New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill

I move, That the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill be now read a second time. It has been interesting to hear some of the strongly expressed views in the House, including some of the deranged views referred to by my colleague Tim Macindoe in his last speech.

I just want to comment briefly on how this bill has come about. We have found the Greens disruptive and ungrateful to deal with. We have found that it does not really matter what you do with them, and whether it is successful or not, the effort is ultimately greeted with personal invective and the grabbing of all the credit and attacks on the National Party. That is our experience. That is why we took seriously the one constructive thing I can think of that they have come up with in the last 5 or 6 years. Because, as difficult, disruptive, and ungrateful as they are—and, occasionally, dangerous—it turns out that they are less so than the Labour Party.

💬 Jonathan Young: It’s the new Greens.

Well, the Labour Party has managed to make—it is not that we have managed to make the Greens look constructive; it is that the Labour Party has managed to make the Greens look statesmanlike. Labour members have managed to make the Greens look like they care about how New Zealand is represented to the world. They have managed to make the Greens almost look like they can see something larger than this week’s political point-scoring to be rated by the twitterati, which is the world that the Labour Party is caught up in.

The leader of the Labour Party was presented by the Prime Minister, in his generous way—sometimes too generous—with an opportunity. He could have grasped it. He could have said that the Prime Minister has indicated that the Government is a bit flexible about what is on the ballot, and there is a surge of unexpected but, clearly, strong popular support for the Red Peak flag. He could have said in the interests of making sure New Zealanders have a wider range of choice, reflecting the fact that most of them paid no attention to this process until it was almost too late, that Labour would work with the Government to ensure that Red Peak goes on the ballot, but Labour did not do it. It could not do it, because Grant Robertson keeps dragging that leader down.

From the opportunity to show a larger view about the country, a bigger view above politics, which any Prime Minister has to do—the rest of us do not, but a Prime Minister occasionally has to look like his main concern is the nation, not his caucus. His main concern is how New Zealand is represented, not whether the Women’s Weekly is going to decide who is the deputy of the Labour Party.

So Mr Little listened, unfortunately—I think probably against his better nature, actually—to his advisers and decided to play politics. Why? Because in the Labour Party caucus, there are—I do not know how many of them are; there is a lot fewer than there used to be—35 votes or something, but if Trevor Mallard is against it, that decides what happens. Mr Mallard was obsessed about whether there is a yes/no vote upfront and the advisers, whose instincts are still those of student politics—that is, let us score some political point and try to keep this thing going about how the flag is all about John Key—the Labour members then all of sudden found themselves irrelevant because of all those internal forces that prevent them dealing with any issue in a sensible way, let alone something that was a bit demanding—that is the flag issue.

All I can say from our experience of dealing with a range of parties across this Parliament is you really have to mess it up to make the Greens look constructive. You really do. I mean, with New Zealand First, you do not expect anything positive. You know not to because it does not follow the same kind of logic that every other political party does, so you just put it to one side.

To make the Greens look constructive and positive, you really have to mess it up. That is what is telling about this debate, because this is meant to be the future Government, actually. It is meant to be—and I know this is not the time to debate that, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are probably going to stop me.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well read.

But all I want to say is that it has worked out pretty well in the practical way that New Zealand can work these things out.

I have overseen the flag consideration process.

💬 Grant Robertson: Well, now we know why it’s been such a shambles.

Well, I am very happy. I stood at the press conference to launch it, as I did with the constitutional process. It is actually, run by the same person, Professor John Burrows.

The flag consideration process was set up to depoliticise it. That was the whole point. The whole point was to have a process that the politicians do not stand over with all their manipulations and manoeuvring. I mean, we can handle a political process well, but, clearly, the Opposition and left-wing parties cannot because they do not know how to do anything without being threatening, manipulative, and telling only half the story. So that is why we did it that way.

It is a difficult task, and I know there are people saying: “This designer has an opinion and they got it wrong this way, and that one says they got it wrong that way.” Well, you know, all of them are right, of course. Of course, the panel did not get it right in the sense that everyone is happy with what they chose, but that is what they chose, and we have followed the process. Cabinet accepted its recommendations and those four flags have gone on the ballot.

I am sure, actually, from the preponderance of the fern, that the panel—or pretty sure—must have been influenced by some expression of public opinion, and now there has been another expression of public opinion. We have had the choice of sticking with the completely independent, objective process—which at least will have the satisfaction of irritating the member for Hutt South, if nothing else—and just sticking with it. But, actually, there has been this strong expression of opinion, and the Prime Minister has indicated—and now Parliament actually—that Red Peak is going to go on the ballot.

I think this is an important point. Gradually, the public are taking this issue off Parliament, and I think that it is a very good thing. As long as it has been considered and has been part of the to and fro, the Opposition is going to insist that it is all about John Key, and so on. The fact is that Parliament has voted for a referendum. It has voted the referendum process in. There will be votes. It does not matter what Grant Robertson thinks. There will be two votes. They are going to happen. More and more of the public are starting to understand what a historic opportunity it is to make a choice.

Actually, none of us will decide, because in the referendum we get one vote each. That is it—one vote. I want to acknowledge the fact that the Greens understand that. The Labour Party does not understand, and possibly never will under the current leadership team that it has. The Greens wanted to give the public more choice, and, actually, a radically different one.

I never thought of Red Peak being a good flag. I do not think the Flag Consideration Panel did. This is how you can do it in a small country. But it is just a shame that the Labour Party remains, as it will right through this process, incurably political about it.

Who knows what would happen—how New Zealanders would vote—if there was a future Labour Government? Given Labour members’ vindictive, politicised, manipulative DNA, it is quite possible they will try to overturn the result of a process like this, whereas I know the Greens would not. I know the Greens would not.

💬 Grant Robertson: For goodness’ sake! Grow up.

Oh, so Labour would not overturn it? OK, so let us just get this. It is for changing the flag, but against actually having a vote to do it. It does not like any of the flags that are there because everyone is against change, but if it does change, it will not overturn it. Well, at least that is a positive result out of that contorted logic.

So I am pleased that Parliament has this opportunity. I think the public will be pleased. I want to acknowledge the unexpected role that the Greens have played and the way that it has shown up the limitations of the Labour Party.

I think if anyone watching wanted an illustration of just who it is who is playing political games with this process, they would have learnt that from the nasty, patronising, graceless speech that the Deputy Prime Minister has just given. The Green Party might choose to reflect on the tone of the speech that Mr English just gave in this House and just what it is that it has created through this position today—the bill being here today. I do not think I have heard in this House, from someone in the position of being the Deputy Prime Minister, a more graceless speech than the one that I have just heard. It was disgraceful.

As other speakers have noted, Labour is supporting the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill. We are doing that because it does give more choice to people in the referendum process. The public want more choice in this process. As members of the House know, Labour attempted to introduce a piece of legislation to do exactly this—to add Red Peak into the referendum process. Along with that, as we have done consistently through this flag referendum process, we have asked for a yes/no vote to be added first. We proposed that piece of legislation; it was rejected. We have played, and attempted to play, a constructive role in this process from day one. There was a cross-party—

💬 Tim Macindoe: Nothing your party has done is constructive.

