New Zealand Day Bill — Second Reading 
New Zealand Day Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9331] 
New Zealand Day Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 on behalf of  
Judy Turner (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: I move  
That the New Zealand Day Bill be now read a second time 
. I am very pleased to move this bill on behalf of my very loyal colleague Judy Turner. I had the privilege of introducing it to the House in 2005 to provide for a replacement of Waitangi Day with New Zealand Day. I am aware that since that time a lot of water has flown under the bridge and there has been a significant change in the way in which New Zealanders view these things. I think that is reflected in the Justice and Electoral Committee’s report. I note that the committee is recommending that the bill be discharged. I personally am not opposed to that course of action but we will vote for the second reading this evening. 
Let me explain my reasons. My passion in promoting this bill originally was to give New Zealand a national day that could bring all of us together whatever our backgrounds to celebrate the unique gift we possess by virtue of the fact that we are New Zealanders. I drew from the original New Zealand Day that Norman Kirk had established as the old Waitangi Day in 1973 and that was the basis for the original bill. I note that the select committee has drawn attention to a couple of things that I think are important. One is an increasing feeling amongst New Zealanders that Waitangi Day has a degree of speciality associated with it that should not be touched and I am bound to say that on reflection I accept that view. But the select committee has also noted that there were a number of submissions presented to it about the idea of there being a national day separate from Waitangi Day and I am attracted to that also. So although I will support—and we as a party will support—the second reading of this bill knowing it will be discharged we will do so because we support the idea of a national day. 
That raises the question if not Waitangi Day then what day? I think here is where the problem becomes somewhat more difficult. I have had suggested to me over the last 3 or 4 year a variety of alternative national days for New Zealand and I am bound to say that in my humble view none of them quite fit at this stage. 
Let me run through each of them and give some argument as to why I do not think they are appropriate. The most commonly suggested day is the old Dominion Day 26 September. Incidentally that date this year will mark the centenary of when New Zealand became a Dominion in 1907. The difficulty I have with that is that although it celebrates our self-governing status it is still within the realm of what was then the British Empire and as a republican I am not personally persuaded that we should be celebrating a day that commemorates our heritage within the British Empire. I also think that a national day if we are to develop a new one should be something that is contemporary. The other day that has been suggested—I forget the precise date; Mr Finlayson may know it—is the date on which we acceded to the Statute of Westminster in 1947. It is a date in November. I think there is more merit in that day but frankly it is not a day that is well known to most New Zealanders. 
Then we come to a number of other alternatives that have been suggested. I note that the select committee received submissions that Matariki should be the day or the period in which we celebrate a national day. There is some merit in that except that it is essentially a moving feast and therefore very difficult when that day might shift from one year to the next to have a precise day. I have also had some more novel suggestions made to me that bear some consideration. The most common of those is that we pick a day of some significance in New Zealand’s history and commemorate it as a national day. The day that is most commonly suggested is the day in May that commemorates the time when Sir Edmund Hillary first conquered Mount Everest. That I think is a day that does have some merit. 
But I am bound to say that of all of the options the one I am most attracted to both in terms of relevance and a smooth transition is the option to replace the existing Queen’s Birthday weekend with a national day weekend. I think the logic of that means we are not adding an additional public holiday so the idea of economic cost is less. That option has been raised with me by a number of people. What some have said to be important is a mid-winter period of holiday and I think that is relevant. I also think in terms of where New Zealand is today that is something that is more in tune with this country’s needs. 
I raise those examples by way of alternatives and I sense from the reaction of the House that there is favour and disfavour with all of them. I want to signal to the House that I am continuing to work through a range of options with a number of interested parties—and I am getting submissions on this constantly—and in due course I intend to bring a new proposal to this House that hopefully will be more in line with where public mood and sympathy are today. I accept there is no public wish of substance to substitute Waitangi Day with New Zealand Day. I think that moment in our history has passed by and I am not proposing to do that. But I do think that the wider argument of what constitutes a national day and how we might bring a new one together is one we ought to be engaging in constructively. 
