New Zealand Day Bill — First Reading 
New Zealand Day Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19663] 
New Zealand Day Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 16 March. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is my understanding that the honourable member Katherine Rich will use the remaining time from the speech commenced by John Carter on the first reading of the New Zealand Day Bill. I allow that under Standing Order 117(2). 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 It is a privilege to stand here in place of the honourable John Carter who I am sure gave a very interesting and inspired speech for the first 5 minutes of this call. We are here to talk about the New Zealand Day Bill. I think this is a great idea. I remember the only two times that we had New Zealand Day celebrations. As many people will remember it was Prime Minister Norman Kirk who wanted to have a New Zealand Day—a day that brought all New Zealanders together rather than divided us. For 2 years we had a New Zealand Day. 
I think it is good that Peter Dunne has brought this matter to the House for discussion again because I think it is timely. For many Kiwis Waitangi Day is not a day of celebration for all. It is a day when they turn on their television and see signs of protest and all sorts of bad behaviour up at Waitangi. I think those sorts of visions spoil the day for many many people—that is of course if they celebrate Waitangi Day at all. As a developed nation it is important that we have a day when we can celebrate as one country when we can celebrate the things that bring us together not divide us and when we can have an annual holiday when all Kiwis can enjoy and think about the things that make us special as New Zealanders. 
But I think it is important that we understand that changing the label of our national day to New Zealand Day will not solve all the problems that many of us see on Waitangi Day each year. If we are truly to have a future for this nation then I think we have to sort out some of the issues to do with the Treaty of Waitangi and the debate that surrounds that. We have to form a new vision for this country that we can all buy into so that it becomes a day when we are not divided but is a day when we celebrate what makes us special as New Zealanders and ensures that we work together for a common goal. If I have any reservations about what this bill is designed to do—it is designed to change a name—it is that often as we see with a lot of legislation in this House changing a name is only a small step towards making a real difference. 
I think it is important that we have this debate and I congratulate Peter Dunne on bringing this bill to the House because although it is probably the shortest bill that I have ever stood to debate I think it is one that will create a lot of interest. Hopefully we will make sure that many Kiwis take part in the debate through making submissions to the select committee so that their views can be known. 
I think it is important to have a day that we can all celebrate—a day we can all buy into a day like those that many other nations have a day we can point to as our special day the day when we celebrate our country. From there we can hopefully develop a vision for the day that all Kiwis regardless of their creed colour or race can enjoy so that we all can point to it as our own day. 
Despite the bill being very short I think it raises huge issues for our country. What is the role of the treaty what is the role for us as New Zealand citizens what rights do we have that come with that citizenship and what are the special things about our culture that we should take time out in a given year to make sure we celebrate? 
I think New Zealand Day is something that Labour members should support. One of their iconic Labour leaders introduced it as a concept in the 1970s so it will be interesting to see whether they support this bill. [ 
Interruption 
] It was raised first by a gentleman whom I know that Darren Hughes of the Labour Party would certainly respect. In terms of the debate created by this bill I expect that the select committee will be inundated with submissions from proponents of both sides of the argument. From that we can hopefully come to some agreement about what Waitangi Day and what New Zealand Day should this bill have some success should mean to us as a country. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of Labour to support this bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I agree with some of the comments made by the previous speaker that changing the name of the day is less important than some of the underlying debates so Labour will not necessarily support the legislation once it has been considered by the select committee. 
We are forced to consider this bill as part of the wider debate going on in New Zealand now concerning the place of the Treaty of Waitangi. One way the Government is addressing that debate is through the Constitutional Arrangements Committee which is currently sitting and cataloguing present constitutional arrangements. It will make recommendations to Parliament not about how the constitution ought to change—if it ought to change at all—but if change were to be contemplated about what processes have been followed in overseas countries. 
Changing the name of the day will not fix the underlying treaty issues this country needs to address and is addressing. I like to quote Dr Michael Cullen who earlier this year commented that the treaty is a document that: “… provides an orderly framework for the settlement of historical grievances and the resolution of ongoing debates about the rights of the original inhabitants and owners of the land.” We ought not to forget that and we ought also to take some solace and pride from the fact that many of those historical grievances have already been settled in a way that I think reflects well on both Maori and non-Maori. 
If I take my own part of the world the South Island I can say that the Ngai Tahu settlement some years ago settled forever the historic grievances behind that dispute between Ngai Tahu and the Crown in a way that has already stood the test of a reasonable period of time. Following that settlement we have seen considerable success on the part of Ngai Tahu in improving their own institutions financial position and the position of their people particularly as they direct so much money towards the education of their young people and the care and welfare of their older people. 
