Graham Kennedy: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGraham Kennedy: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 12 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2228. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): We have before us the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. In one respect it can be seen as a matter of considerable political significance. In another sense there is less to it than meets the eye. What meets the eye is the visual symbolism of our national identity. Flags count at least in the sense of self-perception. They depict who we think we are to paraphrase a recently departed colleague. The Canadians got it right back in the 1960s. The simple but compelling symbol of the maple leaf beautifully illustrates who the Canadians are. The world recognises them immediately and positively. Those of us in Australasia are a little slower in the maturation process. We have lingered with the Union Jack as both the colonial symbol and our national flag. The other symbol the Southern Cross is shared between our two countries. It simply serves to sow confusion as to our separate identities yet Brazil has the Southern Cross as well. So we could retain the stars and still have a separate identity. There is therefore a compelling reason to consider a change of flag. We would so to speak be proceeding down a road of national significance.But there is also less to this than meets the eye. The way in which the process has been generated is a trifle weird because it was the Prime Minister who took it upon himself to lead the nation in the idea of changing the flag. The explanatory note says: “For some time there has been public debate about whether New Zealand should consider changing its flag.” That is of course contestable as a quick review of the flag’s history will show. We have had the current version since it was first gazetted back in 1869 and affirmed in 1902. The insertion of the Southern Cross was done on the instruction of the Queen-in-Council—not exactly a public debate. As early as 1920 Parliament was asked to consider whether to have a flag that was distinct from that of Britain. Queries were already being received from the Canadian Parliament. New Zealand MPs replied then that there needed to be “a groundswell of public opinion before the Government should consider any change.” During World War II suggestions were made to the Prime Minister that a Māori emblem be included on the flag in recognition of the role of the Māori Battalion. Peter Fraser deferred the matter until the end of the war and it was never revisited.In 2004 a civic movement was formed to change the flag with a campaign for a citizens initiated referendum. But there was not enough support to force a vote. To the extent that there was any public debate the people pre-emptively voted for no change. The latest development was in 2009 with the refusal of Transit New Zealand to fly the Tino Rangatiratanga flag on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. The critical development that time was the decision by the Prime Minister to personally intervene. He said he would be happy to allow a Māori flag to be flown including in Parliament if there were agreement over a particular design. A series of hui followed to ascertain which of four flags Māori preferred. The choice was between the New Zealand flag the independence flag the red ensign and the Tino Rangatiratanga flag. The last one was chosen and it has flown on Waitangi Day ever since. But whether that represents a spontaneous and genuine public debate about changing our national flag is a separate thing and more than just a moot point.The Prime Minister with his instinct for vice-regal populism has actually sparked this latest round himself with his speech 1 year ago. He said then that he was outlining “a plan to hold a public discussion and vote next parliamentary term on New Zealand’s flag.” The Prime Minister cannot outline a plan to hold a public discussion about a change of flag and say on introducing the bill that for some time there has been a public debate. That is the debate he is planning to hold not one that he can acknowledge already exists.The second point of concern: in his speech last year the Prime Minister allowed himself the luxury of stating a personal belief. “The design of the current flag symbolises a colonial and post-colonial era whose time has passed.” he told an unsuspecting nation. He said: “I am proposing that we take one more step in the evolution of modern New Zealand by acknowledging our independence through a new flag.” Yet in the next breath the Prime Minister said he wanted to give a clear assurance and commitment that retaining the current flag was a very possible outcome from the process and there was to be no presumption in favour of change. The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot gratuitously offer a personal view that the flag should be changed and in the same speech say there was no presumption in favour of change. Of course there is a presumption. It is on the part of the nation’s leader. Had he kept his personal views to himself the disclaimer might have come across as genuine. The conclusion is clear. The Prime Minister is not responding to a public clamour for change. He is personally stimulating a process for a decision and in that process has already stated his view.In fairness the way his Cabinet has structured the national decision process is broadly democratic. The explanatory note says: “To provide New Zealanders with a forum in which to progress this discussion in a formal and respectful way the Government decided to initiate a broad engagement process followed by the opportunity for the public to vote on the New Zealand Flag.” The cross-party group the citizens panel and the dual referenda are that process. But the basic presumption that there was a strong mandate for a change remains in question. That doubt has not been allayed; if anything it has been intensified by the refusal of Cabinet to agree to the recommendation of the cross-party group that the first referendum include a prior question: “Do you think the flag should be changed?”. If a simple majority were to say no there would not be a second referendum. That would have been truly democratic. That would have implemented the assurance that there was no presumption on his part for change. But Cabinet refused so we are obliged to go through the process of the two referenda.There are many people out there saying that this process is a distraction or a $26 million waste of public funds when there are more pressing social and political needs. It would have been consistent with those concerns for the Prime Minister to agree that the basic question be asked first but he has presumed to override that. This fact alone brings into doubt the credibility of his claim that there is a public debate already existing but no presumption of change. In his 2014 speech the Prime Minister claimed that the decision over the flag is “bigger than party politics”. This is true. That is why he should have listened with more respect to the recommendation of the cross-party group.The Green Party will support this bill going to the select committee but we shall listen very carefully to the submissions and gauge the public mood. We shall not take the Prime Minister’s word for it that it is critically important to proceed. The decision to proceed should and must reflect a genuine national decision not a personal preference of a populist leader.