So although I welcome the consideration of the Justice and Electoral Committee and note its recommendation United Future will continue to support this bill not because of its specific content but simply because it keeps the argument alive and it requires New Zealanders to engage upon what is the best day to celebrate the unique fact that we are all New Zealanders whatever our circumstances or background and we take pride in our country’s future. 
Earlier in the debate when the bill was first introduced and certainly around some of the anniversaries each year that occasion debate about this matter a number of people in the public were scornful of the notion that we should have a national day like Australia’s. The date 26 January is the day when Australians of all colours creeds and backgrounds come together to celebrate being Australians. They do it in a typically loud and outspoken way. It is great to see those sorts of celebrations occurring but I have been surprised by the number of New Zealanders who said that the last thing we want is a brash display of nationalism like Australia Day. I think that one of the things that gives Australia its national character and ethos is in fact what goes on on Australia Day and that an important part of what a national day for New Zealand should involve would be a similar celebration whereby we actually lay aside for one day of the year our differences and celebrate the things we have in common as a nation. 
I hope that although this bill will clearly not proceed it will be the start of a process that will lead us to have a mature and careful reflection about what an appropriate national day for New Zealand is. I have raised some suggestions tonight. As I say they are by no means exclusive; others will come forward. I think it is time we took the opportunity to allow that debate to percolate and over the next few years to make a reasonable decision that can stand the test of time. I thank those who made submissions on the bill. I thank the select committee for its consideration and I thank the House for its attention to this matter. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I must say that even when the MP for Ohariu-Belmont Peter Dunne is talking gibberish he looks and sounds statesmanlike and I applaud him for that. Mr Dunne said in his second reading speech that the New Zealand Day Bill was introduced by him in 2005 but it was not actually. It was introduced in October 2004 and it languished for some years in the Justice and Electoral Committee until earlier this year. But under the dynamic and tough chair of our select committee Lynne Pillay we managed to get on to it in about March. She demanded that we look at this bill with some urgency so we all obeyed. We read the submissions although we did not hear oral submissions and the bill has been reported back to the House. 
As the commentary on the bill states the select committee recommends that the bill not be passed. We saw no benefit in renaming Waitangi Day as New Zealand Day. 
It is very interesting to look very closely at the legislative history over many years because the legislative history is important. Indeed history is important. I remind the member for Ohariu-Belmont of the words of Cicero: “Not to know what happened before one was born is always to be a boy.”; or as Mr Henare would say: “Nescireautem quid ante quamnatus sis acciderit id estsemperessepuerum.” 
Chris Auchinvole 
: I heard him say it. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: In fact he said it just the other day. So I am going to undertake a painstaking analysis of the legislative history of Waitangi Day. 
Jacqui Dean 
: No! 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: For whoever called out “No” bad luck because I am going to start with 1941. Apparently—so Sir Walter Nash said in 1960—in 1941 a ceremony was brought into being in regard to Waitangi Day. So informally we had a Waitangi Day celebration. It was not until 11 October 1960 that the soon to be former Prime Minister the Rt Hon Walter Nash introduced a Waitangi Day Bill. The purpose of that bill Sir Walter said was to set apart 6 February in each year the anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 as a day on which to commemorate the signing of the Treaty. In that original bill power was given to the Governor-General who by proclamation could set apart Waitangi Day as a public holiday in any locality or localities. I recommend that if any honourable members are interested they should read the debate in 1960 because it explains very clearly why the term “Waitangi Day” was so important and fundamental to New Zealand. 
Then in 1973 the next step was taken to have the day made a public holiday throughout New Zealand. It was Norman Kirk’s Government that introduced the New Zealand Day Act 1973 which basically renamed Waitangi Day as New Zealand Day. 