Although Labour is prepared to support this bill going to the select committee we make the point that changing the name of Waitangi Day to New Zealand Day will not resolve underlying treaty issues and ought not to be a way to brush over them. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First shares the view of the previous speaker to a very large extent. We will support this New Zealand Day Bill going to the select committee but—and it is a significant but—we hope that the bill has not been proposed because of prior protests on Waitangi Day. I suspect that may well be the reason underlying the proposed change of name from Waitangi Day to New Zealand Day. I hope the Hon Peter Dunne in taking up his right of reply will clarify that and will tell this House whether he would be proposing this bill if there had not been so many protests on Waitangi Day in the past. 
I say also that the name “Waitangi” probably means a good deal more to the average Maori person than to a non-Maori person. I can understand that some Maori will feel somewhat slighted to lose the name of their day—the day that they regard as their own. I hope that is not the case. I am a little bit worried when I read the explanatory note. It states: “It is vital that as a modern multicultural nation New Zealand recognise its diversity through a designated national day to which all sectors of our society feel able to contribute.” That seems to me to say that we are now multicultural that we do not want to designate an extra holiday that will be a real New Zealand Day that everybody can embrace so we will take a day—namely Waitangi Day—and call it New Zealand Day. I can understand some people feeling slighted at that. 
The explanatory note also seems to say to me that this country is changing somewhat out of control. I think of the country I came from where now in many parts of it—I am talking about Britain or England in particular—it is illegal to show the Christmas scene at Christmas time. The multiculturalists have overtaken the country and they have said that the Christmas scene cannot be on display. The member over there is frowning but I tell her that it is true. 
Jill Pettis 
: Where? 
PETER BROWN 
: In the UK. Also in the UK not so long ago there was a demand from the multicultural segment of society to change the cap badge of the Metropolitan Police. It very nearly achieved that. The reason for the demand was that Britain is a multicultural society and the badge should reflect that. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Go back and sort them out! 
PETER BROWN 
: I was almost tempted to do that but the Commissioner of Police a chap called Stevens— 
Darren Hughes 
: We’ll pay half the fare. 
PETER BROWN 
: You will pay to get me back I know. If I pay to go there you will pay to get me back. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will not do anything. 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Assistant Speaker will not? I apologise to you. I am just saying to members that that is the way multiculturalism is going in the UK. I hope this bill is not the start of that trend here. Indeed only a few weeks ago I heard that people wanted to change the name of a pub in the UK because it offended people who believe in multiculturalism. That pub had had that name for 300 years. 
Frankly to my mind—and I know that this view is shared by some of my colleagues—a better day to have as New Zealand Day is the day before or after or a day very close to Anzac Day. That day is recognised by young old Maori and non-Maori as really a part of this country’s history; a day when everybody united together to fight for this country. If we are going to have a New Zealand Day it would not be a bad idea—and this is the view of some of my colleagues—to have a separate day closely associated with Anzac Day. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Another holiday? 
PETER BROWN 
: If this bill states that we should have a holiday to celebrate New Zealand let us have one not take another holiday and rename it. If we want a holiday because we are multicultural and because we have all sorts of people here let us be brave enough to say that we should have a holiday. This bill targets one day and changes the name of it to New Zealand Day and it just smacks a little bit of political opportunism. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: It’s mean. 
PETER BROWN 
: My colleague says it is meanness. I suggest that this bill would not have been brought by the member had Waitangi Day been peaceful in the past. I hope the honourable member will clarify that. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is pleased to join with other parties in this House to support the bill going to the select committee. I want to congratulate the Hon Peter Dunne because he has achieved what many of us never achieve in our time in Parliament where we have bills debated in the House that never thereafter see the light of day. It sounds as if this bill will go to the select committee. 
I personally have had six members’ bills drawn since I have been in Parliament. One is on the Order Paper at the moment awaiting debate and five have been defeated. Some of those have received some support in the House but all of them have been voted against by Labour. I understand the spirit of MMP to be that any bill that is significant and has merit should be sent to a select committee so that Parliament can have a proper look at it and the country can also put its views forward. In that spirit I am delighted to support this bill on behalf of ACT. 
I agree with other members who have spoken in this debate that New Zealanders do need a day that we can feel proud of. I think many of us who are a bit older worry that there does not seem to be enough Kiwi pride around now. Many of us feel we need to re-energise New Zealand so that everyone can recall what it is to feel good about being a New Zealander. When the Olympic Games are on and people win medals and so on and our national anthem is played we all get a sense of national pride. In a way it would be great if we as Kiwis felt that pride on a more regular basis. 
