New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill

Well, things got a bit heated in this debate last night. After the House rose, I went back to my office and I listened to a few songs, and one of those songs was “Anchor Me” by Don McGlashan. It occurred to me, as I have been pondering this issue for some time, that what is really missing in this whole debate is a mature and considered, respectful and nuanced discussion about New Zealand’s national identity and what that actually means, before the farce of a process that we have ended up with in this House today and last night.

New Zealanders are funny people. They are thoughtful people. They are can-do people, they are people who rally around in a crisis, they are people who like, and require, a fair go, and they do not like to be treated like muppets or numpties, which is what this Government is doing in this whole process and with this clever, tricky little manoeuvre—the latest clever, tricky manoeuvre—with this piece of legislation.

I want to put on record that this whole thing is a colossal waste of New Zealand taxpayers’ time—taking this bill through this House and taking hours and hours and hours. The Opposition has the right to debate this bill, but it is the fact that it is before this House when it could have been dealt with in a much quicker, much more mature and respectful way—instead, we have this farce of a process going through our Parliament right now. It is an embarrassment and it is a silly political game.

Some of the speeches I heard last night from over the other side of the Chamber were just the epitome of National being wrapped up in its own sense of entitlement—to have the gall to talk about this as being democracy. This is a law change that is being rushed through under urgency, with all its processes under urgency, with no chance for the public to have another say about it, and that is a disgrace.

This morning I got a taxi to Parliament. My taxi driver was Cambodian and has been in New Zealand for 35 years. The radio was on and we were listening to Morning Report. We were listening to the interview with the Greens’ co-leader James Shaw. I want to acknowledge the measured response from the Greens’ co-leader in that interview this morning, as opposed to some of the contributions from his colleagues yesterday in the House. I said to the taxi driver: “So what do you think about this whole flag debate?”. He kind of turned and looked at me and said: “Well, you might not like what I’m going to say.”, and I said: “Look, I want to hear what you’ve got to say.” He said: “New Zealand must be a rich country to be spending so much time debating and discussing an issue such as the flag. Aren’t there more important issues? Where is the economic value or the social value from this process?”. I said: “I completely agree with you.”

In my electorate, Dunedin South, every person I talk to rolls their eyes every time the flag debate comes up. This should have been a much better-handled process. My biggest problem with the process under which this bill is going through the House at the moment is my absolute objection to what Gareth Hughes said yesterday about this being some kind of new politics and engaging with the public. Let us be honest: this is just a stitch-up. This is a deal. It is a tricky deal that has been done with the National Government to allow this last-minute entry into the flag choices of a fifth option. I do not have any issue with Red Peak, but I think the whole process has been besmirched right from the very beginning. This is not new politics; this is old politics. This is a stitch-up deal, and it is the National Government that is doing the tricky—

That was quite a wide-ranging and extraordinary contribution. Correct me if I am wrong, Mr Chair, but we are currently debating Part 1 of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill. It is a very, very simple part of the legislation. All it says is that the legislation will be changed such that there are five options on which the public can vote, not four. This is not actually complicated. In fact, I believe that members have the capacity to grasp what is happening well within their grasp, and yet we hear all sorts of accusations that “Everybody but me”—Clare Curran just said—“is playing politics on this issue.”

Well, there are people playing politics on this very simple bill and ensuring it takes far more of the Committee’s time than it needs to, and the puerile and infantile amendments on the Table from Denis O’Rourke are one example. It just goes to show what happens when the “Babysitter” is away. When the “Babysitter” is away, all sorts of impractical and impolitic indulgences are indulged in by the New Zealand First Party. I believe I speak for many members when I say—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The amendments that you mentioned are not to Part 1. They are actually on the clauses.

I apologise. I was not referring to the amendments in any substance; merely to the position that various parties are taking on this part, which is, indeed, very simple. In fact, going from four to five options is so simple that it is difficult to fill 5 minutes talking about anything else. Thankfully, the Opposition has given us all sorts of immaturity, all sorts of political game-playing, and all sorts of excuses to make this process far more complex than it needs to be.

If the Opposition were serious about being respectful of New Zealanders and acting in such a way that this legislative change happens quickly, efficiently, and smoothly so the House can get on to all of those things that the Opposition says are far more important, we would not still be debating this. It could have been done and dusted, and we could have got on to more important matters last night.

The truth is that the Opposition has chosen to deeply politicise the very simple exercise of going from four to five options. I would not have thought that this was a complex matter to detain the House with for a long time, but it does appear to have detained the Opposition for a long time. The Opposition, in turn, has detained the House and left us with a much, much more drawn-out process than there needed to have been.