Mr Macindoe wants to deny this, but there was a cross-party group that, with the exception of one political party in this House, attempted to make a significant constitutional process, one that all parties in Parliament were part of. That group, with the exception of the National Party members, wanted a yes/no vote, but other parties wanted a yes/no vote first. We continue to believe that that is what will give New Zealanders the choice that they are looking for. This piece of legislation contributes to having more choice in this process, but the real choice that New Zealanders wanted—the choice that more people signed a petition for than signed for Red Peak—was to have a yes/no question, and that has been denied. It is of great disappointment to the Labour Party members that as part of striking a deal to get this legislation introduced, other parties in Parliament—and the Green Party in particular—will not support our amendment to have that yes/no vote. We find that extremely disappointing.

I want to take us back to how it is we find ourselves in urgency doing this legislation, because it has been within the power of the Government to move legislation, exactly as it has done tonight, at any point in the last few weeks. The Government commands a majority in this House. At any point it could have done that but, instead, John Key has chosen to play political games. Bear in mind it is less than a week ago that John Key said he could not possibly introduce exactly this legislation unless Labour supported him. He said that. He said there was no way it could be done—that it was impossible. That is complete nonsense and political rhetoric, but that is what John Key was saying less than a week ago. He said he could not move unless Labour supported him. There is no history of that in this process. When the original legislation went through, it did so without Labour voting for it, and without the Green Party voting for it, in fact. So some notion that Labour had to be on board with including Red Peak in the referendum is completely ridiculous.

This is the track record of the Prime Minister. Here I am, watching 3 News tonight, and there they go, replaying from The Paul Henry Show on 7 September the Prime Minister ruling out Red Peak entering the referendum. He stated: “We’re not going back to Parliament to change the law.” That is what he said. So if anyone is playing politics here tonight, it is National. The Government could have used an Order in Council to put in Red Peak—it could have done that. It chose not to do that. The Government could have come to this House with legislation exactly like this, to include a fifth flag, which apparently will become Red Peak although that is not actually what the law says. But it did not. The Government chose not to because the Prime Minister was playing political games with this issue. That is the truth of it. It has been the truth of it all the way through.

💬 Tim Macindoe: It’s the Labour Party playing political games, and you know it.

Tim Macindoe says that we are playing political games. We have had the consistent position of a yes/no referendum, have we not, Mr Macindoe? We have had the consistent position of a yes/no referendum—yes, we have. We have had a consistent position of a yes/no referendum. The political game is that John Key now needs to rescue his referendum.

The truth is that the four flags that were chosen by the Flag Consideration Panel are not going to work. He knows that. There was a TV3 poll, and 70 percent of New Zealanders do not want to change the flag. So he has now had to come up with a way of saving his referendum. To do that he is adopting Red Peak. My personal view is that Red Peak is far and away a better flag than any of the others that are in the referendum mix. Trevor Mallard disagrees with me, but Red Peak is far and away a better flag. I still think the Prime Minister is going to struggle to get it through a second referendum, but at least now there will be a half - decent-looking flag up against the New Zealand flag in the final referendum.

I want now to refer to another matter—and it is also in Labour’s amendment—and that is the question of mandate. What mandate—whether or not we will actually have a decent level of participation—is created out of the first referendum? This is a significant and important decision. In my view it is a decision that we are taking in complete isolation from the broader constitutional debate that we should be having as a country. Bill English, in his ungracious response earlier on, mentioned the fact that John Burrows had also chaired the Constitutional Advisory Panel. Well, the Government completely ignored that piece of work—it completely ignored that piece of work. If the Government were genuinely interested in having a conversation about New Zealand’s future identity, then we would be talking more broadly than just on the flag, but the flag has become the vanity project of John Key, which we now have to put up with. Well, we are proposing that there does need to be more than 50 percent of electors returning a valid vote in Part A of the first referendum. We think that is a reasonable request because that means that there will be a mandate from the public. We would rather see the yes/no vote as the easy way of dealing with that. We have got that in our amendment as well, but the Government could today accept that in order to make a significant change like this there needs to be a decent mandate.

I am very, very sad that we have ended up in the position that we have ended up in tonight. The use of urgency to do this is totally unnecessary. If the Government had stopped playing political games, accepted that it wanted to put Red Peak or a fifth option in, and simply gone about the process of doing that, it could have been done in the normal course of events in the last few weeks. It chose not to do that. It chose to make this a political game. Tonight, to have the Deputy Prime Minister stand up to move the second reading of this and spend 10 minutes deciding that he was going to make this about the Labour Party, he was going to make personal insults, and he was going to insult the party that has given him the piece of legislation that is now before the House says everything New Zealanders need to know about this National Government, its attitude, its arrogance, and how out of touch it is, and it says everything they need to know about this flag referendum process. This should be a process that New Zealanders are proud of and are proud to participate in. It is not. It is a shambles. It has been a shambles—

💬 Jacqui Dean: Ha, ha! Awesome.

Jacqui Dean thinks it is hilarious. It is a shambles because New Zealanders have not been treated with respect. They have not been given the opportunity to actually decide whether they want to change the flag. New Zealanders feel manipulated, and it is one of the reasons why 70 percent of New Zealanders are opposing a flag change. They feel like they are being manipulated by the Prime Minister, who has got his vanity project under way.

At least this piece of legislation will give New Zealanders more choice. They should have real choice. They are not getting that from this Government.

You have got to feel a little bit sorry for Labour, do you not? There it is, each time one of them has to get up—they have to; they do not want to—to make a 10-minute speech on this bill, all they have is to fight old battles. It is a bit like every day as usual in the House with Labour. All it has to resort to is the old battles that it has already lost time and time and time again. And here we are, yet again, in the House with Labour, yet again, fighting a battle it lost, and yet it cannot let it go. Why can it not let it go? Because it has not got anything else. So we will get more speeches in this debate tonight and we will get more speeches tomorrow morning, if that is where we go with this bill, and Labour has only the one point to make. The one point Labour wants to make is that, gee, shucks, it did not get its own way, and now it is really, really sore about it.

Well, here is the news for Labour: we have moved on, and, in step, so has the marvellous Green Party, which has played this issue with an absolutely straight bat. In the Justice and Electoral Committee, when we first put the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill through the select committee, the Greens played an absolutely straight game with us, unlike Labour, which did everything it could to stall and to muddy the waters, and it never quite knew where it stood. It was consistent on one point, it lost that point, and it will not let it go, but we have moved on. New Zealand has moved on and Parliament has moved on, and now Labour is in an invidious position.

