Robertson Grant: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:7038. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): As other colleagues have acknowledged the Labour Party will be supporting this legislation. As colleagues in the House know we attempted to put before the House a bill that would have allowed Red Peak to be added to the referendum along with our clear and consistent position that that should be preceded by a yes/no vote.We have said from the outset that as the public mood rose up in support of additional options we wanted to support more choice. I for one am pleased that New Zealanders will have more choice and that is why we are voting for this legislation.I want to reflect on what this process could have been: the opportunity to discuss New Zealand’s identity and our sense of place in the 21st century. What kind of constitutional arrangements underpin a country like New Zealand growing and going forward into the 21st century? That is a conversation that New Zealand needs and I believe it is a conversation that New Zealanders want to have.The Government dipped its toe in the water of that conversation with the constitutional review panel chaired by John Burrows who also chaired the Flag Consideration Panel. Professor Burrows is a learned and good person. That constitutional review panel’s recommendations have essentially just been put in the bottom drawer and locked away by the Government. It is not interested in having a proper conversation about this.As a country had we had that conversation and talked about the place of the Treaty in our future talked about our constitutional arrangements talked about whether we feel strong enough to move towards what I personally believe we should in terms of being a republic and talked about how we organise ourselves. Inevitably as part of that conversation we would have discussed the flag and whether or not the flag should change. But there has been no commitment to that process by the National Government.The Prime Minister has lifted out from that conversation a discussion about the flag. That to my mind is a huge disappointment. In the absence of that wider conversation I suspect that in March next year there will be no change to the flag. There are some people in this House who will be very pleased that that will be the outcome in March next year. I am actually not one of those people. I am actually a person who thinks we probably could change the flag and probably should change the flag but it needed to be part of that wider process.In the absence of that what we are left with is an attempt by the Prime Minister to create for himself a legacy. Well I have got news for the Prime Minister. Our future constitutional arrangements and our identity as a country is not about him. It is not about his ego. It is not about a vanity project for him. I think it is a huge shame that this process which could have been part of something so useful for defining ourselves as a country in the 21st century has been derailed by the Prime Minister’s approach throughout this. I am very sad about that.I want to say a couple of things about how this piece of legislation has found its way to us today. I acknowledge that the Green Party in putting this bill forward has the aim of increasing choice for New Zealanders in the referendum. We should not ignore the large movement of New Zealanders who wanted something more and I think that is important. As I said we too were attempting to put that legislation forward.There is no way to hide and we have not tried to hide the disappointment of the Labour Party in the way that this has happened and in particular in the fact that as part of putting this forward a deal was done between the Greens and National to not support Labour’s Supplementary Order Papers. That is extremely disappointing to us because we do not think if we are trying to avoid political game playing that that is a genuine and straightforward way of approaching this issue.Having said that we have a good relationship with the Green Party. We have a lot in common. We have a lot of issues that we will continue to work on together. Whatever happens around this piece of legislation I know that that relationship can will and should endure.What I do know is that on the other side of the House we have a Prime Minister who is now completely desperate about his referendum. Only 2 weeks ago he told New Zealanders there was no chance of Red Peak getting on the ballot paper—none whatsoever. He repeated it. His very good and close friend Paul Henry said to him: “Prime Minister I want you to clarify absolutely. Will Red Peak end up on the referendum?”. The Prime Minister said: “No it won’t. We’re not going back to Parliament to change the law.” Those are the exact words: “We are not going back to Parliament to change the law.”So what does the word of our Prime Minister mean? What does it mean to New Zealanders now if the Prime Minister says something and in 2 weeks he can flip around? And we know why.Hon Gerry Brownlee: He listens.GRANT ROBERTSON: “He listens.” says Gerry Brownlee. He is desperate Mr Brownlee because his referendum is on the skids. Seventy percent of New Zealanders do not want to change the flag and so the Prime Minister has taken to going to any venue in the country to run his flag process through it.There was the bizarre situation of the Prime Minister standing up at a cancer fund-raiser and asking the people there to raise their hands as to whether or not they support the referendum. Then those who do not support the referendum—the Prime Minister begins to interrogate them and berate them about the fact that they are not supporting the referendum. This is how desperate John Key has become.John Key wants a legacy. John Key wants a legacy and that legacy for him is to change the flag. He would be far better off leaving a legacy of lifting children out of poverty or leaving a legacy of ensuring that every young New Zealander grows up in a warm and dry home or leaving a legacy that unemployment goes under 4 percent. They would be legacies to be proud of. That would be a Prime Minister who knows that a legacy is not so much about him but about how he leaves the country.This Prime Minister does not understand that. All the legacies he wants are about him and how he thinks he will be remembered. He is going to have to exercise enormous political capital over the next few months to try to get this referendum through. And I think he will. I think he will spend millions of dollars probably of taxpayers’ money on going up and down the country over the next few months desperately trying to get his referendum passed.That is the irony. Red Peak the very thing he said he did not want and the very thing he said would not be on the ballot paper is the thing he is now clutching on to as his saviour. I have said in this House earlier in the debate that I think Red Peak is a better flag than the others. I know others do not agree with me but I think it is a better flag than the others.I personally as I have also said think that the flag probably should change as part of that wider constitutional conversation. But every member of this House knows when they go out back to their constituencies and when they go to public meetings that the TV3 poll that says 70 percent of New Zealanders do not want the flag to change is accurate. Every member of this House knows that when they go back to their constituencies.Hon Gerry Brownlee: No not true.GRANT ROBERTSON: Gerry Brownlee does not know that. The good people of Ilam are apparently completely outside of that—completely outside of that. It could actually be possible. Who knows what happens in an electorate that elects Gerry Brownlee time after time? They could be saying anything at all but that is the truth.This Government and in particular this Prime Minister have destroyed an opportunity for New Zealand to have the conversation we need to have about our future identity because of vanity and because of ego. Now in his desperation he accepts that there needs to be another option.I am pleased New Zealanders will have more choice in this referendum. We support the bill because we believe New Zealanders should have more choice. We also wanted them to have the real choice of whether or not they even want to change the flag. I am disappointed that did not get through.This has been a completely unnecessary process that typifies what has been a shambles of a referendum. The Government has failed New Zealanders once again.