Delahunty Catherine: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDelahunty Catherine: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5467. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):Tēnā koutou katoa. He mihi nui ki a koutou. There is an expression for arrogance I believe in Te Reo Māori: tino whakahīhī. At the risk of being tino whakahīhī I would like to say that I have not heard of a referendum before that was instigated by a Prime Minister with no groundswell of public support no group of people who have lobbied developed created or called for it. There may have been one—I may be tino whakahīhī in saying that—but I think it is very unusual for this referendum to be imposed upon us because of one person’s idea. And when that person is the leader of the country you have got to ask why they are doing it. One of the reasons that this is such a faltering confused bill and a faltering confused process is that there is no call for it. So the problem the Government has with this bill with these referenda is that nobody—nobody—really asked for it. And it is not as if all of us—and there I possibly differ a little from my colleague in New Zealand First. I do think we have identity issues in Aotearoa. I do think we are often quite confused about what we stand for and that it is good to look at identity. However the question “Ko wai tātau?”—who are we—is not being asked in this referendum. That is not what we are talking about.I have also been disturbed to hear in the debate that history started a hundred years ago because it did not. There were flags in Aotearoa going way back—He Whakaputanga. The people of Tai Tokerau can tell you about the flag. They can tell you about the Declaration of Independence and they can tell you about the United Tribes flag which was there to make sure that the people who were sailing the tangata whenua ships that went to Sydney to trade had a flag. We have often had different flags but for a long time we have had this one. If we are going to change it we have to have a genuine people’s movement calling for it and we do not. It is pretty simple. That genuine people’s movement does not exist. But it is absolutely clear whose people’s movement exists: the movement of the Prime Minister because he really really does need to distract us from the economy and he really does need to distract us from a country where people are lying in doorways and begging and struggling to find homes.Let us talk about something that Russel Norman I think yesterday called optics which is: let us have something that is visual. This is very visual. Let us distract ourselves with a picture and we can all look at it online. I am sure lots of people have looked at it because it is fun to look at pictures. But actually that is not what our identity as a nation is about. Our identity as a nation is about constitutional debate. We are supposedly having a constitutional debate but I have not heard the Prime Minister talk about it for a very long time. He is talking about a referendum. He is talking about two referendums. Have we had a referendum on the constitutional change issues? I personally am glad we have not because I do not feel we are mature enough as a country to have a referendum on that issue. But actually at least it is a real issue. The status of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in Aotearoa is a real issue. What flag to have comes after we have resolved that issue. It is the cart—and very very much a vanity cart—before a very very complex horse.If we want to have discussion about constitutional issues we need to start with the ones that really matter—not with even a piece of cloth that means a lot to some people. I guarantee it means a lot to some people. It means more to them than to me. I am 61 years old. It does not mean much to me. It does not represent my aspirations for Aotearoa at all but I do not support and the Greens do not support this farcical process and this referendum bill because it is a waste of money and it is a vanity project that is actually not about identity. If we want to talk about national identity bring it on but this is not the conversation Minister. This is not about national identity. National identity is not about what design we have. It is about who we are. It is about what is really going on in the country. It is not about the design. We have not had the conversation that you claim to be at the end of. It has not even started and these referendums which are a colossal waste of money already—and I do feel sorry for the very genuine people who went around the country and did the meeting consultation. I mean how many people in this Chamber have enjoyed going to a meeting where there are hardly any people and no one wants to know? I have been to a few—Chris Bishop: You’d be well used to it I imagine.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: —and I would imagine that most of us have been to a few. But at least we are not forcing a $26 million referendum on to the citizens who do not want it. The Greens want a genuine discussion.