Both Nikon and Canon sell their "kit" with a cheapo 18-55 mm lens. I have one from my first Rebel. If I had known, I'd have bought a body-only and put the money I saved toward a different lens. But then it would have been impossible since the place I had to buy my camera (because of an warranty exchange) only had the kits.
Anyway, the 18-55 kit lens is okay but it is really not "good glass" as they say in the biz. I have used mine in a pinch but that is about it.
A Speedlight, in my opinion, is not going to make much difference for you. I have one, plus I have an expensive lens mount flash and I can tell you I don't even know where they are at. I haven't used them in years.
I'm not the one to give tips on macro because I flat stink on it. But you need two things to do good macro: good glass and a tri-pod. You can get by with the kit lens for now but use a tri-pod. There is such a fine focal point when doing macro that any slight movement blurs it horribly.
That is my problem, between pressing the shutter button as well as the constant wind here in NM... nothing sits still. If I do manage to catch something in focus, it is blind luck.
If you can and want to do some good macro, use a "prime" lens instead of a telephoto. I use a 50MM Sigma macro for my close-up work. If I understand the terminology, a fixed focal length is considered a "prime" lens.
And, if you can, pick up a Tamron 18-250 MM 3.8/6.3 telephoto and use it as your "main lens. I just got one a few weeks ago and so far I love it. Priced around $500 if you shop for it. (I'll recommend a best price place if you want me to).
How'd you know about the lens? That's exactly the one I got...you get the same thing? So far, I can't say I'm thoroughly impressed...but I don't have a speedlight flash yet, so I'm sure that will make a difference.
So you got a new camera?? Did it come with the 18-55 mm lens? I found that lens to be a bit better with macros, less fuzz. If you are like me, though, you'll drive yourself nuts with macro photography. I've given up.