Young Jonathan: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYoung Jonathan: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:7035. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Last Monday evening I went to an event in New Plymouth where there were 250 people present. It was a presentation by a company that runs Dragons’ Den - type events. As people presented different aspects to what their company was about people were invited to say “in” or “out”. They started off by warming up the crowd by saying how it worked. The presenter said “The New Zealand flag referendum—who is in for a new flag?” and up went the in/out signs. The person at the front said to the crowd that there were more ins than outs—because the other side of the sign said “out”. I estimated that out of the 250 people there around about 60 percent—just across the board people from New Plymouth all sorts of ages backgrounds and ways of life—said that they were “in” for a flag change. I think the mood is there in the country that we want to see all the potential and possibilities of what a flag referendum offers us.I just want to put the record straight on a couple of matters because I have heard members of the Opposition saying that this process has been flawed from the very beginning. I chaired the cross-party committee. Let me just read out a couple of points because by the end of November we took three recommendations to the Minister in charge of the process: the use of preferential voting for the first referendum four alternative flags instead of three and we wanted to bring the timing of the second referendum forward to March rather than April. I reported back to that committee that the Minister had taken these recommendations to Cabinet and that each had been agreed to. The Minister and Cabinet listened to our recommendations. They were not obligated to agree with us but they considered them and where we had presented some very good rationale they agreed and changed the process. So for people to say that the process has been flawed from the very beginning is actually inaccurate and incorrect.In our final meeting of four in the last 5 minutes before it was due to end a discussion was proposed to change the structure of the referendum to a yes/no vote. Out of four meetings which went for over an houreach in the last few minutes of this process this discussion took place. It is true. I was the single voice that opposed that proposal—that opposed that suggestion. As chair of the cross-party group I said that I would convey the views of the majority of members regarding that yes/no vote but I reminded them that the Government was not obligated to enact their views and it did not and I agreed with that not because I represented National but because I understood the process the rationale and the reason why we had put that into place.I refer again to Gareth Hughes’ opening speech yesterday in which he said that his first choice was “Laser Kiwi” and that he has changed his view. I think what this demonstrates is that as people engage in the process their views change and that is all right. So the yes/no vote sort of cuts things off at the pass in my view. As Jacqui Dean said we do have a yes/no vote but it is in the second referendum not the first. I believe that the process we have put in place is good and that it will work. What it will do is engage New Zealanders so that they can look at alternatives before they come to the yes/no vote in the second referendum. I think that is an appropriate way. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for New Zealand to look at these things. I believe it is and I believe that once we decide whether it is the present flag or a new alternative flag that we as a country will settle on that and move forward.I believe that it is important that we have a choice between alternatives. I do not agree with Mr Mallard who says “Yes/no vote in the first referendum and choose your alternative out of five.” because that is not really a choice. People want to know that they are choosing between the present flag and something else—not one out of five; they want to know something definite. Choosing a flag is that important and I believe that we have got it the right way round.To me as I just come to a close my choice will have a silver fern on it. I want the Southern Cross on it. I am not sure whether I want red and blue or black and blue—I have yet to think about that. The reason I want the Southern Cross as an important component of our flag is that we are an immigrant nation. We are all navigators. Our forebears got here by being navigated by the stars. We are a nation of nations. I believe that what the Southern Cross does is put us all on the same footing and on the same ground. We are all equal in this nation. I want to have a silver fern on this flag because it is unique to New Zealand. It has been emblazoned on our national sports’ uniforms. It has honoured our war graves. It is the single emblem that New Zealanders have identified with for decades. When Olympians stand in victory I would love to see them wrapped in a fern like a laurel of victory rather than a Union Jack—no disrespect to Britain but something that represents who we are as New Zealanders. I am very pleased with this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to commend this amendment bill to the House. Thank you.