Clendon David: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClendon David: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 28 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5353. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID CLENDON (Green): E Te Ūpoko o Te Paopao a Piringa tēnā koe.[Mr Speaker of the House of Idle Talk greetings to you.]What we are debating today is actually a symbol. A flag is a very powerful and very important symbol. It is a symbol of a nation State a symbol of a political identity and to a lesser extent perhaps a symbol of a shared cultural identity. It is important. This symbol has already triggered one shooting war in New Zealand. If you recall our history our northern tupuna Hone Heke took exception to the fact that the symbol of British power was being flown above Kororāreka rather than the flag of New Zealand which 10 years earlier had been acknowledged by the British monarchy and by the Admiralty. One hopes that this debate currently will not come to blows but nevertheless it is a critically important conversation we are having about this symbol.I guess our objection to this bill is that in my view—and it is a common enough phrase—form should follow function. Of course that comes from architecture—that the purpose of a building should drive its design. In this instance the function is our constitutional arrangements that underpin our political identity; the form is the symbol that we fly to represent our nation State which is of course a flag. We are having this debate and a referendum—$26 million of expenditure—worrying about changing the form when we should be addressing the function which is the underlying constitutional arrangements.It is true that in 2010 the Government did establish a panel the independent Constitutional Advisory Panel which in 2013 reported back with its findings. With all due respect to the eminent New Zealanders who sat on the panel their recommendation which was perhaps a little underwhelming was that we should continue the conversation. It was a very genuine and a thoughtful enough recommendation and a very real one.It is fair to say that this current flag consultation process has struggled to get the numbers. We have all seen the pictures of halls prepared for 100 people with five or six embarrassed-looking people and probably a larger number of officials.The Constitutional Advisory Panel back in 2010 or thereabouts received something like 5259 submissions which in the words of Mr English—who spoke earlier today—indicated some interest in the nation’s constitutional framework. Mr English then went on to say: “although there is no sense of an urgent or widespread desire for change”. So by Mr English’s admission in 2013 New Zealanders are not jumping up and down in the street for this. I think there is a groundswell and a feeling that we need to look hard at our constitution and therefore at the symbols that represent us as a nation State but there seems to not be the urgency. It seems peculiar that we are spending an inordinate amount of time and a remarkable amount of money debating the form rather than the function of our constitution.I think we would not need to spend $26 million to think hard and to perhaps develop a new more fit for purpose constitution. We have a very good model a matika mai which is a project being led by Moana Jackson a lawyer specialising in constitutional and Māori and te Tiriti issues particularly who along with a very well-informed powerful team of people and for very little money continues to go around the country talking about what our constitution could look like.I think it is fair to say that too often the question posed is: how might Te Tiriti o Waitangi fit into our constitutional arrangements? That is the wrong question. The question we need to ask is what form of constitutional arrangement logically emerges from our Te Tiriti o Waitangi which I think we collectively recognise as the founding document of our country. That is the debate we should be having rather than this rather tangential debate about the symbolism about the flag—about what has been described as the piece of coloured cloth. Thank you.