So when the Opposition tells us that it is the Government or this side of the Chamber that is abusing or offending or taking for granted or belittling New Zealanders, all it needs to do, if it wants to move the Committee and the House on to more serious business, is to say “We’re OK with going from four to five. We’re comfortable with that. We’re numerous enough to do it.”, sit down, and allow the Committee and the House to move on to more important business.

But I predict that we are going to see the kind of puerile grandstanding from New Zealand First that we get whenever their “Babysitter” is away managing media matters for the Parliamentary Rugby Team in London, or on any other occasion when those members are unsupervised and left to their own devices in a House they could never have entered without the ”Babysitter’s” assistance. They will carry on and carry on for as long as possible, simultaneously claiming it is the Government that is taking advantage of the public and the House, while, nevertheless, it is they who have a real difficulty with the simple concept of going from four to five options. That is all we are trying to achieve here, so let us just say it—

Kia ora, Mr Chair. I cannot say it is a joy to follow Mr Seymour in the debate. It is interesting that Mr Seymour brings into the debate how people came into this House. I think that of all the people in this House who should not mention babysitters or special treatment or other things that have been manipulated by this Government to allow Mr Seymour to sit here to participate in a debate, it is he who should not speak of such things. I think also that it is interesting that Mr Seymour suggests that only those who are reasonable would want to push forward this New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill and not waste the House’s time.

It is interesting that Mr Seymour now stands for referendums when every other party in this House has lost its ability to take the high ground with regard to referendums. Every other party in this House refused to allow the New Zealand public to have binding referendums on other issues. Only in the last 4 years we have had issues that would have made massive social change, and yet somehow National members treat the changing of the colours that we carry into the world without the same level of importance. They would not allow the New Zealand public to express its voice around marriage amendment or alcohol laws or other laws, but around this referendum bill apparently it is OK to trust the public. Mr Macindoe waxed lyrical last night at how wonderful and magnanimous it was that the Government was responding to 50,000 likes, so that this referendum bill is now here. Yet when the people of New Zealand stood outside and asked for a voice over another bill in only the last 3 years this House said: “You can’t be trusted with it—you can’t be trusted with it.”

The other thing that I think is very interesting—and I want to acknowledge the contribution on this bill last night by Mr Mallard, when he acknowledged that the Labour Party had been naive to participate with the National Government—

💬 Paul Foster-Bell: The Greens—he said the Greens were naive.

With the National Government—go and have a look at the transcripts, Mr Foster-Bell; I was here. Mr Mallard recognised that the Labour Party had been naive by participating in what it thought was going to be a cross-party conversation with mutual respect with the Government around the creation of a panel of people to select the flag design, and then to go forward also around creating the bill that would put through the way that the referendum would be done. Mr Mallard quite clearly articulated that it was at that committee that they believed—and everybody on the committee supposedly agreed—that the first referendum question would be: “Yes or no—do you want a change or not?”, but apparently the Government overrode that. So I want to recognise that Mr Mallard gave a nod to the wisdom of New Zealand First members, who said: “We are not going to participate in the charade.”

And the charade continues—the charade continues with this bill. Not only was there the charade of a cross-party political consensus to form the panel that selected four designs—four designs that nobody wants, or that 70 percent of New Zealand does not want—but there was also the charade that there should be only four, that the panel should be independent, and that nobody should interfere with it. But when the polls start to turn—when the polls start to turn—and it looks like the Prime Minister will not get his legacy, the item that he wants to have run up the flagpole so that everybody sees his name on it in the history books, suddenly that independent process can be affected. Suddenly it is quite OK, and somehow the Government is now responding to the will of the public.

When New Zealand First actually listens to the public and the public says it wants binding citizen initiated referenda—when New Zealand First responds to that and puts it in its manifesto, it is accused of being populist. How much more populist could one be than deciding to put legislation into the House off a Facebook vote? It is not even a scientific Facebook vote. It is a vote where you do not know whether 10,000 people voted five times. Yet, apparently, this is not populist politics. Apparently, this is worthy of the time and the money of this House.

It is interesting that those who wish to rush it through, for whatever reason they hold themselves, suggest that it is those who stand for the current flag, those who represent the 70 percent of New Zealanders who do not wish to see change, those who represent the 70 percent of New Zealanders who do not want to see $26 million wasted on this referendum when there are more important issues, those of us who stand for the history of this country, those who fought and died under this flag, and those of us who wish to truly hear the voice of New Zealand, not on a Facebook page, but on a scientific poll—apparently, we are now accused by the ACT Party, of all people, of wasting Parliament’s time and money.

💬 David Seymour: Well, you are.

By the ACT Party, of all people. It is one of the largest wastes of time and money in this Parliament. So it is interesting that those who want to push this through are accusing those of us standing up against this legislation tonight of wasting Parliament’s time and money. Well, we will continue to stand against it.