With a change of Government in 1975 the National Government under the then Prime Minister Robert Muldoon introduced a Waitangi Day bill that brought back the name “Waitangi Day”. The second reading on 2 September 1976 reported in  
Hansard 
 Volume 405 at page 2273 has an excellent speech made by the Minister of Internal Affairs the Hon D A Highet who explained the rationale behind the term “Waitangi Day” and the importance of Waitangi Day. I quote from some of what the late Mr Highet said: “The event that Waitangi Day commemorates was important to the early development of our nation. It was an occasion when two races treated together in mutual trust and expressed a desire for peace. Both races displayed a desire to protect the other from the consequences of misunderstanding and ignorance of the other’s customs.” Later on he said: “While recognising that relations between the races are still by no means perfect it is the ideals of the Treaty of Waitangi and the spirit in which it was signed that we wish to remember and preserve in our society—the spirit of mutual trust and the desire for the peaceful resolution of our problems.” It was then that the legislation enacted a change to New Zealand Day so that it became Waitangi Day as it always should have been. 
That is a potted history of the way the term has developed over the years— 
Darren Hughes 
: Tell us again! 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: If the member wishes me to. Walter Nash— 
Hon Member 
: He should have listened the first time. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The member asked for it. In 1960 Walter Nash introduced a Waitangi Day bill. In 1973 Norman Kirk introduced the New Zealand Day Act then in 1976 Rob Muldoon that great liberal introduced a Waitangi Day bill that brought back the name “Waitangi Day”. 
That is how we come to this misconceived legislation of Mr Dunne. He charitably analysed the submissions but the reality was that we received 22 submissions and most were utterly opposed to the bill—some in quite trenchant terms. The report of the select committee analyses the submissions. I particularly want to refer to the conclusion of that report because we were very strongly and unanimously of the view that the bill should not proceed. We saw absolutely no benefit in renaming Waitangi Day as New Zealand Day. Indeed we thought that such a change at such an important and sensitive time of our country’s history could foster social disharmony in New Zealand. It goes without saying that everyone on the committee saw that the term “Waitangi Day” is one of immense historic cultural and social importance tied as it is to 6 February. That is why we were of the opinion that there was absolutely no merit to this legislation. That is why everyone on the committee voted against the bill proceeding. 
There we have it. It is misconceived legislation. My advice to Mr Dunne is to pay more attention to New Zealand’s history. If he did he would see that the legislation is totally out of step with the mood of contemporary New Zealand. It really shows the dangers of not thinking things through. It is rather like his bizarre call last Friday for a complete review of the law of evidence 6 months after the Evidence Act 2006 had been passed by Parliament under the excellent chairmanship of the select committee of Mr Fairbrother who is cackling away there now. 
In conclusion if members look at international comparisons they will see that the French do not call Bastille Day “France Day” or “French Day” and the Americans do not call Independence Day “America Day”; both those days are tied to enormously significant historical events in the life of those countries. So too with Waitangi Day. It represents the occasion when Maori and Pakeha met—[ 
Interruption 
]—I have not finished—when the two races met and signed a treaty that was a treaty of trust and mutual respect. It is a sacred day and to change that day’s name to “New Zealand Day” would be singularly inappropriate. That is why the select committee strongly was of the view that the bill should not proceed and why National will not be supporting this legislation. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is a pleasure as the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee to take a call on the New Zealand Day Bill and to say that I really enjoyed the Hon Peter Dunne’s speech. In effect he said he had had a change of heart about this legislation. I could say that a year or two ago this bill may have had quite a bit of support from the members on the Opposition benches because that seemed to be the way things were politically at that time. 
I would just like to acknowledge and thank Mr Finlayson for his lavish praise of my chairing of the select committee. I have sometimes felt a little sad that he tends to praise Mr Fairbrother for chairing the subcommittee and I have felt not being one of the legal fraternity that I am missing out a little so praise from Mr Finlayson is praise indeed. 
I would like to say in respect of this issue that I certainly agree with the Hon Peter Dunne and Chris Finlayson that this bill should not proceed. The committee certainly gave the bill quite a bit of thought. Although we did not ponder over it we gave it really meaningful thought. We reflected in terms of renaming Waitangi Day New Zealand Day on what Waitangi Day meant to all of us. I note that a similar bill that had the same aims was debated by this Parliament in May 2000 and it was voted down by 76 votes to 42. So we are pretty much on track in terms of the committee not supporting the bill. 
