Nash Stuart: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNash Stuart: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 12 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2238. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): What a load of absolute bollocks! If that member thinks that a flag defines who we are as a country then that represents the greatest level of colonial insecurity that I have come across in a long time. I tell you what a flag never defines how I view our country. Mr Williamson talked about his ancestors who had served this country. He talked about the fact that they did not stand under a piece of linen. Well I have had several members of my family who have put a hell of a lot of service into this country and if they thought for one moment that we were prioritising a flag over child poverty over unemployment over economic development then they would actually roll in their graves. This is an absolute disgrace.Mr Williamson said that we need something that we can take overseas and be proud of. Well for me I would be a hell of a lot prouder if I could go overseas as a Kiwi and say: “You know what? In New Zealand there is no child poverty. In New Zealand there is no unemployment and there is no Government debt.” But we cannot say those things at all. In fact all three of those are just examples of the absolute disgrace that this Government has presided over for the last 7 years.I get quite riled up about this because when I hear people say that a flag is what defines us as a nation I think how ridiculous. If New Zealanders think we are that shallow then heaven help us. I know that the vast majority of people whom I talk to and whom I associate with are not that shallow in any way shape or form.What I would like to talk about in the next 4 minutes is the actual process. The thing I like doing when I look at these bills is going through the regulatory impact statement because what the regulatory impact statement is supposed to be is a rather objective view of how the bill is going to impact on New Zealanders written by Government officials who are not supposed to be in the pocket of the Government but who provide the Government with advice and the members on the select committee with a way forward in things they need to consider.The first thing this says is: “Any process considering change must be robust in that it needs to lead to a legitimate outcome which is accepted by the public.” We all agree on that. That is vitally important. But then we go through this and it says: “A number of decisions have been made by Cabinet limiting the focus of the [regulatory impact statement].” So immediately the Ministry of Justice has said: “OK well we can’t consider a whole lot of options because the Cabinet has said so.” Then it says: “We have not considered status quo as a feasible option due to decisions already made by Cabinet.”—already made by Cabinet. So immediately what we have got are decisions made by Cabinet that are going to influence this whole process.Then we have got here: “We have not considered holding a ballot together with a general election due to the Prime Minister’s indication that the process should be completed before the 2017 General Election.” So yet again we have got the Prime Minister dictating this whole process. This is not going to be accepted by the public as a legitimate outcome.Why this process? If it is done in a general election we get about 80 percent turnout. You are going to get the majority of Kiwis who are going to vote because they go to the polling booth anyway. The history of postal ballots is around about 50 percent the absolute maximum so we are not going to get the vast majority of Kiwis engaging in this. In fact it says “we might expect”—we might—“that consideration of the New Zealand Flag is an issue New Zealanders will find engaging. This could mean higher voter turnout”—in a postal poll—“as long as the referendum is well-timed and the question(s) well-framed.” If that is not an official saying: “This is not a very good idea but we can’t say that because we don’t want to annoy Cabinet” then I do not know what is.This is a process that is being driven by Cabinet and the Prime Minister in a way that I actually believe is possibly—well if it is not unconstitutional then it is certainly unfair. If we really do want to change the flag if New Zealanders really do want a change then make it easy—as this document says it has to be. In fact in this statement it actually outlines the fact that public accessibility on the option put forward by the Government—it says it is medium. Public accessibility means “a referendum process that is easy to understand and participate in where voters understand the implications of their vote.” And the Ministry of Justice says that is not that high. New Zealanders will not engage. Thank you.