I think the other thing, too, that is interesting is this push-through for flags, and I want to now speak about Mr Macindoe’s contribution to this bill yesterday, when Mr Macindoe again waxed lyrical about his personal preference. Obviously, I am doing the same thing. I am making a statement that I prefer the flag that has the history that we currently have. We also note that there is now a push by the RSA to include the current New Zealand flag in the first debate. Mr Mallard suggested that that was possible. Mr Mallard suggested that this bill has been so badly written that it could pass, it could go back to the executive, and the executive—now that Parliament has interfered in the process and removed the independence of the panel—could decide on a whole new series, a whole new five flags, and put them in front of the public.

The question New Zealand First has is not only whether there will be a commitment that that will not happen, that this legislation will be amended during the Committee stage to make sure that actually we will not trash all those options and start all over again with whatever the Prime Minister likes—or perhaps the Prime Minister and Richie McCaw could get together and tell the country what they think we should have—but also how much extra money will this cost? How much extra money now, by deciding we are going to change the independent process, is this going to add to the $26 million bill that has already been budgeted for this event?

💬 David Seymour: Zero.

Mr Seymour shouts from the side again with no knowledge or understanding, and it is interesting that he shouts from the side, because the Government continues to protect him through the status he holds here. It does not allow Mr Seymour to be questioned. Nobody can question Mr Seymour because he is under the protection of the Government through his parliamentary under-secretary role. Yet he continues—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

—to advocate—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Look, this is well wide of the content of Part 1, so I ask the member to come back to Part 1.

That particular member argues for this legislation in the House. This particular member, who cannot be scrutinised in any way, stands and argues for a change to what is the historical emblem of this nation, and we would question that. We question every part of this process. We question every dollar spent on this process, and New Zealand First will continue to question every dollar spent on this process.

We will not be supporting this bill. It comes as no surprise to anybody that we will not be supporting this bill. Not only should there not be any other designs; there should not be five designs or four designs, and Red Peak, with only 50,000 likes, has not been shown to have popular endorsement. So I think I have made my point fairly clear. We will not support the bill. We stand for the current flag; we do not stand for the wasting of this House’s time and money. But it was not New Zealand First that started this waste of time and money. It was this Government and John Key.

Some of the debate around the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill has got a little bit silly. It has got a little bit out of control.

💬 David Seymour: I agree.

David Seymour is nodding his head, and he would know. I want to focus on what I think is the one thing that we can salvage out of this debacle, which is Andrew Little’s proposed amendment to add the question—

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Calm down, boys. I think, from talking with people overnight, that actually what people want to see is a little bit of dignity and decorum in this debate. When we actually try to address some substantive issues and we get laughter and barracking from the other side of the Chamber, it does nothing to actually add to the decorum of this debate.

I want to address this question of whether or not we should be asking people: “Do you want to change the flag?”. I have heard an odd argument against why we should do this, which is that people need to see the options before they decide whether they want to change the flag or not. But, actually, people are going to be presented now with five options. People are going to know exactly what they are going to be voting on if they decide to go to a second referendum. People know exactly what they are going to be doing.

We did this when we went to MMP. This is exactly the process—the Minister in the chair, Dr Nick Smith, is shaking his head, but he obviously has as bad a memory as John Key does—we used with MMP. We asked people: “Do you want to change the voting system?”. And then the second question at the first referendum was: “Regardless of how you voted in that first question, if we were to change, what would you change it to?”. That worked perfectly well. There was no question back then that people needed to know which electoral system we would be changing to if we decided to change after that first question, and it gave us the opportunity to ask people whether that was something we should actually be doing.

I think it is even more important that we include that in the first referendum because so many people have come forward and said “We don’t agree with change.”, or “This is not the right time. We ought to get the books back into surplus. We ought to deal with the $105 billion worth of debt that the Government has amassed before we deal with this issue. We want to have an opportunity to say: ‘No, we don’t want to proceed and spend money unnecessarily.’ ” There are a lot of people out there—and I know that New Zealand First is, sort of, representing this part of the electorate—who just do not want to change. So we should simply ask that question: is this something that we want to do?

I think it disrespects the intelligence of the voting public to say that they cannot make that choice before they have voted on which of the options they want to change to. So I again implore members to support this amendment proposed by Andrew Little. We know it works. We have got previous history of using exactly this process and of it working well, and it is something that people want.

Fifty thousand people signed a petition asking to include Red Peak. We could have included Red Peak without this legislation—let us make that clear. We do not need this legislation to include Red Peak, so this is a sham and even more of a sideshow—but, anyway, never mind. People spoke up and said they wanted Red Peak. Well, actually, tens of thousands of people also signed a petition saying they wanted to have the opportunity to say yes or no at the first referendum, and 80 percent of the submissions to the select committee—

💬 Clare Curran: 80 percent said they wanted the opportunity.