I am sad to say as a member of Parliament who has been here during the whole time of this Labour Government that the pride many New Zealanders used to feel under previous Governments is now slipping away. I do not know about other members of the House but on a daily basis I get messages from good New Zealanders who say they have just had enough they are going to pack their bags and leave the country because they no longer feel that New Zealand is offering the great life they expected. 
When we think about it we see that national pride is made up of many different factors; our values as a nation how we as a country treat people in need and where we are going as a country—what we can provide for future generations of New Zealanders. It seems to me that when we melt it all down and ask what is really important we find that it is that we as a country retain the fact that we are a free and prosperous nation. 
It worries me greatly that although our prosperity seems on the surface to be high when we go beneath the surface we see families all over the place who are struggling and we realise that in fact we are not doing as well as we should be doing. We can point to high tax rates too much regulation and all those sorts of things as the key reasons. Let us look at the word “free”. Are we a free country? I have to say that the amount of regulation and political correctness that come out of the ninth floor of the Beehive and out of this Chamber mean that in fact every day we are losing some of those freedoms. Then we ask ourselves whether this is a country where citizens can succeed. I think the answer is that we do not succeed as well as we used to in the past. So it is a worry that we do not have that national pride. 
It is also a worry that under the provisions in this bill Waitangi Day will be replaced when what we should really be doing is sorting out the problems with Waitangi Day. It was a day that founded this nation. It has become a day of protest. We have to address the underlying causes of that. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party opposes this bill and will be voting against it. In large part the Greens and Mr Dunne probably agree that it is important to recognise diversity and important for all sectors of our society to feel that they can contribute to our society and to our nation as a whole. The difference of course is that Mr Dunne wants to make a name change whereas the Greens are very much committed to ensuring that New Zealanders as a whole have real access to information about our collective history and that we engage with and are enabled to embrace that history—warts and all—and use it as a means to eliminate racism deepen our understanding and most importantly foster peace in our communities. That will take much more commitment from our politicians than just changing the name of a holiday. 
The Greens believe that we should be proud of Waitangi Day the day that commemorates the signing of the treaty. It is the only day that commemorates that signing and that treaty. It is the only day that recognises and celebrates the Maori contribution to our nation. It is the only day that puts Maori at the forefront as the hosts of celebrations discussions and debates. It is the only day when Maori are recognised as the tangata whenua of this country. The tangata whenua have a special place—a particular status—in our nation and changing the name of Waitangi Day to New Zealand Day would be a shift in consciousness away from that. It is a day for non-Maori—for all of us and all our communities—to take stock of where we are and of how much we are all living up to our responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi. It is a day to assess whether our nation the Government and Parliament are truly abiding by the essence and provisions of the treaty whether we are making progress in the righting of historical wrongs whether we are empowering Maori communities to take control of their own lives and whether we are properly resourcing tangata whenua iwi and hapu to overcome the historical disadvantages caused by the past mistakes of our Governments. 
Some people say that Waitangi Day is discredited but they are wrong. Sure it has been a day of debate passion and protest and there is nothing wrong with that. That is what our democracy is all about—the right to disagree. But we have some way to travel before we can become a bicultural bi-structural nation. The debate over the foreshore and seabed when there was so much anger and hurt from Maori and from Pakeha illustrates how far we have yet to go. The Government ran roughshod over Maori and Pakeha concerns that Maori cultural and customary practices and Maori entitlements to their traditional resources were being extinguished by legislation. We cannot and must not hide from the divisions that exist in our society—divisions about what the treaty means to us all and what the ways forward for us might be—by taking away the platforms for dialogue and debate the key one being Waitangi Day. We cannot just change the name of Waitangi Day to New Zealand Day and pretend that in doing so we will make things better. It will make no difference to the situation we find ourselves in. It will not mean that we become one people and that Maori will suddenly forget about all the things that have happened to them in the past or that Pakeha will forget their own histories in our nation. 
In the explanatory note of the bill Peter Dunne talks about how we are now a modern multicultural nation and how New Zealand Day would recognise that better than Waitangi Day. But true multiculturalism can be consistent with biculturalism. True multiculturalists take pride in recognising the place and role of indigenous peoples in their own countries. Migrants often recognise that much better than our Pakeha community. Migrant communities often take on the reo and songs. Some migrant communities like the Sri Lankan Tamil community have special educational events on Waitangi Day to learn about the treaty and its implications for them as a community. Those are important activities. The bonds are growing. Migrants are becoming more bicultural. They understand what it is to be indigenous in a country and to face and suffer the difficulties that arise from that. Maori and migrant communities sense a need to prevent their cultures from being undermined by the dominant State. The Greens do not knock a bit more holiday time for New Zealanders but we need a day to celebrate and recognise Waitangi and what it means for us all. Long may Waitangi continue! 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 My colleagues John Carter and Katherine Rich have already indicated that National will support this bill going to a select committee for an exploration of the issues and for an opportunity for the public to make a contribution have a say and put their views. I understand why Mr Dunne is presenting this bill and given the way that discussions around these issues have progressed over the last 3 to 4 years this is probably not a bad way to provide a forum for some of those discussions to be held. More important it will give those people in New Zealand who have perhaps felt that Waitangi Day did not reflect their own views on different issues an opportunity to make a submission too. 