It must have been wonderful in those members’ caucus room this afternoon: “What do we do? What do we do? We opposed the bill, but, no, no, hang on. We opposed the bill, but we’re supporting the Red Peak. So we’re opposing the bill, but we’re supporting the Red Peak”. They must have said: “Hang on, we campaigned on having a referendum. What do we do now?”, “I know, we’ll support the bill.” and “We can’t support the bill; we opposed the bill.” Who would know where Labour was on this because, quite frankly, it does not know?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, this Government and the Green Party are listening to the folk out there who have a view. And guess what? This piece of legislation allows the people of New Zealand to have a say on what flag they choose to have as their new flag, or not. The public of New Zealand will get a yes/no choice, they will do it at the second referendum, and good on them. Thank you.

I am sorry that the member Jacqui Dean could not go for more than about 3 minutes, but it was an entertaining 3 minutes, and it was an entertaining 3 minutes that I am sure will get clipped, put on YouTube, and shared by the Facebooks of the RSAs around the country. That is the sort of brains trust approach from the National Government that we have seen throughout this legislation. It, unfortunately, let that member chair a select committee. It does not trust her to do it again on this particular bill—in fact, it does not trust anyone to take this to a select committee and hear what the public think about it.

I think it is fair to say that the process on this bill has been appalling. The Prime Minister has taken a very unusual approach. I am not going to say that the Prime Minister misled the House—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good. You know the rule.

—because the comments that he made were outside the House. What I am going to say is that he misled the public. On 6 September he said—we are talking about the addition of Red Peak. What did he say? He said: “To change that now, we literally”—I do not know why he said “literally”, but he adds a few extra words every now and then—“have to change the law. We can’t go and change that.” And what is he doing? What is he doing today? On 7 September, when asked whether he could guarantee that Red Peak would not be an option, he said: “I can, because this is the issue: there was a well set out process. The committee decided the four, sent them to the Cabinet, Cabinet had the right to overrule them, but chose not to, they accepted the recommendations … To accept any other flag—the All Blacks one with the silver fern, any other one—we would have to change the law, and we’re not going back to Parliament to change the law.” If he had said it in here, he would have been misleading the House, and it could well have been a breach of privilege.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: So he’s misleading the country instead.

But, apparently, it is all right for the Prime Minister to mislead the country.

My colleague Grant Robertson, in response, said that he thinks this is the best of the designs. I disagree with him. I think that the ones with the fern in are probably slightly better. I will take a wager with anyone that the Red Peak one ends up at No. 3. It will be the second to last one to drop out of the process. It is better than the thing that is, apparently, a koru—but it is subject to a lot of interpretation, that one.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: It’s a pig’s tail.

The fern—I do not think we are allowed to mention pigs and Tory leaders at the moment. We are allowed to mention ponytails, but not pigs’ parts at this particular time.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Come—

Getting back to the bill, my view is that the fern that is an awfully drawn fern and the koru will drop out, and the Red Peak will be the one that follows that. Frankly, it does not mean anything to a lot of New Zealanders. It is just not there.

But Labour is the party of opportunity. It is the party for New Zealanders to take a chance. There is an opportunity that is before us now. We have had a lot of discussion about the yes/no vote. As Jonathan Young knows well, every party other than the National Party that was present at the select committee supported having a yes/no vote. We were overruled, but today gives us yet another opportunity. I actually like a straight silver fern—something pretty much like the All Blacks’ silver fern. I have used that flag in Athens at the Olympics. I have held it up. I was there at the end of the triathlon when we got the quinella. I was holding that flag. It is something that means a lot to Kiwis, much more than any of the alternatives that we are currently looking at. I agree with the Prime Minister that it would be a better approach. So what the Labour Party is going to do is it is going to give the Prime Minister a chance to actually live up to what he says and get his preference on to the ballot paper.

I do not want to undermine what the Green Party is doing with its liberal Red Peak in the coffee bars and wine bars and the other places where ordinary people do not really go. There is no big demand for Red Peak in my electorate, other than from a few people in Eastbourne, I think it is fair to say. But there is a lot of demand for the silver fern, a straight silver fern, which the Prime Minister appears to be running away from.

So what the Labour Party will do during the Committee stage is put up an amendment. Seeing that we are shifting from four to five designs, we will put up another amendment, to be used only if Cabinet wants to. It could be done as a matter of late change. It will have to be done pretty soon, although my understanding is that Cabinet will have about another 2 weeks to decide. The amendment means that Cabinet can add a sixth flag design if it wants to. My challenge to the Prime Minister, when he is in Cabinet and in the Executive Council, is to do what he said he wanted to do around the country for months and months—that is, have the silver fern as the flag of New Zealand. Stand up, Prime Minister, for your principles, stand up for your beliefs, and give Kiwis, who, I believe, would much prefer to have the silver fern, the chance to put it at the top. I would put it at the top, given the choice. I think it is the best option. I would then vote against it later on because I think we should keep the current flag, especially during the commemorations of the First World War.

But if we are looking at the best alternative option, then my view is that the panel—and I want to absolutely deny what Tim Macindoe said earlier. Most of the panel are people of absolute integrity. There are a couple of people on it who are not people of integrity and who are late additions on the part of the National Party to the original group, which was recommended by a cross-party group of MPs. Whether they over-influenced the panel, I am not going to say that. But people like John Burrows, Brian Lochore, and Rod Drury are people whom I believe have an enormous amount of integrity. I have got a lot of respect for them. But they made a big mistake in not getting decent design advice, and, as a result of that, good people made an error and we have got four, and now five, flags that are, frankly, dogs. They are awful flags. They are not flags that most New Zealanders want. They have had a look at them and 70 percent of New Zealanders say that, given that field, they are not interested. They are not interested in a change.

If the Prime Minister is not prepared to get a decent flag, a decent alternative, on to the ballot paper, it is our view that New Zealanders should be given the option of saying: “No, we don’t want any of them. We’re going to save $7 million. We’re going to build some houses for people who need them. We’re going to feed some kids who are hungry. We’re going to give early childhood education to kids who are not getting it.” All of us—all of us—have priorities of getting more jobs and having better social services, which are more important than holding a second referendum when we know that most Kiwis do not want to change the flag. Thank you.

It seems to be my lot to follow the former member for Hamilton West in this debate tonight. May I say how disappointed I am to hear him again attacking the integrity of some members of the Flag Consideration Panel. I stand by the comments I made before—I believe they are a very fine group of people. They are a representative cross-section of New Zealanders, and they have served our country well.

Mr Mallard and, before him, Mr Robertson have again lamented the absence of a simple yes/no vote in the referendum process, but there are two fundamental flaws in the argument that they and some others are putting forward. The first is that the construction of this two-stage referendum process is based on the very best independent advice that was made available to the Government. The Government listened to that and has acted upon it.

The second point, which I think is even more important, is that the two main parties went to the 2014 general election promising to hold a referendum on this particular issue. Three out of four New Zealanders, or slightly more than that, cast their vote in favour of one of those two main parties, so they have already had their yes/no option and now we are moving to the next stage in the process, which is to say we will give people a range of things to choose from, they can make a choice, and we will put it up against the current New Zealand flag—which I acknowledge is an attractive flag in its own right—and we will let New Zealanders decide which one they want to have. That is a very democratic and appropriate process, and it is one that I am very proud to support.

