Bishop Chris: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBishop Chris: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 13 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5828. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS BISHOP (National): There are at least two parties in this Parliament that are in favour of a referendum on changing the New Zealand flag. There is the Government party—the National Party; we are in favour of a referendum on changing the flag—and the Labour Party. Labour members are in favour of a referendum on changing the flag. They just do not have the guts to turn up in this House—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I know what the member is going to bring up. I would ask the member to withdraw that comment. This is a seemly debate and comments like that do not add any value. Just withdraw the comment and then carry on.CHRIS BISHOP: I withdraw. They do not have the intestinal fortitude—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That has been ruled out many times. This is now repeated offending. [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am on my feet. I will ask the member to withdraw that comment. We will not have any more of those sorts of comments.CHRIS BISHOP: I withdraw. It is a real shame that the Labour Party is voting against this bill. It is the official policy of the Labour Party to have a flag referendum to have a referendum on changing the flag. The leader of the Labour Party wants to change the flag or at least he wants to consider changing the flag and he wants to do it in a deliberative and consultative fashion. We know that because he told the National Business Review and he told a commenter in the “Ask Me Anything” section in the National Business Review. We know that most Labour Party MPs I believe are in favour of a flag referendum. Probably Labour Party members ordinary grassroots members of the Labour Party—as few as they are—are in favour of a referendum on changing the flag. So it is a real shame that this is not a bipartisan bill.This bill is fundamentally about a conversation about who we are as people. It is a conversation and it is a discussion about what New Zealand is in the 21st century. Symbols do matter. The flag does matter. Do we want the Union Jack on the flag? In 21st century New Zealand with our multiplicity of ethnicities and peoples who exist for the most part harmoniously in this country do we really want the symbol or the message on our flag to be that we are a vassal of mother Britain of the mother country? Do we really want that in the 21st century with New Zealand today with all of its complexitywith all of its diversity and quite frankly without the links back to the United Kingdom? So symbols do matter. That is what this bill is about.Also this bill is about a democratic process to choose the design of a potential or putative new New Zealand flag. The Government could have legislated for a new New Zealand flag. We could have done that. We could have put it in the National Party manifesto before the last election that we would legislate for a new New Zealand flag. Other countries have done that. When Canada changed its flag that is essentially what they did. We could have done that. But no the Government chose not to do that. What the Government chose to do was involve the people. I believe that is the right thing to do. I believe the right thing to do is to ask the people what sort of flag they want because as I mentioned this is about a conversation with the New Zealand people as to what New Zealand represents what New Zealand is in the 21st century. So it is right that we ask the people.The great thing about the process so far is that New Zealanders want that conversation to happen—they do. If you look at the New Zealand Herald polls and at the designs that have been submitted and you look at the number of people who are getting involved online and talking about it at the water coolers every single day that goes by more and more people are having those conversations. They are getting a coffee and they are talking about it. I hear it when I go into cafes. I hear people grabbing a drink and talking about it. I hear it in pubs and clubs. I hear people talking about what the change should be. People are talking about whether they want the blue and red design with the silver fern or whether it would be better to have a blue and black design. Is it appropriate to have a Southern Cross on it or not? Should we go for something completely different? The 40 flags that have come down on to the long list are really provoking debate out there. So this is about a democratic process to choose the design. We are not just legislating for a change of flag; we are legislating for a process.If after the second referendum New Zealanders do not want a change of flag well that would be the people’s say; that would be the people’s verdict. But I reckon people are actually getting pretty excited about this process and I reckon we are going to see good participation in both referenda and I think that is good.I want to run through some of the arguments that have been raised by the Labour Party members and other people about why this bill should fail. Firstly they say this is not the right time. Well I mean really? Is any time ever the right time? People have been trying to change the flag since the 1970s. This was first raised in the 1970s. You can make that argument about any time. The Labour Party says: “Oh well let’s do it in 5 years.” Why 5 years? That is totally arbitrary. Why not 10? Why not 7? Why not in 2 years? It is just bizarre.Hon Simon Bridges: It’s politicking.CHRIS BISHOP: It is just bizarre and it is just politicking as my colleague points out and it is a real shame. It would have been nice for this to be bipartisan. I do not accept the argument that now is not the right time.Then we have this absurd argument that nobody wants a change of flag. Why? Oh because we looked at the opinion polls. Well actually we are going to have a giant opinion poll about it; it is called the referendum on changing the flag. Everyone will get to have a say and it will not be a cursory show of public opinion before we have had the proper debate before people have managed to see the options before people have managed to make up their own mind. We are going to have a giant opinion poll; it is called a referendum and it is going to be next year.So this absurd argument that we can just take a slice of public opinion from the New Zealand Herald online poll at a particular point or something and say that therefore we should not go through with a referendum is a silly argument. On the same basis we would have taken a slice of public opinion on 19 September before the last election and gone “Oh well National’s on 54 percent; the Labour Party’s on 18 percent.”—or something like that—“and we won’t bother with the election.” No we do not govern like that in this country. We put it to the people.Thirdly we had this argument that there are other priorities. There is this ridiculous argument that as a Government you can do only one thing at one time in this country; you cannot do two things at once. There are other priorities. The nadir of this argument was Andrew Little’s ridiculous claim this week. This is the potential future Prime Minister of this country.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Unlikely.CHRIS BISHOP:Very unlikely my colleague Michael Woodhouse points out. His claim is this ridiculous comment that he is not even going to bother to vote in the first referendum. He is not even going to bother. The potential future Prime Minister of this country whose own party has a policy of having a referendum on the flag is not even going to bother to vote. Well how ridiculous! The reality of Government is amazingly in the grown-up world on the side of the Government not “Planet Labour” that you can do two things at once. We can improve the economy we can improve social housing we can focus on the least well-off in society and we can do that contemporaneously by having a referendum on a flag. We are grown-ups on this side of the House not children in the sandpit like members opposite.Fourthly we have the silly argument that this disrespects veterans and this is allied to the argument that was raised by I think the member for New Zealand First that people fight for the flag. Well actually I put it respectfully that the people who have fought for this country do not fight for a piece of cloth; they fought and they do fight for the values that underlie the flag. I have been to Gallipoli and I have seen the memorials and I have seen the graves and it is not the New Zealand flag that exists now that is on those memorials—it is not—it is the silver fern. So I do not buy the argument that this disrespects veterans and it disrespects the sacrifice that they have made. I do not.Then we hear that this is a waste of money. This is also a silly argument. In the grand scheme of Government spending $26 million is not a large sum of money. We did not hear the Labour Party members complaining about a waste of public money when we had a referendum on asset sales. They did not make that argument at the time so I also do not buy the argument that this is a waste of money.Then finally we had the argument that we need an up or down yes or no vote in the first referendum. This was an argument that was put by Trevor Mallard in his petition and by Labour members of the Justice and Electoral Committee. The official advice that we received as a select committee was that this would not be a good idea—that we should not have a yes or no vote in the first referendum. Why? Because quite rightly people want to know what they are voting for before they vote for whether or not they want to change the flag. That is a legitimate point of view. People have a right to know in a binary sense what the options are and that is why Government members do not accept that.This is an important bill about an important part of New Zealand’s future. It is a shame that the Labour Party is voting against this bill not because it does not agree with it not because members do not potentially want a change of flag but because they are based only on spite and jealousy.