Norman Russel: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNorman Russel: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 28 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5347. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe. There is an ugly word that is used by political operatives and political spin doctors. It is also used quite a lot in the public relations industry and by those who have an interest in manipulating public opinion. It is a word that is the very opposite of substance. It is the word “optics”. Optics is all about how something looks. It is not about what the reality of something is; it is not about what the real content of something is. Optics is all about how it looks. What kind of an appearance would it give? How would something look to a person if they were passing by it and did not really look at it closely? The bill that we have in front of us today is all about optics. It is all about how it looks and it is all about the legacy of our Prime Minister. What he wants to give is an appearance of substance. What he wants to give is an appearance of being a progressive forward-looking aspirational Prime Minister leading an aspirationalforward-looking Government. He wants to use this symbol and this referendum on the flag in order to get the right optics—how does it look?How would it look to a person who was not really paying any attention? It would look like: “Well the Prime Minister is forward-looking; he wants to change the flag.” He wants to adopt a modern aspirational forward-looking flag as we have heard from all the National Government speakers—a flag that enshrines our national identity. But by changing the flag what are we really changing? Are we changing the fact that our head of State is in fact a foreigner; that our head of State is in fact chosen by birth; and that our head of State is in fact a hereditary monarch? By choosing a new flag does it change any of those fundamental constitutional arrangements? No—the Prime Minister does not want to deal with that. That is hard; that is leadership.If you want to have a constitutional republic in New Zealand if you want to be a Prime Minister who actually wants to make New Zealand constitutionally independent that would take leadership of substance not leadership of optics. This bill is about optics. It is about how it would look. How would it look if we adopted a new flag? It would look like this was a Government that was addressing some fundamental issues about our constitution because we were changing the flag. It would look like a Government perhaps that was addressing some of the fundamental issues of our identity like our relationship with tangata whenua and the Treaty of Waitangi. No it is just changing a piece of cloth and the pattern on a piece of cloth. The constitutional structure will remain exactly the same. So we will have a hereditary head of State.Hereditary heads of State are very strange things. I mean imagine for example if you had an accident this afternoon and you had to go to hospital and you said: “Well I need heart surgerybut it’s all right because the father”—or mother—“of my heart surgeon was a heart surgeon. They are a hereditary heart surgeon so I’m sure that they are going to do a really good job.” Ha! A hereditary heart surgeon! Honestly would anyone here say: “I’m going to go and give my body over to a hereditary heart surgeon because their father or mother was a very good heart surgeon so I think they must be a good heart surgeon as well.”? When I get my hair cut—I am going to get my hair cut in a week or so; it needs to be every now and then—would I say: “Oh well my hairdresser’s mother or father was a very good hairdresser so I’m sure that they will do an excellent job.”? But when it comes to the constitution and to the head of State we say: “No no it’s all right. We are going to hand over the office of head of State to a person who was chosen by birth.” Ha ha! By birth—that is right. That is how we are choosing our head of State. Not by a democratic process; they did not have to go through a test to prove how good they are. I was not: “Oh yeah—if you are good on the constitution let’s test you on the constitution.” No we choose them by birth.This bill which gives the appearance of dealing with some really substantive issues about our nation—the flag—does not deal with any of the really substantive issues that confront our country. From John Key’s point of view that is the beauty of this referendum. It is manipulation of public opinion. It gives the appearance of substance without actual substance. It looks like the Prime Minister is addressing the big issues of the day—the big issues of the nation. Well the Prime Minister is doing nothing of the sort and that is exactly what he needs because what he really wants is a fourth term as Prime Minister.The Prime Minister talks about independence from the United Kingdom—“This flag will symbolise our independence from the United Kingdom.” Actually it will do nothing of the sort. The head of State will still be a British person—Charles. He is a perfectly nice fellow. In fact on green issues he is pretty good you would have to say. I have got a lot of sympathy for Prince Charles on green issues. But as for being a person who should be the head of State of New Zealand—I do not think that is the right way to go about it.Think about the fundamental issues around the Bill of Rights. The courts have just ruled that this Parliament breached the constitution of New Zealand by saying that prisoners are not allowed to vote. Are we going to talk about that?Hon David Parker: Can’t debate that here though.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: We cannot even have an urgent debate about that. The Speaker said “No no—that’s not serious enough.” The fact that according to the courts this Parliament breached the constitution of New Zealand by taking away prisoners’ right to vote is not important enough to have an urgent debate. It is certainly not important enough to have a referendum about! For goodness sake we have got to have one about the flag—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member is now relitigating a finding that has already been committed to the House by the Speaker. It is not up for debate. The member should get back to this debate which is about the flag referendum please.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: Thank you for your wise advice Mr Deputy Speaker. In terms of the flag the Prime Minister has been very clear that he wants to have a debate about optics—that is what he wants—not about substance not about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and not about the constitution. Even though the Prime Minister talks about the constitution in relation to this flag Mr Deputy Speaker will not let me talk about the constitution in relation to this flag. But the Prime Minister of course does. He gives the appearance that this is about substance; it is nothing of the sort.The process itself is manipulative. That is the giveaway. When we had the MMP referendum the first question was: do you want to have first past the post or MMP? You had to decide: do you want to keep first past the post? If the majority said yes we kept it. The majority voted for change. When we had the second MMP referendum the first question was: do you want to keep MMP or not? It was a yes/no decision. But with this referendum on the flag the Prime Minister is purposely manipulating the process to push it towards the outcome he wants. That is manipulative. That is about optics. That is about spin. That is about Government by spin. That is about Government by optics. It is trying to manipulate the people of New Zealand in order to get the outcome that it wants.The honest question is this—first question of the referendum—do you want to change the flag? My answer to that question is yes. I want to change a lot of things actually. I want to have a proper democracy which is what a constitutional republic is all about. I want to make sure that this Parliament operates within the constitution of New Zealand and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I want to do a lot of things. But on the question of how to do this flag referendum it is manipulative—in the way that the Government has set up the referendum question in order to push it towards the result it wants.As a matter of fact when the first referendum comes along and you have got to pick between four different kinds of flags if you do not want to change the flag you are not likely to participate in that referendum. Is there a quorum? What is the quorum? Ten people could participate in this referendum. Is there any quorum for this thing I ask the National Government members over there? What if 10 people vote in this referendum? What if the turnout is 20 percent? What if the turnout in that first referendum is 10 percent?Louisa Wall: No mandate.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: Where will the mandate be for this new flag then? There will not be one. So this is all about optics. This referendum is all about optics and it is all about making the Prime Minister look like he cares for something.May I remind you that Keith Locke put up a bill—the Head of State Referenda Bill—and the Prime Minister blocked it from even going to a select committee. That would have meant a true debate about our identity and a true debate about our constitutional arrangements but John Key said: “No we will not have a real debate. I’m not going to allow that. We can have a debate around my flag proposal”—which is all about optics and deception—“but we cannot have a real debate.”One of my reading habits lately has been Tom Paine and there is a great Tom Paine quote about the monarchy. Tom Paine said that “a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right”. He was talking about the monarchy and that was just before the American Revolution. This is exactly the same situation we find ourselves in today—a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it the appearance of being right. We should address the real constitutional issues facing our country—constitutional monarchy constitutional republic—rather than getting caught up in the Prime Minister’s optics around this referendum on a flag.