—80 percent said they wanted the opportunity for the yes/no question. So if we are responding to what the public wants and if we are going to indulge in the poll-driven behaviour that we have seen from the Prime Minister, then let us include this question—yes or no—before we even go to having the expense of a second referendum.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to carry on from where my colleague Fletcher Tabuteau left off last night in his quite superb contribution. I want to begin as he ended, by referring to one of the many very fine typescript amendments in the name of my colleague Denis O’Rourke. It says: “This Act is the New Zealand Flag Referendums Act 2015”, and to replace that name with the “New Zealand Flag Referendums (Destroying our Heritage) Amendment Act 2015”, because that is fundamentally what this bill is about. That is what this process is about.

This process is really about a not very well hidden agenda to simply remove the Union Jack from our flag because there are people who want to remove the links to our British heritage. Basically, what is underlying this whole process is a not very well hidden agenda of republicanism. I think it is a tragedy, actually, that there are fine members on the other side—Mr Foster-Bell, for example, and Mr Simpson, who I know for a fact are fine patriots and who are staunch supporters of our constitutional monarchy. That members of that ilk, who are very fine people, should have to sit in this House and defend a process that basically undermines the things that they hold dear is a tragedy.

The removing of the Union flag from our flag, for whatever reason, simply because it is an association with our British past, is an anachronism. Personally, my heritage is not predominantly British—I certainly have some British blood, but no English—but I absolutely appreciate, believe, and recognise that everything the British brought to the world is a great deal better than anything that anybody else ever brought.

If we are going to get rid of the English language, Westminster democracy, the separation powers, the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, the common law, Christian tolerance, and everything else that makes our society free and successful, then what is it proposed that we replace them with? If we are not going to replace those things and if we are not going to get rid of those things, then what is either wrong or irrelevant about having the Union Jack, which is the symbol of them all, in the corner of our flag? We are not beholden to Britain. Britain has no sovereignty over us.

💬 David Seymour: Has the member heard of Canada?

Mr Seymour is chipping away in the background. Hush now, Mr Seymour. The grown-ups are talking. The Canadians had a completely different scenario to contend with. They had a French component who were not happy with the Union flag.

But we are happy with the Union flag in New Zealand, and in New Zealand First we are perfectly happy with the Union flag. Britain has had no effective sovereignty over New Zealand for more than 100 years and no legal sovereignty for 70 years. We still have the same Sovereign as Britain because we choose to, not because we are required to. We are not a colony, we are not a possession; we are not a protectorate. We are not any kind of an appendage.

💬 David Seymour: Is this is in Part 1 of the bill?

We are an independent nation, and we have been so for nearly six generations. The Union flag does not hold us under the sway or thrall of some foreign power, Mr Seymour; rather, it symbolises everything that we still believe is good about our history and our heritage.

The Union flag is our Union flag every bit as much as it is Britain’s Union flag. It belongs to us every bit as much as it belongs to British people. We are every bit as entitled to fly the symbols of our heritage and our values as are any other people who share them and who still subscribe to them.

We are a classless post-colonial society. We are not slaves or serfs or subjects over whom the British royal family lord some kind of archaic dominion. Rather, we are a free, egalitarian people, who embrace the Windsors as our royalty—the people who symbolise everything that we hold and whom we have chosen to retain as the basis for our constitutional foundation.

We are not a federal republic like the United States, we are not a federal commonwealth like Australia, and we are not a federated constitutional monarchy like Canada. We are a realm. We have picked and chosen the bits of our constitutional make-up that suit us, and we are comfortable in our skin. When our royals come and visit, we do not bow and scrape as if we are lesser. We wave and we smile because they are our royals and we are pleased to see them. Everyone is equal in this blessed and egalitarian land.

Some people on the other side, on the republican side—the apologists—talk about our association with our British history as being cringeworthy. Do you know what I find cringeworthy? It is people who cannot find pride in themselves about living in a democracy. It is people who cannot find pride in the fact that the English brought Christian values to the Western World, that the British Empire brought the light of civilisation into the deepest reaches of God’s earth, and that the English-speaking world stood shoulder to shoulder against the darkness of tyranny twice, and continues to do so every time freedom and rights are challenged anywhere in the world.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! You are way off the mark. We are on Part 1.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I find it cringeworthy that the perpetually dissatisfied among us belittle the values of the world of which our nation is a part, and that the Union flag represents. We are an English-speaking Western democracy. We are a steadfast and willing member of a familial alliance of nations with whom we share language, culture, values, history, heritage, and blood.

I am proud of all that. I find it cringeworthy that the detractors among us are not. There are some—the apologists, the shamed—

I move, That the question be now put.