I believe that Waitangi Day is the most important day in our history because it is the day on which we celebrate that we have a Treaty—the Treaty of Waitangi. That is something that is absolutely unique to New Zealand and I know that the Labour Government feels that to denigrate that in any way would take away something that is very special and unique to New Zealand and that it is something we should feel very very proud of. 
The underlying reasons for the bill do not sit with Labour’s commitment to acknowledging our national history in its absolute fullness. We do not need a fresh start in this country. I think we have a heritage and a history to feel very proud of and I think Waitangi Day actually celebrates that. Certainly from time to time—every Waitangi Day—there is an opportunity for some debate or protest but I think that is healthy and I think that is what makes us unique as a nation. We can look at many nations throughout the world that do not have a treaty and that also do not have the ability to raise and canvas arguments and run debates. I am really proud that we are not in that situation in New Zealand and that we are in a position where we can really celebrate our history on this important day. 
I heard Peter Dunne talk about the possibility of a national day for New Zealand and that is certainly something that this Parliament may want to canvas or look at. That is a really good healthy and sensible thing to do. On this particular bill however we received 22 submissions and I note that the majority of those submissions were opposed to the bill. Although we did not hear all of the submissions we were able to look at their flavour. Thankfully—and this does not always happen in a select committee but it does happen quite frequently on the hard-working Justice and Electoral Committee—there was a meeting of minds. I note to this House that the recommendation that the bill not proceed was a unanimous recommendation from the committee and that is a very good thing. 
Submitters suggested that renaming Waitangi Day would diminish the significance of the Treaty. I agree with that and I agree that that could be quite harmful and insulting to Maori. Several submitters believed that renaming Waitangi Day would not defuse racial tensions but rather that it would create further division in New Zealand. I think that that certainly would be the case. Although I acknowledge that it was not in our party’s mind to do that nor was it in the minds of the representatives from the National Party and the Green Party on the committee. I think we saw no benefit in changing the name. 
As we have talked about before the merits of another national day similar to our neighbour’s are something that I look forward to exploring and canvassing. But I feel really proud of the Treaty and I know how significant it is for many families. I acknowledge Dr Pita Sharples who has I know for the last 3 years—if not more—opened up the marae in Waitakere to the public to talk about Waitangi Day and its significance which has made large numbers of members of the community feel very welcome. I think that is very significant. 
I have met with a number of people for whom it has been their first experience—many of them are actually Kiwis but also many are new settlers. When I think back to the last Waitangi Day at Hoani Waititi Marae I remember that there was actually a large contingent of Asian—both Chinese and Indian—people there along with some people from the UK who found the whole experience absolutely mind-blowing. I was proud as a westie to celebrate the events we have in west Auckland but also to celebrate what makes us a nation that is very proud and unique—the celebration of Waitangi Day the Treaty of Waitangi and the partnership between Maori and Pakeha in New Zealand.  
I think that there is not much more to say. I can see Chris Auchinvole waiting eagerly to take a call. He is very enthusiastic. I have to say that he was not actually on the committee at that time. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Why not? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Well he just was not a member of the committee. But I am sure that had he been a member of the committee— 
Hon Member 
: He was a member of the committee. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Oh I am sorry. He normally has so much to say that I do not notice if he is there or he is not there. I am really sorry. He was probably not there when we gave our primary consideration to the bill in the early days because as Mr Finlayson said it had been on our workload for some time. Mr Auchinvole was not there but I know that since he has been there he has made a very large and vocal contribution to the committee and it is very much appreciated. I am sure that he will be taking a call some time—if not tonight then in the near future. But it is with great pleasure—and this may sound a little incongruous—that although I do not recommend the bill to the House I am really proud to stand and speak on it. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 This bill went to the select committee as members have just told the House and it was recommended that it does not proceed. New Zealand First shares that view. We thought the select committee got it exactly right. But go back a few years—we just had a history lesson from Mr Finlayson a little while ago— 
Debate interrupted.