Little Andrew: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 22 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5185. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his justification for the $26 million process to consider changing the flag that “It’s just sheer confusion with Australia. Even at APEC they tried to take me to Abbott’s seat”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I do. If the member was watching Television New Zealand a few weeks ago he may have seen a reporter conduct an experiment in Times Square New York where only two out of 50 people correctly identified our flag; almost everyone else identified it as the Australian flag. I also stand by all the other reasons I have put forward for changing the flag including that “Our flag is the most important symbol of our national identity and I believe that this is the right time for New Zealanders to consider changing the design to one that better reflects our status as a modern independent nation”.Andrew Little: Was it worth spending over $8 million so far on the flag referenda when only 739 people attended the meetings and 99 percent of the “What do you stand for?” postcards he sent to Kiwi homes went straight in the bin?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do. As I said yesterday to the co-leader of the Greens of course some people turned up to the roadshow but there have been 10291 alternative designs. There has been 1.18 million people reached by Facebook. There have been 146000 views of the New Zealand flag history. But one political party—one political party in this Parliament—as of an hour ago has as its policy: “review the design of the New Zealand flag involving flag design [experiments] … and with full public consultation and involvement.” That was the Labour Party as of an hour ago. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Before I call the member the House will settle.Andrew Little: Was it worth paying over $2000 for each member of the public who attended the meetings given that one of the attendees said he “came for the free cookies”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do think it is actually worth spending potentially $26 million—I suspect it will be a little bit less. But I do think it is worth spending that money on such an important constitutional issue. If the member is now telling New Zealanders that if he was Prime Minister of New Zealand he would potentially change the length of the parliamentary term the flag of New Zealand or other constitutional issues with no involvement with New Zealanders then I think that is a very interesting thing he should be saying.Andrew Little: In light of that answer and bringing things back to reality has he actually read the public submissions on the standfor.co.nz website and seen that most of them sayeither “Keep the flag we’ve got.” or “Stop wasting our money on this vanity project.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes I have seen some of those comments. It is interesting: if it is so much my project and my idea why the hell is it Labour Party policy then? That is all I can say.Tim Macindoe: What strong endorsements has the Prime Minister seen in support of changing the New Zealand flag?Grant Robertson: No he’s already used that one.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No no this is a different one. There have been many endorsements but one of the strongest I have heard has come from a prominent New Zealander and I like to listen to prominent New Zealanders. This person said: “My personal opinion is we should have something more relevant to an independent small Asia/Pacific nation. I think a referendum is a suitable way to deal with an issue that can be very polarising. The elements I’d like to see in the flag are the Southern Cross blue for the sea green for the land and mountains and a reference to our Māori heritage.” I am grateful for that support and those suggestions from Mr Andrew Little of—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the House settle.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that we designed our flag in 1904 well before the Aussies copied it and that there is only one—Hon Member: You were there.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes but you look like you were there; I do not.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Finish the question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well it was a terrible interruption. Is it not a fact that we designed our flag in 1904 well before the Aussies copied it and that there is only one political party that would not join his flag committee because we were opposed to changing our flag and that that party is New Zealand First?Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I acknowledge that the member was involved in the debate in 1904 at the time. Secondly I make this point. That is actually our third flag here in New Zealand. And actually if we want to have a symbol that probably represents New Zealand in my view that is the silver fern. That is actually what is on the gravestones of those very brave men who were buried overseas prior to 1978. I do think a change of flag would be a great way of not only unifying our country but also taking a view to the world that New Zealand is an outward-looking internationally competitive great country with its own identity.Andrew Little: Which of the following flag designs is his favourite given his Government has spent over $800 on each of them: kiwi with a rainbow out its rear; whale—not Whale Oil Beef Hooked—with kiwi sheep and rainbow; laser kiwi; buzzy bee seen from above; or “Aotearoa: blow on the pie”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I accept that a whale is a mammal and not a fish but the last Labour leader who came to Parliament dangling those out like that leader has was gone by lunchtime; I reckon he might be too.Tim Macindoe: What documents has the Prime Minister seen in support of a change to New Zealand’s flag?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have seen a document from a group that aims to “enhance knowledge appreciation and pride in New Zealand’s identity history biculturalism multiculturalism and other diversity community resilience distinctiveness accomplishments and nationhood … through a review of the design of the New Zealand flag involving flag design experts and with full public consultation and involvement.” That was the policy of and remains the policy of the Labour Party.Andrew Little: Rather than wasting money on meetings no one attends postcards no one returns and flags no one takes seriously why not admit the truth that Kiwis do not want this—they do not want their money wasted on prime ministerial vanity projects?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If nobody wants this and it is a waste of money then why was it Labour Party policy? That is the naked politics of this. The Labour Party wants to change the flag; it just does not want a National Government to do it.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question—[Interruption] Order! Before the member—[Interruption] Order! I am trying to call for order and I am not getting much assistance from one person on my left.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that the reason he is so keen on changing the flag is that he spent so much time selling out the old one?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. The reason I want to change the flag is that you can look at other Commonwealth countries that in their history have changed their flag. Let us take Canada which did exactly that in 1965. Let us look at what Canada put on the gravestones of their brave men when they died in World War I and the likes. The answer is the maple leaf. Show me a single Canadian who would go back to the old flag that they had which looked very much like our flag except it was red. This is a party and a country I believe of progress and change—a multicultural country that is outward looking not a bunch of dinosaurs like them over there.Andrew Little: Is this what he meant by being focused on the issues that matter: at a time when the New Zealand economy is rapidly going down the toilet he wastes $26 million of taxpayers’ money on doomed referenda because he was once sat under the Australian flag?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Let us be blunt. If we want to have a discussion about being focused on the issues that matter Andrew Little would be asking a question about housing but he is embarrassed—he is embarrassed—about his use of Chinese names and the dodgy way he cooked the books. He might ask a question about prisons but he knows that his member over there has overcooked things. He might even ask a question about partnership schools. But no this is called a squirrel—talk about anything other than the issues that matter because he is so embarrassed about his own performance.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I seek leave to table some research that shows—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. The member is seeking now to table a document. I cannot hear what it is in order to know what to decide. So I am asking the member now to repeat his point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table some research that demonstrates that Canada did not have an official flag until they adopted the maple leaf.Mr SPEAKER: No that information is effectively what is—[Interruption] Order! What the member is attempting to do is to table that document now to make a political point. That is not the point of tabling documents. If members want to research it I am sure they can do so.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Come down half prepared—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Question No. 3.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well done Mr Speaker. Thank you very much.Mr SPEAKER: My pleasure.