proudly on Anzac Day for the first time this year, this Boer War badge has a silver fern with “South Africa” written across it. It must be at least 113 years old. That is why I personally am so strongly in favour of seeing the silver fern on our flag.

But tonight we are acknowledging the fact that there is a significant number of New Zealanders who have said they want a bit more variety in the choice in the referendum process. The Greens have picked that up and worked constructively with the Government. I am delighted to support this measure, and I thank them for their good work.