I have been particularly disappointed to hear Mr Robertson suggesting that the National Party has been playing political games over this issue. We campaigned on this. We have been up front about it for a very long period of time. We have gone to the public and we are having the discussion with the public. We are listening to the public, and we are listening to the public tonight by saying we will offer a little bit more choice than the Flag Consideration Panel has put forward. That, to my mind, is responsible and sensible government.

I have to say to Mr Robertson that the gamesmanship here is from the party that wants to change the flag and that campaigned last year to give New Zealanders the chance to change the flag, but cannot bear the fact that the flag might change while the National Party is in Government. So solely for that reason, it is opposing it. That, to my mind, is the ultimate in political cynicism and gamesmanship, and shame on the Labour Party for that.

In the first reading of this bill Mr Mallard attacked the current Prime Minister, and he has just repeated it with words to the effect that the Prime Minister should stand up for his principles and beliefs on this issue. He has attacked the Prime Minister for not having spoken in the debate on the bill. Well, is there a single New Zealander who is unaware of where the Rt Hon John Key stands on this issue? I do not think so. The Prime Minister not only outlined his views very clearly in the Address in Reply debate this year but he has answered questions from the Opposition day after day after day in this House, and has given his views very forcefully and clearly on this issue. He has attended numerous public meetings. I have been at some meetings where he has articulated his vision, and he has listened to the public. The Rt Hon John Key is leading in a very honourable and responsible way, and I am proud to support him in that. To suggest that he has in some manner kept his views to himself is absolutely ridiculous.

I want to again state that I am proud that we in the National Party are delivering on our manifesto and, in particular, for the first time in this nation’s history, we are giving the public of New Zealand the chance to have a say as to which flag they feel would best represent them. They have never had this opportunity before. If we vote for change, the new flag would be the fourth flag in the history of this nation. So it is hardly credible to suggest that somehow the current flag should be respected and kept in perpetuity, when we have already previously had three flags.

I have to say I am not a supporter of Red Peak. On that I do agree with Mr Mallard. But I recognise that there are many who have indicated that they would like more choice and that they would like to consider that option. For that reason, as I said before, I am proud that our Government is listening to those people. I want again to acknowledge Gareth Hughes in particular and the members of the Green Party. We are not always natural political bedfellows, but I think they are playing a very honourable and clearly constructive role in this process. I thank them for that. I think that the effect of the Green Party’s involvement in this particular issue tonight will be to ensure that it is more widely supported than it has been to date, and that is a good thing. I genuinely thank the Green Party for what I think is a very helpful contribution.

I am more than happy to see the fifth option go into the process, but, more important, I am more than happy to respect the democratic will of the people. If they vote to retain the current flag, so be it, but I am proud that we are giving every New Zealander a chance to have a say. I believe it is the right thing, and I am therefore very strongly in support of this bill.

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I do not want to sound naive by coming to this debating chamber and bemoaning all the politics that we are hearing in the parliamentary debating chamber, but we sure are hearing an awful lot of politics. As my colleague Dr Kennedy Graham said, maybe some of it is a bit more heat than light. But politics is the problem; this is why we find ourselves in this Chamber today. I am not trying to sound sanctimonious, as the Hon Trevor Mallard alleged that I was. I am just trying to reflect the fact that it is politics that sees us here today because of the political point-scoring, the games, and the eventual political deadlock that Parliament had found itself in.

I also want to say, on the flip side, that despite this debate—and it is pretty robust; I think that it would win some points in some of the debating clubs around the country—the fact is that we are working together. There are six political parties coming together tonight to listen to the people, to include their choice, and I think that that is fantastic, because on the one hand, we can see all of the political rhetoric and hear all of the debate, and on the other hand, we can actually see some of the practical, tangible benefits of working together. I believe that this is what the public decided in one of those seminal referenda in our history—that is, when we decided to move to MMP. I would like to acknowledge the debate, acknowledge the opinions, and, most of all, acknowledge political parties working together.

Why we sought leave to table and introduce this bill today was because we wanted to break that political deadlock. We are not trying to play games. We are not trying to score points. We are not trying to get one over anyone. We do not care whose name is on the bill or what happens. What we care about is offering a constructive, pragmatic, practical solution that can get the votes in this House. As we saw at the first reading vote, an overwhelming majority supported listening to the people and supported a fifth flag being included in the referenda. In this contribution, I would like to touch on some of the criticism and respond to some of the debate, I would like to reiterate some of the Green Party’s position points, and also issue some thanks.

Let us start off with some of the debate that we have heard tonight. I would like to acknowledge Trevor Mallard, in particular, for some of the things he said. He raised a question that I think needs to be addressed. Mr Mallard said that because Red Peak was not explicitly mentioned in the clauses of the legislation, somehow we were going to get some odd option—maybe “Laser Kiwi”, which I think was maybe the second-most popular choice amongst New Zealanders. It staggers me to think that Mr Mallard has been in Parliament, I believe, for almost as long as I am old, and no doubt he has seen his own bills pass through Parliament and become Acts and he has worked in ministries.

This legislation is quite a precedent in New Zealand for this Parliament. As part of our relationship with the Governor-General—as part of our Crown relationship; the executive to the Governor-General—Parliament cannot instruct the Governor-General to do anything. That is our constitutional framework, and, actually, despite being a card-carrying republican, it would be obscene, I believe, for this Parliament, under our current conventions, to be ordering the Governor-General what to do. But that is why the protections are in the explanatory note of the bill. Obviously, the debate is in the Hansard for this House. So before this turns into some myth—if this is some sort of myth or otherwise that Labour is trying to share—the fact is that this bill is about Red Peak, and this bill implements only that.

From New Zealand First members, we have heard allegations of there being Nazi symbolism in Red Peak. I would like to address this, because what they are referring to are some of the pillboxes that were used in Germany, which used alternating coloured lines. I think this is outrageous, I think it is ridiculous, I think it is scurrilous, and I think it is despicable that they should be drawing this sort of link, particularly when we know the horrors that occurred under that regime.

I would like to address the issue of why we are here in urgency. I talked about politics being the reason that we are here. Politics was the problem, and I am sure that more political games are definitely not the answer. We are here under urgency, and I acknowledge that that is not ideal. We are here under urgency because the clock is ticking—because we are less than 6 weeks away from the referendum. No doubt the Electoral Commission is about to be printing millions of pieces of paper so that Kiwis can have their democratic say. There was, literally, an urgent reason for Parliament to move in haste.

For more than a week, the country has watched the two parties as they have talked and as they have traded letters, allegations, and spin through the media. For more than a week, we have sat here and waited. There was real urgency; the clock was ticking. It was time for someone to act. Of course, ideally, this would not have happened under urgency. I believe that in an ideal world, Cabinet, through an Order in Council, would have simply listened to the public and included the fifth option, which was Red Peak. The reason we have put the bill to Parliament today is that time was running out, and also to test the Prime Minister’s proposition. The Prime Minister made a challenge to parties in New Zealand. He said that if there could be political support amongst the parties—excluding New Zealand First, whose position was clearly known—the National Government would support it. That proposition has been tested and it has been found true, and I would like to welcome the support of all the political parties for the Government adopting my bill.

