Bishop Chris: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBishop Chris: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5451. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS BISHOP (National): The only disgrace to this House was the contribution by Trevor Mallard just then. The official Labour Party policy is to have a referendum on the flag. It was its policy last week on its website it was its policy at the election and it was the policy of Andrew Little in December last year when he gave a National Business Review interview about it. Actually as we know Trevor Mallard and probably most of the Labour Party members here and the actual members out in the branches—few as they are—probably favour a change of flag.So let us be very clear about why the Labour Party is opposing this bill and in particular the purpose of this bill and the part we are talking about which is clause 3 of the bill. The reason the Labour Party is opposing this and the reason why the Labour Party is disgraceful in this Parliament tonight is spite and jealousy. How petty—how petty—is it for the Labour Party to oppose something that actually is its policy something that it agrees with because the Prime Minister is doing it? And you could hear the hatred and the venom in Mr Mallard’s voice then. Labour members really despise and loathe the fact that it is a man whom they loathe and despise who is putting this to the people.We could have legislated for a change of flag. We could have done what the Canadians did which was come up with a national flag competition and just decide to pass legislation to implement a new flag. Has the Government proposed that? No. What have we done instead? We are having a national conversation and a deliberative and consultative process about it and we are putting it to the people. We are putting it to the people and if in the second referendum the people say “We actually do not want to change the flag. We are all good with the status quo.” well that will be what the flag remains. So we are actually having a conversation about it.Mr Mallard talked about how the process is a waste of time and 85 percent of people are heartily opposed to the process—except in this country we do not govern by opinion poll based on one particular moment. On the logic of Mr Mallard we would not have even bothered with the 2014 election. We would have just looked at the opinion poll on 18 September or some other point when National was streaking ahead and said: “No need to bother with the election. National is ahead. We have taken the opinion of the public by opinion poll at the time.” No that is not the right way to go about it. OK maybe people are opposed to changing the flag at the moment. But what will that opinion be when the second referendum comes around? We do not know. Do you know why we do not know? Because a lot of people are waiting to see what the design panel comes up with. Quite rightly a lot of people say that they may well be in favour of changing the flag but have not seen a design they like yet.But I tell you what: people are really interested in the designs. Go and have a look at the New Zealand Herald website. Go and have a look at the competition Gareth Morgan is running. Go and talk to schoolchildren about the competitions that are being run in classrooms around the country. People are really engaged with this process. Do we want some blue and red? Do we want the tino rangatiratanga flag on it? Do we want some elements of green? What sort of shape is it going to be? Should we have the silver fern or not? Should we have black or not or is that too similar to Islamic State of Iraq and Syria etc.?So there are lots of different questions going on about it. Maybe people did not turn up for those meetings. It is very hard to get people to go to a meeting at 7.30 in Christchurch when there are only chocolate biscuits and a cup of tea. So maybe they did not turn up but I tell you what: people are really engaged in this process. So the question for the Labour Party is this: if we get to the second referendum process and people vote in favour of change will it respect that outcome? At the moment it seems like it will not.I want to talk about the structure of the referendums and in particular the point that Ms Ardern made right at the start at the opening of the Committee stage. The Labour view is that we should insert a prefatory question into the first referendum which is a simple “Do you want to change the flag or not?” question. OK on the face of it that sounds like a good idea except it is not. And that is actually one of the reasons why it was not recommended by the officials. Go and have a look at the regulatory impact statement. It was not one of the top four recommendations for the structure of the referendum and the reason for that is that it biases the referendum in favour of the status quo. Why? Because it means people have to vote twice for change. They have to vote once for change in the first referendum then they have got to go and do it again.So the hurdle is too high for change. It is not a fair and neutral and objective referendum structure and that is why the officials did not recommend it and that is why the Justice and Electoral Committee—or the majority of the Justice and Electoral Committee to pick up Jacinda’s point—Hon Trevor Mallard: The member might have been at kindy but that’s how we got MMP. That’s how the member got his seat—through a referendum.CHRIS BISHOP: And we are getting abuse from Trevor Mallard over there except he knows that—if he has bothered to read the regulatory impact statement—it was not recommended by officials and it was not recommended for a very good reason. It was confusing—Hon Trevor Mallard: Because they are hacks under direction.CHRIS BISHOP: Oh now here we go. Now he is accusing the officials of being Government hacks. The neutral officials of the Ministry of Justice who are the advisers to the committee—Hon Trevor Mallard: Neutral? Neutral? What rubbish!CHRIS BISHOP: Trevor here we go again. He is running his mouth off again abusing officials who cannot fight back—just disgraceful. He is the only disgrace in this House. It would be confusing—