Mahuta Nanaia: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMahuta Nanaia: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6990. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I am a bit concerned following that speech because it might have sounded quite genuine in intent were it not for the fact that the Government is happy to give New Zealanders a say on the New Zealand flag but not happy to let them know what is in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.There is kind of a lack of prioritisation about what is important to New Zealanders. The Government is happy to let New Zealanders have a say on which flag represents the symbols that are important to New Zealanders but it fails to recognise that family poverty is rising under its policies. Where are the priorities?I am a bit concerned about the way in which this matter has proceeded through the House but we have to come back to the bill which seeks to insert the Red Peak option as a legitimate option within the context of the referendum that will be had. I listened very carefully to the debate and I think people who are trying to make up their minds will consider all the options with some very fundamental questions. Does the flag represent just a symbol of our identity or is there something more meaningful to those symbols that we can hang our hat on and that we can say truly represents the future of New Zealand and that New Zealanders can say actually defines the type of country and nation that we belong in? I think not.The simple reason is that no matter what option is put in front of New Zealanders they have not been given the fundamental choice of whether or not they want this question to proceed. Labour has continually highlighted that the legitimate approach to putting a referendum that would give New Zealanders a true sense of control over the type of debate we are having as a country is to ask whether we should have this referendum around the change of flag at this time—yes or no?The thing that I am more concerned about is that Labour has an amendment sitting on the Table because we are really worried about low turnout on a question so fundamental as one about a flag which is a symbol of our identity. I hesitate to quite a high degree on the basis that postal referendums generally have a low turnout. On a matter of such significance one would expect surely that a 50 percent turnout would be the bare minimum to have a convincing mandate to proceed with such a significant issue.Here is the thing: in the 8 years of the National Government it has been happy to start a constitutional debate but not end it. If it were going to finish it or continue it in a genuine way with a constitutional debate that forms the pillars of what this nation stands for we would have had that and then be debating the issue of which flag should be representing our identity as a country—our proud identity as a country.I have no personal affinity to any of the choices on option. In fact as a Māori as Waikato as Maniopoto with heritage in Ngāpuhi I am very proud of our navigating history. I have some leaning towards the Southern Cross Māhutonga as the zenith star for New Zealand but again what would underpin any legitimate choice in my frame of mind about who we are as a country and where we are in the Pacific would certainly actually have a constitutional foundation underpinning it.We should be debating the increasing level of family poverty in our country. We should be debating the high levels of domestic violence and the high rates of incarceration of young people. But instead we are having this debate about adding another flag albeit it is a win for the Green Party. But this is more than just choosing a flag; this is about the symbols of our identity: what we stand for what we value as a country and what the legitimate priority of a Government that cares for the future of New Zealand is. I think the priorities are wrong. I think the priorities are wrong.The way in which the referendum will be put to New Zealanders is in the wrong order. We have already raised those issues in previous debates but importantly if the Government is absolutely assured of its conviction to continue down this path there is one simple measure: will it have a convincing mandate with which to proceed with the choice of a new flag? I think not—and here is the thing. The Rugby World Cup is on at the moment and I rather think that when the Prime Minister watches that final—hoping that New Zealand is in that final—and when those fans hold up the silver fern he will take it as a mandate to change the flag of New Zealand and he should not. He should not.There are much deeper more pervading matters that should lead a Government to say why it is changing a flag what it represents what the values are but more important what the constitutional pillars are that form a sense of purpose around the motivation for change. It is simply not there. It is a façade it is a love-fest with a symbol that will represent very little and it will lead to a confused outcome.There will be a lack of mandate for the choice of something so important. I only need to point to the country that met some of these deep challenges with some conviction—and that is South Africa. Prior to the changing of its flag it looked at its constitution very seriously. It dealt with some of the most difficult issues of apartheid and urged the nation to look forward beyond tribalism. But it hung the choice of a change of a flag in its constitution and that was why South Africans can stand and hold on to their flag and say: “This is what it means for a new South Africa. This is the country we belong to where we can look beyond apartheid and the negative parts of our history to a future of opportunity.” This Government cannot do that for New Zealand.