Fourthly, and lastly, on the issue of the yes/no vote, I believe that there are legitimate and logical arguments on both sides. I believe that both sides can make a case. I understand it. I am sympathetic to the Labour members’ position. I believe that a lot of New Zealand is behind them, but I would like to point out that our position, in choosing this bill, is not to relitigate the entire process. Our position is not trying to score any points over anyone. Our position is trying simply to listen to the will of the people, to make sure that we get that fifth option before the clock counts down and it is too late.

I would like to reiterate some of our position, and the reason that we are doing this is that there was a phenomenal groundswell of support. This was not the case for any other bill in this process. In the space of only a week, we saw 50,000 people support this bill. We saw, I believe, only around 7,000 people engage with the official consultation process. We saw a massive, overwhelming groundswell of support—in only a single week, I would remind the House. That is why we are trying to make sure those people’s voices are heard.

Secondly, I do not believe that this is the most important thing that should be taking up Parliament’s time. Maybe Denis O’Rourke and I agree on that. When it comes to $26 million of taxpayers’ money, I would rather that money be spent on feeding kids school lunches. If we are talking about $26 million, I would rather that money were spent on installing solar panels in every school in this country so that the kids can save the money and spend it on musical instruments and sports equipment rather than on rising power bills. There are a host of things that we could do with this money, and I believe that it is a legitimate and right question to ask whether this is the right time to be changing the flag. Are we actually having that genuine public conversation about what the flag represents, who we are as a people, and where we are going as a nation in 2015? Should we also be looking at some of the constitutional arrangements? Despite being a card-carrying republican, I believe that the most important constitutional question we should be asking ourselves is: how do we enshrine Te Tiriti o Waitangi in our constitutional framework?

So this issue is not the most important thing. It was an incredibly flawed process, but the fact is that it is happening. We voted against the Government’s bill, but it passed. It became an Act. The referendum is going to happen in less than 6 weeks’ time, and if it were to continue down the track with the political deadlock and parties trading letters and sitting in their respective offices, nothing would have changed. It was not going to be improved. Those tens of thousands of Kiwis who wanted a fifth option would not have been listened to. So this was simply about improving the legislation.

I would like to thank a number of people. I would like to thank the big team, actually, behind the drafting of the legislation. I would like to acknowledge our spokesperson, Dr Kennedy Graham, who I know has been acknowledged in this debate as playing with a straight bat throughout the select committee process and the other parts of this process. I would like to thank the other parties for their support. I know that some of the kind words from the National members to the Greens have been genuine, which we thank them for; some of them have been damning with faint praise, which, of course, we reject. But it is good that we can work together on this, as we have worked together on home insulation and the national cycleway—just like we worked with Labour on some pioneering climate policies in the last Labour Government.

In summary, I do not know whether this is going to be the flag that we are going to get. I do not even know whether the flag is going to change. It does not matter. Regardless of what your opinion is—silver fern, Red Peak, keep the flag, or whatever—at least we have a choice. I genuinely believe that it is up to Kiwis, and they will express their will in the two referenda. But, most important, I think—as a young member, I really want to reflect on this—many of the supporters of Red Peak are younger Kiwis. If they had just been disregarded by this House, if they had been ignored, and if politics had got in the way of that choice, I fear that we would have disillusioned a whole new cohort—tens of thousands of New Zealanders who literally wanted a choice. So I am glad that we can work together. I am glad that we can put politics aside for a wee bit. I look forward to the progress of this bill.

New Zealand First is very proud to be the only party left that is willing to defend the current New Zealand flag in this whole process. We are actually pretty surprised to be in that position, because I happen to know that there are members of the National Party who disagree with their own party on this. I could name some of them but I will have the grace not to do so on this occasion.

I am very disappointed that both Labour and the Greens have chosen to support the Government on this bill, albeit under a degree of protest, when John Key himself has never actually had the guts to come to this House—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member does not refer to a member in those terms, using that unparliamentary language.

💬 Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to clarify, what you are saying is that it was the words “had the guts”, even though the Prime Minister has used them to the Leader of the Opposition in this House previously?

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member should not be speaking in that way. It does not add to the debate.

I am happy to use a different word, which I am sure will be acceptable. I will say that John Key has never had the courage to speak—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t say that, either.

I beg your pardon?

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You should not be referring in that way either.

Courage?

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just move away from questions of intestinal fortitude, courage, guts, and all those things. Stick to the debate.

In that case I will simply say this: John Key has never taken part—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s well done. Thank you.

—in a debate in this House on this flag debate. He has never taken part in this flag debate, and he should have because he is the one, in fact, who is said to be leading the whole process.

But New Zealand First is not alone in its opposition to this, because 70 percent of the people in New Zealand actually agree with us. That has been shown in poll after poll. Those are scientific polls, and so we humbly take on the role of defender of the current flag on their behalf.

Some people have claimed a groundswell of support for the Red Peak monstrosity. In actual fact, it is said that 50,000 people took part in this petition, but we happen to know—because people have actually emailed us and told us, with one person saying that he had actually voted three times, and he said that he knows many others who have done the same. So it really is not a groundswell; it is actually more of a molehill of support, and that is the truth of that. The truth is that in that scientifically run poll, fewer than 20 percent support any change to the flag at all, and 70 percent are against it. That is the truth; that is the groundswell—that is not a molehill.

John Key is embarrassed and he is running scared—scared of a low turnout in the first referendum, which will be less than 25 percent, I believe. He is scared that so few will vote, that they will vote informally by saying: “Keep our flag.”, or, like me, will stick a sticker on every one of those alternatives, whether they be four or five, and tick them, but only them, and not the alternatives—or by whatever means people will use to show their opposition. That is what the Government is running scared about in this whole mismanaged process. It will show that the second flag referendum will be a complete and utter waste of time and money.

The process in the Act, as it now is, was, in fact, misconceived in not first asking anyone whether they wanted a referendum to change the flag at all. That is the fundamental fault. Now John Key agrees that he was wrong because he did not give himself the power in the original legislation to add more flags, and that is ridiculous, I believe. That is what I saw him say on TV this evening. He had originally put his faith in an expert panel to choose alternatives, but now he disagrees with that panel and seeks in this bill to gerrymander his way out of the requirements of his own legislation. What a farce, and what arrogance.

As to the detail of the bill—what on earth is the rationale for suddenly adding another flag to the four chosen by the expert panel, after, of course, much acclaimed public consultation? In fact, there is no reason or rationale for it whatsoever. I have already mentioned the molehill of claimed public support for the horrible Red Peak flag in this so-called petition, which is really just media-driven, unscientific nonsense. We all know the truth. The fact is that John Key needs to save his backside, and the Red Peak flag is his way of avoiding the electoral spanking and the political red backside that he so richly deserves.

