NZ First Submission: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill   7 May 2015

NZ First Submission: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill

6th May, 2015

Submission: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill

Justice and Electoral Select Committee

Rt Hon Winston Peters MP, Leader of New Zealand First

Recommendations

1. That the Select Committee recommends the Bill does not proceed

2. If it does proceed, then the first referendum should be held asking the question asked; “Do you want to change the New Zealand Flag? Yes or No?”

3. If the answer is no there is no need for a second referendum

4. The present form of referenda being proposed by this Bill for some inexplicable reason, avoids the primary question as set out above, and consequently, contemplates significant wasteful expenditure.

New Zealand First

New Zealand First refused to join the multi-party Select Committee behind this Bill and we share the Returned Service Association’s view on this very important issue. We are unequivocally against this flag change and believe the two referenda represent a waste of taxpayer’s money when so many worthy causes remain unsupported.

Is there demand for a new flag and this Bill?

In 2004, a ONE News poll found 58 percent support for the current flag and 42 percent support for a new one. In that same year, the NZ Flag.com Trust had a Citizens Initiated Referenda question accepted on 13 October for a change of flag. This Trust was backed by the late Lloyd Morrison and a personal friend of the Prime Minister. This petition was withdrawn in August 2015 and two months before the deadline after obtaining only 100,000 (unverified) signatures of the 270,000 needed.

In February 2014, a ONE News Colmar Brunton poll asked if New Zealand should stick with the current flag or design a new one. The result saw 72 percent back the current flag, while only 28 percent wanted a new one.

In September 2014, onenews.co.nz conducted an online poll with the question, "Are you in favour of changing the New Zealand flag?", 65 percent clicked "No" with 35 percent clicking "Yes". In February 2015, Campbell Live ran a text poll asking “Do you think New Zealand needs a new flag?” 84 percent emphatically said no.

Most recently, May brought a Herald Digipoll, which asked if it was time for New Zealand to design a flag for itself. A clear 70 percent said "no," with 25 percent saying "yes." Again, support for the current flag has grown so taken collectively, these opinion polls show very little public appetite for change.

Why is referenda being proposed?

Why parliamentary and public time is being wasted on such expensive political puffery is beyond New Zealand First. If a referendum is to be forced upon taxpayers then the first referendum must ask this question; “Do you want to change the New Zealand Flag? Yes or No?”. A “no” will save many millions of dollars.

Since 1949, there has only been ten government initiated referenda. Three of these related to the voting system, two were on the term of parliament, two related to six o’clock closing with one apiece on compulsory military training, on-course betting and compulsory superannuation. The last one having a lot to recommend it. As you can see, government initiated referendums are rare but tend to rise out of policy or electoral commitments.

Having been forced to examine National’s 2015 “Priorities” and its so-called “Plan,” there is not a single mention of the words “flag” or “referendum.”

This referendum is an arbitrary decision taken by a Prime Minister with little respect or sympathy for the flag and what it stands for. It is the desire of one person backed with little substance, as evidenced by how quickly the Prime Minister’s support for a ‘black flag’ evaporated, once it was parodied on US television as similar to ISIS. This surely shows how vacuous the drive behind this uncalled for change truly is.

This Bill opens a Pandora’s Box

A flag is not a brand because treating it as such would see our flag continually change from government to government. Indeed, this Bill opens a proverbial Pandora’s Box whereby future Prime Ministers will look to stamp their personal design aesthetic onto our national symbols.

Yes, our flag does look a lot like the Australia flag. However, they copied our design and they should change their flag to avoid confusion. That’s usually the way it goes in copyright and patent law. If it is ‘change for change’s sake,’ then that same mantra applies the moment any design is chosen.

Whether “our flag” is known by anyone overseas is an irrelevancy; so long as New Zealanders can recognise it, this is what having a flag is about. By refusing to entertain this Bill, your Committee will be defending parliament against current and future autocratic Prime Ministers.

The Flag embodies our past, present and future

Listening to some criticise the Union Flag in the top left hand corner, you would be forgiven for believing Great Britain did not create parliamentary democracy, abolish slavery and create the language, laws, sport and impart the cultural traditions that helped form New Zealand. It is bombastic nonsense to suggest that the Union Flag remains anachronistic, given so many of its values are shared by us too. With a blue background representing the seas around us with the Southern Cross representing our location, the Flag remains as relevant in 2015 as it did when Richard Seddon’s Liberal Government selected it in 1904.

The referenda cost of $26 million is only the beginning

Central government has provided an estimate of $2 to 3 million dollars for NZDF uniform and flag charges across government. However, government has been unable to answer the cost of replacing the New Zealand Coat of Arms on every single government building and on official documentation. Our Coat of Arms features the current New Zealand flag and, as one indication, the metallic Coat of Arms on Wellington’s Supreme Court cost close to $30,000.

But what about all official documentation? In 2013, poor communication regarding a “brand change” from the ‘New Zealand Food Safety Authority’ to the ‘Ministry for Primary Industries’ saw some 1,600 containers of New Zealand meat held up at the Chinese border. Before this, a similar issue arose in Russia with apples.

Imagine if overseas officials are presented with differing versions of our passport (Coat of Arms), a driver’s license (current Flag/new Flag), birth certificates (Coat of Arms) and other forms of official documentation? Outside of the trade implications, this is a recipe for chaos that cannot be batted away with some trite ‘transition period.’ Differing versions risks the person using the document so if there is a change, then all official documents must be changed concurrently.

Again, there has been no disclosure or contemplation of what this cost might be, so the regulatory impact assessment and fiscal implications are woefully inadequate.

This referenda process epitomises disrespect

About the 351,415 New Zealanders have served under the flag since 1902 with 29,921 paying the ultimate sacrifice. Not only was 25 April 2015, the Centennial of Gallipoli, but 15 September will be the 75th commemoration of the Battle of Britain. In 2016 we will commemorate the Centennial of the Battle of the Somme, the Battle of Jutland and the 75th Commemoration of Crete. The year 2017 will mark the centennial of third Ypres (Passchendaele) and the 75th commemoration of the Battle of El Alamein.

Those represent just some of a considerable historical overlay. It also seems wrong that key historical sporting events involving the flag, like the Olympics and the Rugby World Cup, will need subtitles to explain ‘that used to be our flag.’

“Informals” as the most popular choice

The first referendum designed by this Bill could give rise to a very unusual result. All opponents of this Bill have to do, if the committee decides to persist with the Bill, is write on their referendum paper “we want our flag”. Their vote then becomes informal and if sufficient numbers do that then “informals”, which, after all, are a choice, will outnumber the next highest choice of flag design.

How credible will the process behind this Bill then be?

New Zealand expects this Committee to do its duty and recommend this Bill does not proceed.

ENDS

Add a comment