Graham Kennedy: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGraham Kennedy: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6967. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): This is an unusual moment for the Parliament of New Zealand. It is a rare thing for a country to consider a change of national flag and it is rarer still for it to change course in the midst of the process by which it chose to do so. But this is what we have been forced to do. By a twist of fate we find ourselves obliged to have Parliament intervene in the process just 8 weeks ahead of the first referendum to increase the number of new flags the public can choose from.How did we come to this strange situation? In initiating the debate in the first reading the Deputy Prime Minister as Minister in charge of the process advanced a few high-sounding phrases. He said: “it is now an appropriate time for the debate about the New Zealand flag to be resolved through a careful and considered process”. A cross-party group would advise on the legislation and recommend a panel to choose the flags. The panel would be independent because as he put it “the process here is as important as the result.” The choice of flag he said “is not a matter for Parliament and it is not a matter for Cabinet; it is a matter for the panel.” That was on 12 March; 6 months later Parliament sees fit to intervene to add a fifth flag to the four that the panel exercising its best judgment had already chosen from more than 10000 designs.So why is Parliament intervening at this late stage? For two reasons: because it can and because it should. Parliament can intervene because it is the sovereign body of this country. Parliament is the ultimate authority elected by the people and from which the Government is chosen. It decided on a process for choosing the flag and if it judges it to be sufficiently important it can alter that process even mid-course. It can change the legislation by which the process was launched provided the process has not terminated. There will be those who criticise Parliament if it decides to do this but there is no one who can accurately say that the Parliament lacks the right to do so. The process we are considering today therefore is constitutionally proper.So to the second question: is the process politically sound? Should Parliament be moving to amend the legislation at this late stage? In the second reading the Minister called for a continuation of “a formal careful and respectful process”. Is the vision of Parliament intervening in the decision of how many flags to choose from part of a formal careful and consistent process or is it informal careless and inconsistent? Is it impugning the integrity of the panel? In our view Parliament should intervene. This is not to criticise the panel or any of its members who have in our view done a sound job. Their integrity is not brought into question by adding a fifth flag. The fact that 4.4 million citizens have 4.4 million views on the choice of the four flags was always a given.What has changed is that an unexpected phenomenon has occurred. Unexpectedly a groundswell of opinion has emerged in favour of one flag which was among the 40 but not among the final four. Over 50000 signed a petition for Red Peak. Should Parliament heed the views of 50000 people and alter the legislation to add Red Peak? Yes it should. Democratic life is about choice. Democratic life is about leaders listening to and responding to the people. An unexpected phenomenon has occurred and Parliament has a right to respond. So in circumstances as rare as this we have the rare phenomenon of the Green and National parties collaborating to respond to the will of the people. So be it.