I suspect that John Key would have taken any excuse to add any old thing—any alternative—that he could find, as a way of getting himself out of the hole that he has dug himself into. Of course, he will be rubbing his hands in glee as Labour and the Greens fall into his political trap to support his gerrymandering bill, despite their inadequate protests.

So let us look at this peculiar alternative called Red Peak. It is angular, gaudy, and in no way representative of New Zealand or our culture. It is suitable as a road danger sign, and it looks very much like a commercial logo. It is virtually the same as that of a Canadian commercial log-hauling company.

More worrying is its similarity to the design of Nazi sentry boxes during the Second World War. Look at this photograph of a sentry box. This is actually a photograph taken from the Atlantic Wall Open Air Museum in Ostend, Belgium, and in it, that is a Nazi sentry box. Look at it. Look at the design on the side of it. Look at the fact that it begins with a red peak, with a white peak on top of that, which is also identical to the Red Peak flag. Then there is a black peak on top of that, also identical to the Red Peak flag. Only that little bit of blue, in one corner, is missing. There is an uncanny resemblance. The sad fact is that the Nazi colours were red, white, and black, as the Red Peak flag is, and those are the colours that dominate the Red Peak flag.

Those who doubt, have a look at this photograph, because this is that same sentry box in full colour. The similarity is absolutely stunning—absolutely stunning. Let us look at that design that I have just shown you and the Red Peak, side by side. Look at the similarity. Could it be much closer? It could not—it could not be much closer. That is how close the Red Peak design is to a Nazi sentry box design from the Second World War. I would like Gareth Hughes to have a good look at it, but he does not want to because he does not want to know the truth. But people will make mischief of it.

This picture of another design was obtained tonight from the internet. It is not by New Zealand First—not encouraged by New Zealand First—but by somebody already going on to the internet to say that. That is what people will do with that design because it has absolutely nothing to do with New Zealand’s culture or New Zealand’s people.

We would be ridiculed overseas in exactly this sort of way if New Zealand were to adopt that kind of awful monstrosity of a design for the New Zealand flag. Imagine what the Aussies would say, not to mention the Yanks. What about the British tabloids? They would have an absolute field day if we were to adopt a flag like that, and I would not blame them.

The national flag of New Zealand must engender respect for our country, not provide a means of ridicule. New Zealand First rejects the original process, which was back to front; this bill, which is gerrymandering; and all of the alternatives, which are utterly awful as New Zealand flags. But we would not have stood in the way had there been the genuine, bottom-up referendum required by the New Zealand people, with a proper process. This referendum is not that, and this bill should be rejected for all of those reasons.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek a ruling from you. It would be unparliamentary, I believe, and out of order in this House to raise Nazi slogans, and I wondered whether it is appropriate and parliamentary to bring in Nazi symbols as part of a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

I think—[Interruption] I do not need any assistance in respect of this. I think that the context in which the member very carefully used that symbol, and the fact that it was acknowledged that the Red Peak flag had been altered by somebody else and he had downloaded it from the media, he has danced sufficiently on the head of a pin to get away with it this time. But he should be careful because he knows what is at the other end of the pin from the head.

I will limit my contribution to a few main points this evening. It has been interesting watching the debate as it has unfolded this evening—seeing another little turn round the mulberry bush, if you like—on the flag referendums legislation. I just want to address a few things that have been raised. Earlier, Mr Mallard accused the Prime Minister and the Government of misleading the public, and that is a pretty bold sort of an assertion to make. I think Mr Mallard probably needs to understand the difference between that and making a statement and then listening to the concerns of the public, responding to those concerns and those issues that have been raised, and then perhaps altering the course of what is occurring. If one is to have an idea about what is going to happen and then listens in response, that is not the same as misleading, and I think that that was completely wrong and out of order.

The other thing that I think is interesting about this amendment bill that has been brought forth is that it is talking about increasing the number of options from four to five in the first referendum. I find it somewhat ironic, actually. I have to wonder whether, if we had had five in the first place, Red Peak would have actually made it into the top five. My guess is, probably not—I think it would be safe to assume that it probably would not have.

However, what we have seen from the people who are the supporters of Red Peak—of which, I have to say, I am not necessarily one—is a very good campaign to engage the public. We have seen 22,000 Facebook likes, we have seen 50,000 people sign a petition and engage with us, we have seen the #redpeak really take off on Twitter, and I have even got a few “Red Peak-inese” in my own family who actually like the idea of this design being in. So we have seen a groundswell of public opinion. We have seen the Red Peak movement achieve something that, actually, the supporters of a lot of other flag designs have not. So it is beholden on Parliament now to decide whether or not we think that is a sufficient enough public voice for us to change our process and allow a fifth flag in. By and large, if we go by the voting results of the first reading of this bill, it seems that right across the House, apart from one particular party, there is wide support, and we would agree that those people have done enough to warrant getting their Red Peak flag into the first referendum.

The other thing that I want to visit this evening is the hoary old chestnut that the Labour Party keeps bringing up, which is that we should bring in a yes/no vote. You know, those members could not accept defeat the first time around on having a yes/no vote, so they are going to come back and have another crack at that. There has not been the same groundswell of public opinion about a yes/no vote—there has not been the 50,000 likes on Facebook for “Can we please have a yes/no vote in the first referendum?”, in the way that the “Red Peak-inese” have brought that forward—and there has not been the same number of petitions brought forward to ask for a yes/no vote, so there is not really any point in our revisiting that. But when we get to the Committee of the whole House, those members’ wee bill will be brought forward as a Supplementary Order Paper, and we will be moving from there.

You see, the thing about the yes/no vote being introduced is that it is a little bit of a “to-may-to”/“to-mar-to” thing, I guess, in some respects. Mr Hughes indicated earlier that he had some sympathy for bringing it in, but, actually, we fundamentally believe that having the yes/no vote second, rather than first, is the way to proceed. And, you know, I left my piece of paper here with my notes on it before, and someone else came along and wrote “Don’t change the flag.” on it. Someone in this House does not want to change the flag—there are actually one or two of them, in fact, who do not want to change the flag. Those people will get a vote. Despite the protests of Mr O’Rourke and the people in New Zealand First, those people who fundamentally do not want to change the flag will get a vote. That vote might not be in the first referendum but it will be in the second referendum. They will get that choice. It will go through.

That brings me to my final point. This referendum process is all about the people of New Zealand having a choice in the flag that is going to represent them. They may well choose the current flag, and if that is what they want to do, they can get out there and they can campaign for that. They can promote that, and I say all power to them. And, do you know what? It will be the first time ever that the people of New Zealand will have chosen that flag, or, in fact, any flag. So I commend this amendment bill to this House.

I call Dr Kennedy Graham—5 minutes.

