Ngaro Alfred: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNgaro Alfred: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 28 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5356. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALFRED NGARO (National): Tēnā koe e Minita o Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. It is an honour to be able to speak in the second reading on this bill the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I have to be honest. When this thought—this idea about us heading towards a referendum and even the changing of the flag—initially came out my first impression was to ask what the reason was. What was the purpose and what was the sense in us heading in this direction?I then began to reflect that in 2012 and 2013 there was a consultation process in regard to the constitution or the forming of a constitution—just as has been spoken about by the previous speaker Marama Fox and other speakers—and about the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and other aspects of what defines us as a nation. In some of those consultations there was a discussion by some people about the national anthem and the things that constitute national identity. There was an issue that was raised by some about the flag as well as other areas. So the constitution discussion actually began to bring up this question about what defines us as a nation.Then in going through this process I began to look into where this began—this whole idea around the call for a New Zealand flag. Well this happened over 40 years ago. I want to just mention this because there is a thought out there in the public and in the nation that this is simply an idea by our Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key—that he has just thought this up as a great idea. In fact this has been happening over many decades previously. So let me just give us an idea about where this has come from.There have been numerous calls in the last four decades for a new flag to be adopted.Darroch Ball: Citizens started that last one Alfred not the Government—citizens did.ALFRED NGARO: So if Mr Ball listens he will maybe havejust a little bit of education here. In 1970 National MP and the Minister of Internal Affairs Allan Highet also put forward the idea. He asked: does this flag not only represent our history and heritage but is it a reflection of our future? That idea was actually removed—it did not have the traction. In 1988 Labour MP and the Minister of Foreign Affairs Russell Marshall also put forward the idea. The thought about this fact was that again here is the flag—around the idea of national identity and nationhood should we be reflecting on the idea of having a new flag?In 1989 the Listener magazine ran a competition for designs. There were over 600 entries and seven finalists including the current flag the 1902 flag and what was surprising is that that flag won by only just a small majority—a very small majority. Here is what Gordon Campbell who was the editor of the Listener at that time and who ran the competition said. He said that despite the result it was confirmed that it had exploded the myths about New Zealanders’ devotion to the flag.In February 1992 the late Hon Matiu Rata a former Minister of Māori Affairs and the founder of Mana Motuhake called for a redesign to re-establish a national identity. He called for a redesign to be able to look at this and here was his point of difference. He asked whether even in this House this current flag represents our history and our heritage. We have heard arguments today that yes it does. But then he said this: “But does it represent our future heading into a bicultural nation?”.At that time the RSA had a petition from over 10000 signatories who argued again that they did not want to change the flag. Over several of these attempts the RSA came to the point where it said that it realised that unlike with the previous three attempts if this decision was to be made then the decision to change the flag should be done via a referendum—it should be done via a referendum. So what are we doing at the moment? We are actually talking about a bill that is about having a referendum as well.In 1998 Marie Hasler the Minister of Cultural Affairs also talked about and argued in favour of the existing flag but said she would support a change if it was shown that the will of the people was there for a referendum. This has been going on. In 2004 Wellington businessman Lloyd Morrison formed a trust called the NZFlag.com Trust. The purpose was again to ask whether we should be changing the flag and whether there should be a referendum. There were supporters like Cath Tizard Keith Quinn Susan Devoy—a number of them there. We know that they were not able to get a referendum as they did not have enough signatories but what I want to say is that the point I am making out of this is that this issue has been going on for a long time. The idea of changing the flag in regard to reflecting our history and our heritage and most important our future has been going on for a long time.We have heard speeches in the House that have clearly said this. From the Greens Russel Norman supports changing the flag. He may not like the process but he would support a change as would others in regard to our constitution. We know that on the other side the Hon Trevor Mallard came to our select committee. He even indicated that he would support a change to the flag. However what he did not like was the process.We know that across the House the majority of members bar New Zealand First support the change to the flag. The truth of the reality is that members on the other side will not support it because those members—who are supposedly the nation-builders of the country in describing this identity—are not the ones who are in control of this process. That is the reason why we are heading towards this.I just want to come to a couple of other points. There were some points that we were talking about. People also know that we have a Māori flag. It is the flag that is flown on Waitangi Day and the name is just escaping me at the moment. Peeni you might be able to help me there—Peeni Henare: Tino Rangatiratanga.ALFRED NGARO: The Tino Rangatiratanga flag thank you. That is flown and has been acknowledged and recognised. The Government allowed for that initiative to be able to happen so that there could be the opportunity for that flag to be flown. So I want to just rebut some of the comments by Denis O’Rourke when he said that even Māori support this current flag. I suggest that those comments are not true. I suggest those comments would be rebutted even by other speakers. This flag was not chosen by referendum nor by Māori. I would suggest that there are others like Matiu Rata who would say that this current flag of 1902 does not reflect our future—it does not reflect our future.In 1989 the Government also approved—let us talk about the cost. People have been talking about this cost of $26 million. Look we know that the timing of that is quite challenging but in 1989 the Government took the time to acknowledge the fact that 1990 was the sesquicentennial year of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi—$20 million was put aside to acknowledge that. Why? Because it was important in the building and the acknowledging and the shaping of a nation. So we think that is really important.In fact when we think about the submitters there were only 113 of those submitters who considered the referendum process to be too expensive. The Government considers that to have a process that is legitimate and democratic and for the outcome to endure it is important to do it properly and that is to do it via a referendum. We have heard again that this is so that the nation may choose—not the Government but the nation may choose.I just want to make a couple of comments from the Hon Trevor Mallard. He named the National Party members on the Justice and Electoral Committee and talked about the democratic process of having oral submissions—in fact he talked about there being 740 oral submissions. It is true to say that those came in as form submissions. It is standard process and protocol that those form submissions whatever form they take are often collated to be one submission before the select committee so we did not believe that we were denying any rights whatsoever for others to be able to do that.There were many submitters who had actually submitted and actually took the time—in fact there were 259 submissions of which 27 submitters chose to make an oral submission. It would not have taken much for those 740 people to have written something quite different—not a form submission—to indicate their right and their willingness to come and submit before the committee. They did not do that. It was a form submission.I just want to finish on the last comments that I think are really important. There was a comment again by the Hon Trevor Mallard about how in the cross-party group there was unanimous agreement—bar the Government members at that time—towards having one referendum. That was contested. I can say that that was contested. Even from the Māori Party those members had agreed and do agree with the process that the Government is taking. It is wrong to indicate that it was only the Government members who were willing to take this process of having two referendums. We believe that this process is important.I look forward to the Committee of the whole House stage. But most important I actually look forward to the process of going out into those RSAs as I have been—I am a member of Te Atatū RSA—and to be able to talk continually about the importance and the role that this referendum has in the shaping of our nation and the changing potentially of the flag. Whatever the nation chooses at the end of the day it is what we will all also abide by. I commend this bill to the House.