Prosser Richard: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5462. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am truly delighted to take the opportunity to take a call in this Committee of the whole House as we debate this New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill and speak to clauses 1 and 3. This process is an essential element of our democracy—this grand New Zealand democracy one of only half a dozen in the world with an uninterrupted tradition stretching back more than 150 years and for better than two-thirds of that time the current New Zealand ensign has been the symbol of that democracy. It was approved and gazetted in 1902 fully 2 years before the Australian flag for which it is occasionally mistaken by the ignorant and the unpatriotic. In fact interestingly enough the current Australian flag did not become the official legal flag of Australia until 1954—1954—so if anyone is going to be changing their flag it is going to be them.But actually we are not here to talk about the flag itself. We are here to debate this bill and these two proposed referenda to which the bill pertains and the process of which they are a part by which we as a Parliament and a nation will either vote to change the New Zealand flag or we will not. Binding referenda have been a core policy of New Zealand First since our inception 22 years ago. We are glad that if nothing else this Government has deigned that it will be bound by the results of these referenda. It is perhaps the only thing it has got right regarding this whole sorry process. We are being faced with the prospect of having two referenda when only one would have been entirely sufficient. We are holding them the wrong way round and we are wasting $26 million of taxpayers’ money in the process a process for which there is no call. No one other than the Prime Minister is calling for a change to the New Zealand flag. No one wants it. Better than three-quarters of the population—and rising—are perfectly happy with the flag that we have and everyone apart from John Key thinks that $26 million could be far better spent on any one of any number of actually worthwhile projects from a very long list of such projects rather than on this pointless personal vanity project that the man has.John Key wants a legacy. When the Prime Minister was asked if he could wave a magic wand and have one particular thing he did not want to end unemployment he did not want to clear the hospital waiting lists and he did not want to make sure that every child in this country goes to school every morning with breakfast in their belly and lunch in their schoolbag and shoes on their feet and a raincoat if it is raining. No he wanted to change the flag. Well what a shallow hollow vacuous dream that is but at least he has agreed that the outcome of these two pointless wasteful unwanted unnecessary unwarranted referenda will be binding on his Government. It is a small mercy because for the most part the Prime Minister and this Government feel that they have the right to ignore the results of referenda. Well at least this time he will have no option. When the public tell him to go and take a running jump with his referenda and his flag change he will have no option but to take it on the chin and slink away with his tail between his legs.The nation will speak. It will speak in these referenda. It is speaking already. We already know what the outcome will be. We all know it and yet this Government is pushing ahead anyway with this unwanted and unwarranted waste of money—this colossal waste of taxpayers’ money on this colossal farcical vanity project which the Prime Minister wants for his legacy. Well it will be his legacy but not for the reasons he would like it to be and it can be stopped. It does not have to go any further.The Government could pull the pin on this ridiculous bill. Even now it could choose to see reason. It could save the nation the expense of a $26 million farce that no one wants. Or any of the Government members could stop it. Any member from the Government benches could choose to make a stand—stand up for their democracy stand up for what they believe stand up for what their constituents are telling them and stand up for what their own party members and supporters are telling them. In this 800th year of the anniversary of the sealing of the Magna Carta which was the birth of our democracy itself and on the 161st anniversary of uninterrupted parliamentary democracy in New Zealand any one of the members opposite could stand up and make a stand for the flag of this country over and above the ego of the Prime Minister. If one of them had the intestinal fortitude or the backbone to do that this process could stop and the taxpayer could be saved $26 million.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the member but in the absence of any member of the Government taking this point of order I think that that has long been ruled out of order. To accuse members of lacking backbone is a breach of the Standing Orders.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I take the member’s point of order. I did hear what he said. I noticed that it was a general broadcast as opposed to being directed at one particular person. I would like to point out to the Committee but particularly to this member that everything is pretty much repetition. We have had an hour and a half on this part of the debate. No one seems to be saying anything new. So I hope that others who are going to seek to make a contribution will provide something new.RICHARD PROSSER: Thank you Mr Chair. I will finish succinctly then by simply putting the challenge to the members on the Government benches. The ball is in their court. Any one of them could stop it. I ask have any of these members from the Government benches got the cojones to stand up and support the flag of their nation?