I thought that the first reading in this debate on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill was fairly constructive, but I am not convinced that the same can be said of the second reading. I think that after dinner we have tended to demean ourselves a little in our excessive rhetoric. The choice of flag, one might have hoped, might allow us to transcend party politics and think about the national interest as a whole. Instead, we have tended to descend into rather small-minded party squabbling and the occasional exhibition of personal invective, and I think that is a shame. I think the choice of flag deserves more, and I think the people of New Zealand are hoping for more. I do want to acknowledge and thank a number of members of the House for their constructive comments, from National as well—Jono Naylor and Tim Macindoe, particularly, and Jacqui Dean, Jo Goodhew, and, not least, Jonathan Young, who chaired the cross-party group with such skill, and I thank you for that as well. The same cannot be said of your leader of the evening, the Minister—the Hon Bill English—who turned himself into a small creature this evening with his comments.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member referred to another member as a “small creature”. Previously, I was reprimanded for using the word “courage”. Surely, “small creature” is not parliamentary—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Oh, look—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: —and not acceptable.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I have been referred to as that many times—since I can remember.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am happy to take the reprimand from Denis O’Rourke—and do we conclude that Denis O’Rourke will not, in fact, be voting for Red Peak, or is he? Perhaps we cannot put too much money on that. No, let me rephrase it. The comments from the Hon Bill English, for whom I have had a high regard in the past, are characteristic of a small creature. His comments were difficult, disruptive, and occasionally dangerous to a constructive interpretation of a second reading, and I think he caused his party and this House some shame this evening. I want to acknowledge the comments of the Hon Annette King and Grant Robertson, which I think were constructive. We disagree with the points that Labour is putting across, but we do respect the points made and we understand where Labour is coming from in that respect. The same cannot be said of the Hon Trevor Mallard, but it is not worth my bothering to comment any further. While we are covering the field on individuals, let me just pay tribute to my colleague Gareth Hughes, who has taken the initiative on this bill and conducted himself with dignity and, I think, integrity. Looking at the Hon Bill English, the Hon Trevor Mallard, and myself, I think Gareth Hughes has a bit of a lesson to teach us in this respect tonight.

Just one substantive point: we were trying to get across—and still are—tonight two things. This Parliament is acting with constitutional propriety in changing the legislation that changes the process to choose this flag. It has the power to do it, it has the right to do it, and it is constitutionally proper. The second point is that whether the Parliament should do so or not is a political judgment, and in our view, the Green Party’s view, it is a sound and wise political move to reflect the increasing will of the people. Not of everybody, Mr O’Rourke, and there may have been a few people who voted more than once, but that does not diminish the fact that there were about 50,000 people who moved for this flag, and that is overwhelming, Mr O’Rourke. Let us see which way it goes when the time comes. So, in our view, it is up to this House, all MPs as leaders elected by the people, to reflect the will of the people, bring in the fifth flag, and move on to the referendum, and then we will choose the flag from then on. Thank you.

I call Iain Lees-Galloway—5 minutes.

From the outset this process around changing the flag has been a complete and utter farce. This debate tonight is just another layer of farce added upon layer upon layer upon layer. The reason we are here tonight having this debate is that there was a poll on Sunday night that demonstrated once and for all that the options that had been put in front of people were roundly rejected by the New Zealand public.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: He should have believed Farrar. He should have believed Farrar when he said it.

My colleague Trevor Mallard says that the Prime Minister should have believed his pollster, David Farrar, much earlier, rather than waiting until the 3 News poll came out on Sunday night. Still, despite that, if the Prime Minister realised that he was on the wrong side of public opinion, if he was going to continue this poll-driven insanity that has been on the increase over the last few weeks, we still did not need this legislation tonight, because, actually, all the previous legislation did was require a referendum with four flag options. So the Prime Minister and the Government could simply have taken out one of the options—we have got three that look almost the same, anyway—and replace it with Red Peak.

Actually, the thing that appals me the most is that tonight we are wasting Parliament’s time on this issue rather than getting on with the large number of substantive bills that are sitting on the Order Paper that could actually progress the economy, the society, and our nation. This is completely unnecessary. It is a continuation of this ludicrous sideshow that the Prime Minister initiated to divert attention away from the various car wrecks that have become the litany of this Government.

I do not intend to waste too much more of Parliament’s time on this. I simply want to be on record as saying that this is a continuation of the utter farce that this flag-change process has become. It is a waste of the Government’s time. It is a sideshow from the real issues that that Government and this Parliament should be addressing. I think we are much better than this, and the politics should have been taken out of it. The Government could have dealt with this in any number of ways, but, instead, it chose the most political route, and it chose the route that would divert attention away from its various failures.

I am very happy to make a few points here in the second reading of this bill. When I saw the Red Peak flag, initially it had no appeal. It probably still does not. It is probably not going to be my choice if it ends up being in the referendum. But I did see an artist’s rendition of it that showed a meeting house in front of a mountain, and the mountain looked like Mount Taranaki and the meeting house looked like Te Ikaroa-a-Māui on Manukōrihi Pā in Waitara. So I thought that was quite a stunning depiction of that flag—far, far better than what New Zealand First sees in that flag. It talks about part of our heritage that is not reflected in the current flag.

When this whole debate started this conversation, and prior Prime Ministers talked about a different flag for New Zealand—this is not something new, and I would never say of Norman Kirk that it was a vanity project. I think that people see a new flag as something that can bring the people of New Zealand together in a new way. I cannot say that I am dissatisfied with our present flag, but what this referendum does for me is it offers an aspirational opportunity for our future together as the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. I think that this process of bringing amendment to this legislation is responding to a large number of people—it sounds like primarily younger people—who are responding and engaging in a process.

I think that this process of a referendum is full of promise, full of aspiration, and full of opportunity for us to have an emblem and an icon that we can all appreciate and, in time to come, celebrate under. So I am very happy to support this amendment bill. I look forward to the progress of the referendum in the future, and I do trust that we will come to a great result for this nation. Thank you.

I am a bit concerned following that speech, because it might have sounded quite genuine in intent, were it not for the fact that the Government is happy to give New Zealanders a say on the New Zealand flag but not happy to let them know what is in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

There is kind of a lack of prioritisation about what is important to New Zealanders. The Government is happy to let New Zealanders have a say on which flag represents the symbols that are important to New Zealanders, but it fails to recognise that family poverty is rising under its policies. Where are the priorities?

I am a bit concerned about the way in which this matter has proceeded through the House, but we have to come back to the bill, which seeks to insert the Red Peak option as a legitimate option within the context of the referendum that will be had. I listened very carefully to the debate, and I think people who are trying to make up their minds will consider all the options with some very fundamental questions. Does the flag represent just a symbol of our identity, or is there something more meaningful to those symbols that we can hang our hat on and that we can say truly represents the future of New Zealand and that New Zealanders can say actually defines the type of country and nation that we belong in? I think not.

The simple reason is that no matter what option is put in front of New Zealanders, they have not been given the fundamental choice of whether or not they want this question to proceed. Labour has continually highlighted that the legitimate approach to putting a referendum that would give New Zealanders a true sense of control over the type of debate we are having as a country is to ask whether we should have this referendum around the change of flag at this time—yes or no?

