Curran Clare: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCurran Clare: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:7005. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South):Well things got a bit heated in this debate last night. After the House rose I went back to my office and I listened to a few songs and one of those songs was “Anchor Me” by Don McGlashan. It occurred to me as I have been pondering this issue for some time that what is really missing in this whole debate is a mature and considered respectful and nuanced discussion about New Zealand’s national identity and what that actually means before the farce of a process that we have ended up with in this House today and last night.New Zealanders are funny people. They are thoughtful people. They are can-do people they are people who rally around in a crisis they are people who like and require a fair go and they do not like to be treated like muppets or numpties which is what this Government is doing in this whole process and with this clever tricky little manoeuvre—the latest clever tricky manoeuvre—with this piece of legislation.I want to put on record that this whole thing is a colossal waste of New Zealand taxpayers’ time—taking this bill through this House and taking hours and hours and hours. The Opposition has the right to debate this bill but it is the fact that it is before this House when it could have been dealt with in a much quicker much more mature and respectful way—instead we have this farce of a process going through our Parliament right now. It is an embarrassment and it is a silly political game.Some of the speeches I heard last night from over the other side of the Chamber were just the epitome of National being wrapped up in its own sense of entitlement—to have the gall to talk about this as being democracy. This is a law change that is being rushed through under urgency with all its processes under urgency with no chance for the public to have another say about it and that is a disgrace.This morning I got a taxi to Parliament. My taxi driver was Cambodian and has been in New Zealand for 35 years. The radio was on and we were listening to Morning Report. We were listening to the interview with the Greens’ co-leader James Shaw. I want to acknowledge the measured response from the Greens’ co-leader in that interview this morning as opposed to some of the contributions from his colleagues yesterday in the House. I said to the taxi driver: “So what do you think about this whole flag debate?”. He kind of turned and looked at me and said: “Well you might not like what I’m going to say.” and I said: “Look I want to hear what you’ve got to say.” He said: “New Zealand must be a rich country to be spending so much time debating and discussing an issue such as the flag. Aren’t there more important issues? Where is the economic value or the social value from this process?”. I said: “I completely agree with you.”In my electorate Dunedin South every person I talk to rolls their eyes every time the flag debate comes up. This should have been a much better-handled process. My biggest problem with the process under which this bill is going through the House at the moment is my absolute objection to what Gareth Hughes said yesterday about this being some kind of new politics and engaging with the public.Let us be honest: this is just a stitch-up. This is a deal. It is a tricky deal that has been done with the National Government to allow this last-minute entry into the flag choicesof a fifth option. I do not have any issue with Red Peak but I think the whole process has been besmirched right from the very beginning. This is not new politics; this is old politics. This is a stitch-up deal and it is the National Government that is doing the tricky—