I do when looking at the explanatory note agree with Mr Dunne’s initial comment that contemporary New Zealand is becoming an increasingly diverse nation culturally and ethnically. He describes New Zealand as a modern multicultural nation. As part of the debate in developing that multicultural nation—and this is a young country we are dealing with—this is a step in the direction of encouraging dialogue between the various citizens of this country on important issues such as the name of the day that they believe reflects the birth I guess of this country. 
So National will support the bill going to a select committee. I do not think that the passage of this bill will be straightforward and easy Mr Dunne—if I could breach the Standing Orders for a moment by making comments to a fellow member directly. It is members’ day and I would appreciate Mr Speaker you allowing me some leeway there. I believe that the passage of this bill will be tidal shall we say. I do not think that it will be plain sailing. I do think though that any nation that is serious about its own development needs to take the opportunity to be proud of the debates that go with part of that growth. 
At the risk of prolonging my comments further I say that National will support this bill going to a select committee and that we await the outcome of public submissions and further discussions on this issue. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Can I firstly thank members and parties that have indicated support for this bill and can I at the outset indicate that I entirely agree with Mr Power’s comments about “Where to from here?”. I am reminded of a speech made in this House recently by the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt when he told the saga of the Adult Adoption Bill and the many years it took before that was passed. 
This is the second time I have tried to bring in this bill. It is interesting to note how positions on various sides of the House have moved in the 4 years that have intervened. I give notice that if I do not quite succeed this time then I will come back again and again and one day we will succeed. 
I want to pick up a couple of the comments that members have made during the course of the debate because they have been essentially constructive even from those who are opposed to the bill. I readily acknowledge that changing the name of Waitangi Day to New Zealand Day does not resolve all the problems we have confronted over the years with regard to Waitangi and how it should be commemorated. But I make the point that it is a symbolic start. It is a fresh start and it provides a new way of approaching the issue. It is not sweeping it under the carpet and it is not simply saying that a name change resolves all the problems. This bill gives us the opportunity to move forward and debate what it is we really want from our national day. 
I am equally open-minded in response particularly to Mr Brown’s comments about what day we have it. I have actually looked at all the alternative days on offer and I have come to the following conclusions. Anzac Day has been raised. I do not think that is appropriate; I think that is a sacrosanct day in many respects. Others have raised Queen’s Birthday. As a republican I might say it is highly desirable to replace Queen’s Birthday with the day we celebrate the establishment of the republic of New Zealand. But that is some way off yet. Others have said: “Well what about the old Dominion Day?”. I think the difficulty with that is that if we are talking about a national day that sets aside a new framework for the country then to celebrate the day we became a British Dominion is not really the appropriate occasion. So when one looks around at all the dates— 
Peter Brown 
: What about a new day? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Well I am coming to that point. When we looks around at all the dates it seems to me we are faced with either of two alternatives. One is to revert to New Zealand Day as it had been for that brief period in the 1970s when we elevated Waitangi Day from being essentially the Northland Anniversary date to being a national day called New Zealand Day. The other is to try to pick a new day and it could be any of the other 360-something days in the calendar. That may well be an option. But I think it is important that we start the debate and that is why I have promoted this bill. 
I want to see it go to a select committee so that New Zealanders can have the opportunity to discuss this and I agree with Mr Power that the time is probably right. People for a variety of reasons—as even this debate has indicated—have had their own thinking shift forward and are looking for a way forward and they ought to have the chance to express that. If the select committee comes to the conclusion that amending 6th February is not the way to go but would like to propose another day I am certainly happy to engage in discussion about that. 
The bottom line is that I think New Zealand is at a point in its development and history where it is mature enough to take on the notion of a national day that embraces all of the cultures and all of the backgrounds that make up this country. We have a unique opportunity here to forge the modern New Zealander as a very special and unique being where we have terrific pride in our country recognition of the various strands of our heritage that make up this country and the confidence to go forward. It seems to me that a small part of that is what this bill is trying to achieve. 
I welcome the support that I have from other parties. I do hope that the select committee—and I indicate that I will move shortly that it be the Justice and Electoral Committee—does give this matter careful consideration and that we can start to see some considered progress made over the years ahead because it would be one further step in the maturing of this nation. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.referred to Justice and Electoral Committee