The thing that I am more concerned about is that Labour has an amendment sitting on the Table because we are really worried about low turnout on a question so fundamental as one about a flag, which is a symbol of our identity. I hesitate to quite a high degree on the basis that postal referendums generally have a low turnout. On a matter of such significance one would expect, surely, that a 50 percent turnout would be the bare minimum to have a convincing mandate to proceed with such a significant issue.

Here is the thing: in the 8 years of the National Government, it has been happy to start a constitutional debate, but not end it. If it were going to finish it or continue it in a genuine way with a constitutional debate that forms the pillars of what this nation stands for, we would have had that and then be debating the issue of which flag should be representing our identity as a country—our proud identity as a country.

I have no personal affinity to any of the choices on option. In fact, as a Māori, as Waikato, as Maniopoto, with heritage in Ngāpuhi, I am very proud of our navigating history. I have some leaning towards the Southern Cross, Māhutonga, as the zenith star for New Zealand, but, again, what would underpin any legitimate choice in my frame of mind about who we are as a country and where we are in the Pacific would certainly actually have a constitutional foundation underpinning it.

We should be debating the increasing level of family poverty in our country. We should be debating the high levels of domestic violence and the high rates of incarceration of young people. But, instead, we are having this debate about adding another flag, albeit it is a win for the Green Party. But this is more than just choosing a flag; this is about the symbols of our identity: what we stand for, what we value as a country, and what the legitimate priority of a Government that cares for the future of New Zealand is. I think the priorities are wrong. I think the priorities are wrong.

The way in which the referendum will be put to New Zealanders is in the wrong order. We have already raised those issues in previous debates, but, importantly, if the Government is absolutely assured of its conviction to continue down this path, there is one simple measure: will it have a convincing mandate with which to proceed with the choice of a new flag? I think not—and here is the thing. The Rugby World Cup is on at the moment, and I rather think that when the Prime Minister watches that final—hoping that New Zealand is in that final—and when those fans hold up the silver fern he will take it as a mandate to change the flag of New Zealand, and he should not. He should not.

There are much deeper, more pervading matters that should lead a Government to say why it is changing a flag, what it represents, what the values are, but, more important, what the constitutional pillars are that form a sense of purpose around the motivation for change. It is simply not there. It is a façade, it is a love-fest with a symbol that will represent very little, and it will lead to a confused outcome.

There will be a lack of mandate for the choice of something so important. I only need to point to the country that met some of these deep challenges with some conviction—and that is South Africa. Prior to the changing of its flag, it looked at its constitution very seriously. It dealt with some of the most difficult issues of apartheid and urged the nation to look forward beyond tribalism. But it hung the choice of a change of a flag in its constitution and that was why South Africans can stand and hold on to their flag and say: “This is what it means for a new South Africa. This is the country we belong to, where we can look beyond apartheid and the negative parts of our history to a future of opportunity.” This Government cannot do that for New Zealand.

I say to the member, Richard Prosser, that that flag is not part of business attire and I will ask the member either to go out into the lobby or to take it off.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, otirā, tēnā tātou i tēnei pō.

[Greetings, Mr Assistant Speaker, but, at the same time, acknowledgments to us this evening.]

I want to take the opportunity of this debate in the House to go unequivocally on record that I am absolutely in favour of a change for our flag. Moreover, I consider that the process that has been comprehensively put before New Zealanders is a process that is actually modelling the principles of modern democracy. We are one of the few countries in the world where a flag change has occurred where New Zealanders, in our case, have the opportunity not only to say which flag they want but to get choices before a final decision is made. Many other countries have actually arbitrarily decided for their citizens what the symbols are that should represent them, but our Government, with the support of Parliament, invested in an independent process that sets up the opportunity for New Zealanders not only to say what they chose but also to submit their own examples of what they think are the symbols and the colours that represent and resonate with New Zealanders today.

I am proud to be in a Government that values democracy so much. Of course, the Labour Opposition members naturally have an embedded heritage of ever finely slicing and redistributing, so the argument about whether or not there should be two votes rather than one is just slicing and dicing. We are not afraid to give the opportunity for New Zealanders to make a choice. We are not afraid of that. In the same way, the bill tonight is a responsive—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Kindergarten teachers are being fired all over Wellington and this member wants to talk about the flag.

Please, we are talking about the flag. In the same way, the bill tonight is responsive to the will of the people that a further flag be included. Of course, democracy does allow for fools to shout across the House rather than listen to the discussion. I think it is time for a change. I think that 150 years ago—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, the people don’t. The vast majority of people don’t want to change it.

Well, we do not know whether people think that or not, until they have the opportunity. Taihoa, kia mārama taku whakamāratanga ki a koe. [Hold on and I will make my explanation clear to you.]

💬 Clayton Mitchell: That is arrogance right there, because you want a say.

No, I want every New Zealander to have the opportunity to have a change—not to be shouted down by people who have a particular position. They are likely to have a variety of views and they—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I will ask the member to tone down those comments. Those interjections are unreasonable and unparliamentary, so you calm them down.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. That is exactly the point—that New Zealanders should have the opportunity to say what it is that they do or do not want. I am taking that opportunity as a New Zealander to say what I do want.

I think that we have moved on significantly. We are a modern nation. We are small, we are smart, and we are sassy. We should take the opportunity to choose the symbols that represent who we are today and looking forward into the future. We should take the opportunity to think about what those symbols are. I am in favour of the fern being included. My husband, who himself has been a professional soldier, has written extensively about the history of the symbolism of the fern in New Zealand’s military history. It is on our Commonwealth graves. Last weekend I was down in Dunedin visiting my father’s grave—himself a returned serviceman—and the ferns are on his plaque. My husband tells me that he did not fight for the flag; he fought for the soldiers in his platoon and he fought for his country and he fought for values, the very ones that underpin the modern democracy that New Zealand is.

I think that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and, as Minister of Education, I absolutely encourage schools to be debating this. I absolutely encourage this because the New Zealand curriculum talks about the importance of symbol and text, talks about our place in the world, talks about what the Kiwi values are that distinguish us from other countries, and talks about our membership of the Commonwealth but distinguishes us as independent players ourselves. New Zealand deserves to have a flag that is resonant of who we are today and into the future. That does not mean we get amnesia about what our his and her stories have been, but, rather, we carry them forward, proudly into the future, and we take with that the symbols that we think today represent New Zealand. Future generations may make a different decision, but today, now, this year, and early next year we have the opportunity to make this decision for ourselves. By the way, it is not an either/or debate—that we either debate the other big issues that confront us or we debate the flag. We are a plural democracy. We are capable of debates on many things at once, and this is one of them.

Again, in education we deliver the national curriculum. Each school delivers it in their own particular way, but they do it in the context of identity, language, and culture. After all, is that not what a flag is a symbol of—our identity, language, and culture, and who we are in all our colourful diversity? Would we not want in the panoply of flags for New Zealand’s to stand out, which it does not at present? This bill is the opportunity for us to have a flag that speaks forthrightly of who we are, but, more important, it is the opportunity to make a choice. Kia ora tātou.