Bishop Chris: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBishop Chris: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 28 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5361. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS BISHOP (National): Let us put on the record for the House the reason why the Labour Party is opposed to this bill. It is spite—simple spite. That is the simple reality of it. The Labour Party has this view of itself—this vainglorious view of itself—that it is the party that does nationhood. It is the party of Norman Kirk at Waitangi. It is the party of sending the ships over to Mururoa. It is the party of David Lange at the Oxford Union giving that glorious speech. Look I quoted David Lange in my maiden speech. I agree that he was a great statesman but the Labour Party does not have a monopoly on nationhood and it does not have a monopoly on taking New Zealand forward.Let us be very clear. The reason why the Labour Party is opposed to this bill is spite and jealousy. They are jealous that it is a National-led Government led by a Prime Minister whom they despise that is putting to the people the idea of changing the New Zealand flag. They are jealous of it because it is Labour Party policy to have a referendum on the flag. As late as September last year—in fact as late as last week on its website—it was Labour Party policy to consider a flag referendum.My good friend Charles Chauvel—the much-lamented Charles Chauvel—had a member’s bill for a flag referendum in the ballot some time ago. The Labour Party is all over this except for the fact that it is a National Government doing it. It is really sad because actually I reckon most Labour members agree with changing the flag. Andrew Little certainly does. Last year he 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.” So the Government which took a policy of having a referendum to the election and duly got elected has introduced legislation. And what do we have from the Labour Party today? Well it is going to oppose it. It is really really sad.New Zealand does not discuss nationhood and the issue of national identity enough in my view. This bill and the process that we are undertaking is part of that ongoing conversation about what New Zealand is and what we should stand for. The question of the flag is important. Yes it is a just a symbol but symbols matter—symbols matter. The issue of whether in the 21st century modern-day New Zealand is best represented by a flag that has a Union Jack and the Southern Cross on it or whether we move to a flag that better represents New Zealand’s national identity is an important one. We are no longer a colony of Great Britain. We are no longer tied by the apron strings to that country—to the mother country. We have moved on from that and the question as to whether or not we should have a flag that better represents that new reality is something that New Zealanders are going to grapple with and have been grappling with during this referendum process.The process is important. We heard from Mr Chris Hipkins over there that New Zealanders do not care about it that they are totally unengaged and that to the extent that they do care about the flag referendum process they are absolutely opposed to change. The ultimate referendum is the referendum that we are going to have. The logical extension of the Labour Party’s argument on this stuff is that we should just govern by opinion poll. It is that we should just put everything out to the people and have a fleeting cursory view of public opinion at one moment in time. No actually that is not the right way to go about things. The right way to go about things on an issue as important as this is through a deliberative consultative process in which people get a chance to consider the issues widely and fully have a say and then get a vote on it.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: They have. They have and they have given it the thumbs down.CHRIS BISHOP: It is not a New Zealand Herald online poll Mr Cosgrove. It is not some smidgen of public opinion at any one fixed point in time. It is through a deliberative process through a referendum. If the Labour Party is correct and if Mr Hipkins is correct—he very rarely is on most other matters—and the people do not want to change the flag they will say so. This Government will respect that view—we will respect that view. But if they vote for change then the flag will change. The question for the Labour Party is—after having exhausted all of this hot air arguing against giving New Zealanders a say about the flag and the future of the flag in this country—will they respect the outcome if people vote in favour of a change of flag? That is the question for the Labour Party.This referendum does not disrespect veterans. It does not do that. On the issue of whether or not something is the right time again you could make that argument about almost any change that the Government does. Well it is never the right time. There has not been a right time since 1970; there has not been the right time since 1980; it was not the right time back in 2005 when hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders signed a petition to change the flag. That is an argument for the status quo. It is a conservative argument and it is just hilarious that it is coming from the so-called progressive party of social change over there—the party that likes to tell itself that it is all in favour of moving New Zealand forward but that gives speech after speech saying: “It’s not the right time. You know we’re not sure New Zealanders are in favour of this.” They sound like the conservative fuddy-duddy party that the Labour Party has become. It is truly tragic.The Justice and Electoral Committee which considered this bill did a very good job of considering the process. We considered the suggestion from Trevor Mallard and from others that we should put a yes/no question in the first referendum that we are going to have and that we are going to have quickly. Actually we considered whether or not that was a good idea and we came to the view by majority that it was not a good idea. The reason for that is firstly the Ministry of Justice officials recommended against it. The reason is that it biases the referendum in favour of the status quo; it does not lead to a mutual objective referendum. In our view that was not a good public policy outcome and that is why the majority of the select committee decided that the structure that we have at the moment which is the one recommended by the officials as being the most neutral and objective referendum possible is what we should do.There were some suggestions that we should have a yes/no referendum to start with—just put one question to the people: do you want to change the flag or not? The problem with that as somebody explained to me at a public meeting yesterday is that they may very well be in favour of changing the flag but that they just do not know what it is going to change to and until they have the options available they are not sure. That with respect is a silly suggestion by people who make it including New Zealand First. Denis O’Rourke during the select committee process asked one question of all the submitters which was: why do we not just have a yes/no referendum question first? I have just given the reason for Denis’ benefit. The reason is that it is hard to make up your mind whether or not you are in favour of change unless you know what you are changing to. We decided to have the view that you should let people have a say on the options first and then it will be a binary up or down vote on what the change will be.We do not discuss constitutional questions enough in this House. We do not discuss in this House issues of national identity. This is a good bill put forward by a good Government. It is opposed by parties out of pure spite and jealousy.The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee be agreed to.