Shaw James: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShaw James: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 12 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2234. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMES SHAW (Green): A number of people who have spoken before in this debate have mentioned the level of public interest in this issue and the fact that the House of Representatives is fairly empty for this debate is actually quite representative of the level of public interest. So this is one of those occasions where interest in the House does seem to roughly represent the level of interest outside it.My personal view as a modern New Zealander is that we do need to change our flag and that we need a flag that tells all of our stories. In general the Green Party supports the idea of a public referendum to adopt a new flag that better represents the more independent and multicultural identity of present day New Zealand. We do want the public to have a say on this issue and we will be supporting the bill’s referral to a select committee.There are three points that I would like to make about this bill however. First of all I would like to say as my colleague Dr Kennedy Graham indicated that the flag has long been regarded as an antiquated relic of empire. Although between 1840 and 1902 the Union Jack was the official flag of New Zealand the current flag was gazetted in 1869 and used aboard New Zealand ships. In 1902 a statute instituted the current design as the official flag of New Zealand on land and sea. This flag’s design reflects a desire to identify New Zealand as a self-governing but essentially still British colony in nationality culture and outlook. Does anyone here think that New Zealanders today still think of themselves as British? I say this as a proud Kiwi who was born and raised in this country and is also a naturalised British citizen.The New Zealand of 2015 is a multicultural independent society and our links with Britain are more economic than cultural. Having lived in the United Kingdom for the better part of 13 years it is very clear to me that our countries are extremely different. Although it is clear that we still have family historical and cultural relationships with that country we are a different country. According to the 2013 census 12 percent of the New Zealand population identifies as Asian and that number is expected to grow in the next few decades. Twelve percent of our population identifies as Māori but our current flag ignores the indigenous people of this land. If a flag is supposed to be a symbol of national identity the current flag is inadequate.The second thing I would like to say is that we do have concerns about the proposed process that has been outlined in the bill. Having two referendums is costly and unnecessary. The Government argued against the citizens initiated referenda on asset sales last year on the basis of cost—that it was costly and unnecessary—and now it is giving us two referenda on a flag rather than on the economic direction of the country. The Government is proposing having one referendum to determine a viable alternative before having a second first-past-the-post referendumbetween the alternative and the current flag. In our view it would be much cheaper to simply have one preferential voting referendumbetween the current flag and a number of alternatives.Other countries’ experiences suggest alternate approaches that the Government might consider. In Canada the Maple Leaf Flag which has been referred to as one of the more successful changes of flag was adopted in 1965 after the country’s Prime Minister formed a committee to consider the flag question. In Jamaica Parliament approved a new flag on the recommendation of a special committee that had sifted through public submissions.The third and final point that I would like to make is that there is a need for a wider constitutional debate and that we are putting the cart before the horse in looking at the symbol of our country. As this Government moves into its third term its focus on populist gestures over meaningful reform is becoming ever more apparent. Instead of tackling broader questions about the constitution the Prime Minister is attempting to distract the public with a flag debate. As I said previously we support the principle of changing the flag but we would prefer that to be part of a broader debate not a political stunt.For instance the Government could tackle electoral reform. The Electoral Commission recommended changes to MMP after the 2011 referendumbut the Government refused to enact them because it wanted to protect its support partners. There was a constitutional review in which a huge amount of extremely good work was done and that similarly has gone to ground. One other question is: should we remain a constitutional monarchy or should we have a Kiwi head of State? What are the prospects for greater Māori autonomy or self-governance? We do not pretend to have a monopoly on wisdom regarding those issues—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I am sorry—the member’s time has expired. I call Marama Fox—5 minutes.