Graham Kennedy: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGraham Kennedy: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:7037. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I just begin by acknowledging once more my colleague Jonathan Young for his contribution to this whole process including chairing the cross-party working group. He did a very good job. Just to agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters in his contribution politics is all about leadership. That is true. I am a little less inclined to agree with his characterisation that the Greens are naive or for that matter that Labour cannot be trusted. In our view Labour can indeed be trusted.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I didn’t say that. No I didn’t. You’ve got it wrong.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: I think Mr Peters you did. The transcript will clarify that one way or the other. Labour can certainly be trusted. The problem at the moment is that it is a little difficult to follow the logic by which it is getting to its position. Labour colleagues have characterised the bill in a variety of colourful ways: “a colossal waste of taxpayer money” “farce of a process” “silly political gain” “undemocratic” “stitch-up” “tricky deal” “besmirched process” “undermining of the expert panel” “disrespectful of the intelligence of the public” “back to front” “wrong” “treating New Zealanders like muppets” “lacking integrity” “shambolic process” “bizarre rescue operation” “constitutionally dangerous” “sloppy legislation” “a half choice only” and “a missed opportunity”. On the basis of that in the exercise of Labour members’ infallible judgment they are supporting the bill.More seriously the one substantive point that Labour has put forward which we do respect is the whole issue of the yes/no vote at the very beginning of the process in the first referendum. This is a valid point. There is in our view equal weight between the two positions. The first position is that you cannot make a decision as to whether or not the flag should be changed unless you know what alternative flag is in front of you as opposed to a judgment that you can indeed in principle decide whether you want to change the flag whether or not there is an alternative flag in front of you. Each of those two positions has equal weight. The Green Party was quite inclined to proceed with the Government’s perception on this. It does not really matter either way but this is good enough to go with that particular one.The time has essentially come now for the people to choose. When we choose we should think back to the experiences of both Canada and South Africa. In both cases with sufficient dignity they moved to change their flag. In both cases a number of conditions held. To change the flag did not show any disrespect to those who had given their lives under the old flag. It did not disrespect the Union Jack when they replaced it. It did not split their country asunder in either case. It did cost roughly the same as it is costing this country. Having made their decision they embraced a new flag and resolved to move on. Let New Zealand emulate Canada and South Africa. It is time to move on now with the electoral process. The process has not been without pain. It has been politicised to an unfortunate degree but the process remains valid and the choice before us is certainly a valid one. Now let the people choose.