Ngaro Alfred: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNgaro Alfred: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 13 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5816. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALFRED NGARO (National): It is an honour to speak on this bill the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill but it is disappointing to see that a member who has probably been here for over a hundred years and has served this Parliament for such a long time—he has been here for many years—has come to a point where he knows and he has agreed. In fact at the Justice and Electoral Committee he told us that he agrees with the changing of the flag. It is in the Hansard. He said that changing the flag is actually the right thing to do yet today in this House openly to the public of New Zealand he is opposing the bill out of spite—only out of spite. He knows that it is the right thing to do. He knows that it is the right thing to do but he is choosing not to vote for it out of spite. It is a sad day when a member who has been here for that long and who has made a contribution can get to that point and out of spite vote against the legislation.That member also made commentsabout the 740 form submissions that wanted to make an oral submission and he has been going on about it in his all of his speeches even in the Committee stage. That member knows because he has been here long enough that form submissions are taken as one submission and as a whole. He has sat on select committees he has been a backbencher he has been chair of a select committee and he has been a Minister. That member knows that a form submission is taken as one submission. So to get up here and tell us that we did not allow the democratic right of 740 form submissions is not true and is not correct at all. Again it is an act of spite—an act of spite. Instead we heard the submissions that came forward from people who took the time to write their submissions and who took the time to say: “Yes I would like to come before the select committee and be able to present my submission.”In the speeches that we have heard on this flag referendums bill we have heard people talk about this possibly being a vanity bill for the Prime Minister. I want to sort of contest this point. In fact Carmel Sepuloni made this point just the other day when she said that the title of the legislation could be “The Prime Minister’s Vanity Bill”. Well let me just remind that member. In 1970 when the then National Minister of Internal Affairs  Allan Highet actually put a petition forward was that vanity? No it was not because he was challenging the fact that there should be change. In 1988 former Labour MP and Minister of Foreign Affairs Russell Marshall—and I know the honourable member over there Trevor Mallard will probably know him—was that vanity? Was it vanity when he said that there was a point of change that was needed? In 1989 the Listener had a magazine article in which it actually had a competition and there were over 600 entries and seven finalists. The current flag of 1902 was the winner only by a minority and the people said: “Actually this dispels the myth that this is the time for change.” Was that vanity? No it was not.Let us get to February 1992 when the late Hon Matiu Rata former Minister of Māori Affairs for the Labour Government and the founder of Mana Māori Motuhake called for a redesign to re-establish a national flag. Was that a vanity project? No it was not. Why? Because even Mr Mallard knows that it was the right thing to do. This is what he said; it is in the Hansard. He said: “Yes the current flag of 1902 represents our history and our heritage but does it represent our future? No it does not.”That was his challenge.Denis O’Rourke: It does—it does.ALFRED NGARO: At that point in time—and listen up Mr O’Rourke—the RSA had challenged and contested every single petition to change the flag. In 1992 the RSA conceded and said this: “This will not go away. The issue of change is going to be coming from one generation to the next.” [Interruption] So they said this Mr O’Rourke and Mr Mark: “If there is to be a change let it be by referendum.” In other words let the people choose—let the people choose—and that is exactly what this bill is about. It is letting the people choose to have their day here.We know that many people right up and down the country have turned round and said that this is something we should look at. This is what the bill is doing. It is saying: “Let the people choose.” So what have we got here? We have had 10290 alternative designs—10290 alternative designs have come forward—and 26000 New Zealanders have shared what they stand for. In other words they have been asked this question: what are the values that are important to us if we were to redesign the flag? And I know that Mr Mallard would say that that is the right process: let the people choose. What are the values that are reflected in this flag? What is the narrative behind the design? That is what has been asked of our people.There were 2.7 million viewsof the flag gallery. That is what has happened. There were more than 8500 online visits and 6000 visits to the workshops and information stands. What does this say? In other words the people are saying this: “Let us choose. Let the people choose.” Mr Mallard knows that this is the right process. The members of New Zealand First know that this is the right process. They are confused. As my good friend Jono Naylor said they are so confused that they have had to write it down—in fact I think they have squiggled it out now. On that little sticker it said “New Zealand—why?” because even they were confused; they thought that it was an Australian flag right?Denis O’Rourke: Nonsense.ALFRED NGARO: I think Mr O’Rourke has got his little blue marker out and he has squiggled it all out. That is right—he has taken it away. Even he knew that he was confused about what that flag was. So in order to allow that confusion to be dispelled and in order for the nation to choose we believe that this bill is the right bill. We are simply saying this: let the people choose as they have asked to do. As the RSA has said let it be by referendum.My final point is about this talk about the fact that—it is like MMP—we went out and asked the people this: do you want it or not? Let us remember that we had had years of talk about MMP so people understood it. You cannot ask people for a decision on something they do not know about. What we have asked people is this: let us put out the designs; let us make sure that people have a view on what that alternative could look like; let us know what the narrative is not only about our history and our heritage but also as the late Matiu Rata said in this placeeven in front of Mr Mallard “Let’s choose a flag that represents our future.” That is what this referendum is doing and the people will choose that. I commend this bill to the House.