Naylor Jono: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNaylor Jono: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 13 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5823. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONO NAYLOR (National): It is a pleasure to rise and take a call in this third reading of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. The third reading is a great opportunity to reflect on some of the arguments that have been made in the first reading the second reading the Committee of the whole House and the Justice and Electoral Committee and on what has already been said at the third reading. For a start I have got to pick up on the last comment that Mr O’Rourke made in the previous speech when he was inciting I guess civil disobedience in some way shape or form by encouraging people to spoil voting papers or not to vote at all. I hope that he does remember to tell them to make sure they vote in the second referendumif they are not going to vote in the first one.There have been some really interesting arguments put forward as to why people should vote this down and I want to reflect on some of them. The first one which has been brought up a lot has been the order of the questions with people suggesting that we should have a yes/no vote first. This was put forward in the Committee of the whole House by a number of members but possibly most eloquently by Kris Faafoithe other day who likened choosing a new flag to having a new car. His argument was that if you are going to get another car you should decide whether or not you want another car before deciding what kind you want. I was reflecting on this and I was thinking of my wife’s Suzuki Swift. If somebody said to her “Do you want another car?” she might say: “Well yes. But it would depend on what it is.” Because if somebody was offering her a brand new Lamborghini the answer might be yes; if someone was offering her a 1972 Ford Cortina the answer might be no. So I think it is really important that we do get these questions in the right order and this is the right order to have them in. It is the most logical.By having the referendum split across two referendums and by putting them in this order it is allowing absolutely everybody to participate. If you do not want a change to the New Zealand flag you can still choose a potential alternativein the first referendum—or you can choose not to vote if that is what you want to do. Then the second referendum will decide which of those flags you want. If you definitely want change you get to participate. If you definitely do not want change you get to participate. But if you ask the yes/no question first all of those people who are saying that it depends on what the options are will be excluded from the debate. Mr O’Rourke says that he wants everyone to participate. Everyone will get to participate and if they choose to participate in only the second referendum that is OK—that is their business—because the first referendum is subservient to the second referendum.The other thing that has been said and Mr O’Rourke mentioned it a number of times in the Committee of the whole House is how gormless the alternatives are. He used the words “gaudy” and “ugly” today and he said that the alternatives were all in this category. I find this a little bit disturbing because one of the arguments that has been put forward is that the current flag is the flag that New Zealand soldiers died and fought under. Actually a whole heap of those alternative designs that have been put forward have got the silver fern on them. I can tell Mr O’Rourke that actually if you want to have a sense of right dealings with people who have died for New Zealand—if you have a look at every New Zealand war grave you will see that there is a silver fern on it—referring to the silver fern as “gormless” “gaudy” or “ugly” is I think a whole lot more disrespectful than whatever else has been talked about in this argument as we have gone through it.The other thing that has been really interesting is to observe the Labour Party’s approach to this debate. At least it was quite good in the Committee of the whole House the other day. Mr Lees-Galloway finally—because not many Labour members have been willing to do it—admitted that it was the Labour Party policyto change the flag going into the last election. We did invite him to read out what the policy said but he declined so I will do so for the House right now. It says this: “Labour will: review the design of the New Zealand flag involving flag design experts and with full public consultation and involvement.” So that is OK. The Labour Party was talking about that and that is all right. But the argument that he put forward and it has been put forward again by Mr Robertson today saying to defer it for 5 years—Mr Mallard was suggesting that perhaps we defer it further—is kind of interesting because if you read the next line in the Labour Party policy it says: “We believe that the time has come for a change…”. It does not say: “We believe that in 5 years’ time the time might come.” The Labour Party policy says: “We believe that the time has come for a change…”. I think that is kind of fascinating.The other thing that Labour members keep saying too is that this is a vanity project—a vanity project of the Prime Minister. They say: “Oh it’s vanity. Oh it’s all down to the vanity of the Prime Minister as to why we are doing this now.” As I said the other day when somebody put this in the Labour Party policy whose vanity was it then? Because that is what those members are telling us: it is all about vanity—it is all about vanity. It was in the Labour Party policy and so whose vanity was it then? The other thing that has been really interesting is that during the 2014 election campaign Labour’s then leader—I keep losing track—Mr David Cunliffe kept accusing the National Party of stealing Labour Party policies. We have a bill before us right now that is absolutely in black and white—or red and white if you print it in colour—Labour Party policy and Labour wants to vote against it. I do not understand it. There is no logic but that is the Labour Party for you.What we have heard from Mr O’Rourke already and what we have heard from the Labour Party again today is that the Prime Minister has got it wrong. He said that this will be the end of the Prime Minister—that he is forcing something on the people that they do not want. Well I would say that nominally what those members are saying is: “We don’t like the Prime Minister and want to see him fall over.” If you are so convinced that this is a bad idea and if you want to get rid of the National Party and you want to get rid of the Prime Minister then I dare you to vote for this bill because what you are saying is completely illogical. So get behind it and vote for it if you are so convinced this is a bad idea and that it will be the undoing of the National Party.What is this bill about? We have had three flags before. They have all been chosen by the Government of the day or by others but for the first time in New Zealand’s history New Zealanders will get to choose what their national emblem is—what the New Zealand flag is. They will get to choose. They may well choose the 1902 flag—the flag that we have now—and that will be their democratic right but this party the National Party of New Zealand is absolutely keen to ensure that New Zealanders have their say and that they get to decide what is important to them. I am looking forward to passing this bill so that we can take this out of the political domain of this House and put it into the hands of the people of New Zealand where it belongs.