Ardern Jacinda: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5474. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Although as you have pointed out there is a lot of detail in Part 2 this is by far the most substantive part of the bill so I certainly have an expectation that there will be a wide range of contributions from this side of the Chamber to the substance of this part. I want to start at the top of Part 2 because as you pointed out Mr Chair I do indeed have a Supplementary Order Paper in this part and it does apply to the very beginning. Under clause 10 “Subject of referendums” it sets out in subclause (1) that: “During the voting period for the first flag referendum a referendum of electors must be held on the question set out in the voting paper in Schedule 1.” Schedule 1 then sets out that voting paper. Subclause (2) then states: “During the voting period for the second flag referendum a referendum of electors must be held”. My Supplementary Order Paper 102 disrupts that order of events by inserting a new clause clause 10A. Clause 10A if passed—which I implore this Chamber to support for reasons I will outline—states: “Fifty percent of electors must return votes. Despite section 10(2) the second flag referendum may take place only if more than 50% of electors return a valid voting paper to the Returning Officer in the first flag referendum.” Obviously that Supplementary Order Paper makes it very clear that if after the first round regardless of what is returned in that first round regardless of whether or not people have ticked all of their options and sent it back if less than 50 percent of—Hon Ruth Dyson: Fewer.JACINDA ARDERN: Thank you. If fewer than 50 percent of those who are eligible to participate in that referendum return their voting papers then the second referendum would not take place.Let us run through the rationale for why that might be. Well obviously if something that is as constitutionally important—as the Prime Minister claimed in question time—as this flag referendum is to be considered valid amongst the New Zealand population and indeed amongst members of Parliament surely we would want at least 50 percent of the population to participate in that vote. You could argue that having a clause like this if people wanted to participate would make people think: “Right. If I want to have my say in this and I really want to see it changed then I have got to get out there.” So what could the Government possibly be afraid of? If it genuinely believes that every New Zealander wants to see change as it seems to believe because it is so unwilling to allow a simple yes/no vote first—if it is so convinced that the New Zealand public wants change and indeed wants this in the first place—then surely it would be willing to support Supplementary Order Paper 102 which puts that to the test. If you were so sure that everyone would participate you would have no problem with a Supplementary Order Paper like this one.I ask the Government to back the decision that you have made to put this to the public. Back the fact that you believe that 50 percent of the population will come out. The bonus of that then becomes that if there is a 50 percent turnout there is no problem. Your bill proceeds as planned. If they do not we do not run the risk of having a referendum that does not have the mandate of the public and we do not waste another $6 million by holding round two. Win-win. So I challenge the Government: if Government members tonight do not support this Supplementary Order Paper I will take that as a very clear indication that they right now actually do not believe that the New Zealand public will participate in this referendum because if you did you would have no qualms supporting it. You would have no qualms supporting that little backstop measure that says that if the public will not come out let us not waste our money on round two—let us not waste our money. Let us not waste our money and let us not bring in a flag that people are not willing to participate in a debate over.We have heard some defensiveness about the level of participation so far. Maggie Barry stood up in the House today and said that there was a fantastic national conversation—very defensive about that. I can see why because her department has spent a considerable amount of money on this. The Ministry for Culture and Heritage is a part of this legislation—the same department that is facing a $3 million cut in funding and so I can see why she would want to push the fact that this is a national conversation. Ultimately put your money where your mouth is. That is what I am arguing with this Supplementary Order Paper. So I look forward to a member on that side of the Chamber giving me a rational set of reasons why they would not be willing to have that test in there. We have put in other tests before. We have tried to alter the structure of the voting papers. The Government has not bought in to that; I am hoping that at least it will not be afraid to support this Supplementary Order Paper.Moving down through Part 2 I want to come then to clause 13. Clause 13 sets out the process with the alternative flag designs. Clause 13(1) sets out the way that “The Governor-General must by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister at least 60 days before the commencement of the voting period … prescribe 4 alternative flag designs to appear on the voting paper.” Let us be really clear. There were not always just four alternatives as a potential way of structuring this ballot. Officials put forward the idea of having a few more flag design options. In fact seven options were proposed for the way that this referendum could be set out. As much as the Government has come in behind its option and said that that was the primary one actually some of the others canvassed were tested against how complex they would be and how difficult they would be to manage. Most of them came out looking OK as alternative options but for this one we have gone with four options prescribed. The public gets 60 days to see them.What is unfortunate about this is that although it is not legislated in here specifically the Minister is the one referring the alternative flag designs to the Governor-General but of course those recommendations are coming from the panel. If you are not familiar with the panel—I do not blame you—I point out that there are no designers on the panel. One might think that if you were going to be choosing alternative flag options you would have someone who had some background in design—no. They are being paid half a million as a board to exist and I would call it a small number when you look at the amount they are costing us such as $200000 to hold public meetings with this panel which 26 people on average are showing up to. Even though the legislation sets out that it is the Governor-General on the Minister’s recommendation who prescribes alternative designs it is the board that is sitting behind that decision and I wanted to make that point very clear.I come to clause 18 “Rolls of electors”. There is a minor amendment in this clause which has been made by the select committee. It sets out that there is an exemption here for the second referendum that would usually apply to others and that is for the usual requirement to allow the inspection of the rolls. That will not happen for the second referendum because there is such a short time frame between the two. That is a common-sense amendment I think you will agree demonstrating where the different costs come in by holding two referendums because there is a considerable logistical process that exists behind each. There is a small cost saving there though none the less. But it is indicative.One of the more significant issues that we debated on the Justice and Electoral Committee was how we treat spending limits and whether or not you have to have promoter statements. The recommendation of the select committee was based on the discussion that was had by the parliamentary group that was considering the way these referendums would be held. The decision was generally made that a spending limit in this case was not required because the view was that those who come in as parties to this debate would not necessarily be of particular political persuasions. If someone wanted to spend their personal millions promoting a flag so be it. If Gareth Morgan wants to spend $20000 on a prize for a flag so be it. But I want it to be stated clearly in Hansard for the record—let it stand—that the absence of a spending limit in these referendums is not in any way indicative of the general view of the committee that that needs to apply to any other referendum or election. These are very special circumstances where it was deemed that special interests would not really be played out via paid advertising and registered promoters in these particular circumstances. But we need to be really really clear on that. We also need to be clear that you cannot use parliamentary funding to promote a particular alternative. That is very clearly stipulated. So promoting the referendums is fine; promoting an alternative is not OK under parliamentary spending rules or the rules set out in this bill.