New Zealand Day Bill

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) Link to this

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) Link to this

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.”

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) Link to this

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 Māori. 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 Māori and Pākehā 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.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this

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—