Seymour David: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSeymour David: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:7006. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): That was quite a wide-ranging and extraordinary contribution. Correct me if I am wrong Mr Chair but we are currently debating Part 1 of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill. It is a very very simple part of the legislation. All it says is that the legislation will be changed such that there are five options on which the public can vote not four. This is not actually complicated. In fact I believe that members have the capacity to grasp what is happening well within their grasp and yet we hear all sorts of accusations that “Everybody but me”—Clare Curran just said—“is playing politics on this issue.”Well there are people playing politics on this very simple bill and ensuring it takes far more of the Committee’s time than it needs to and the puerile and infantile amendments on the Table from Denis O’Rourke are one example. It just goes to show what happens when the “Babysitter” is away. When the “Babysitter” is away all sorts of impractical and impolitic indulgences are indulged in by the New Zealand First Party. I believe I speak for many members when I say—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The amendments that you mentioned are not to Part 1. They are actually on the clauses.DAVID SEYMOUR: I apologise. I was not referring to the amendments in any substance; merely to the position that various parties are taking on this part which is indeed very simple. In fact going from four to five options is so simple that it is difficult to fill 5 minutes talking about anything else. Thankfully the Opposition has given us all sorts of immaturity all sorts of political game-playing and all sorts of excuses to make this process far more complex than it needs to be.If the Opposition were serious about being respectful of New Zealanders and acting in such a way that this legislative change happens quickly efficiently and smoothly so the House can get on to all of those things that the Opposition says are far more important we would not still be debating this. It could have been done and dusted and we could have got on to more important matters last night.The truth is that the Opposition has chosen to deeply politicise the very simple exercise of going from four to five options. I would not have thought that this was a complex matter to detain the House with for a long time but it does appear to have detained the Opposition for a long time. The Opposition in turn has detained the House and left us with a much much more drawn-out process than there needed to have been.So when the Opposition tells us that it is the Government or this side of the Chamber that is abusing or offending or taking for granted or belittling New Zealanders all it needs to do if it wants to move the Committee and the House on to more serious business is to say “We’re OK with going from four to five. We’re comfortable with that. We’re numerous enough to do it.” sit down and allow the Committee and the House to move on to more important business.But I predict that we are going to see the kind of puerile grandstanding from New Zealand First that we get whenever their “Babysitter” is away managing media matters for the Parliamentary Rugby Team in London or on any other occasion when those members are unsupervised and left to their own devices in a House they could never have entered without the ”Babysitter’s” assistance. They will carry on and carry on for as long as possible simultaneously claiming it is the Government that is taking advantage of the public and the House while nevertheless it is they who have a real difficulty with the simple concept of going from four to five options. That is all we are trying to achieve here so let us just say it—