Cosgrove Clayton: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5591. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I have listened to a number of contributions in respect of clauses 1 and 2 the title and commencement clauses of this bill. I want to propose perhaps a different title that more aptly deals with the content and the fiscal issues associated with this bill. I think it is very apt to be called “The $26 Million Bill”. If you look at the document it has got a bit of weight to it. I am not sure how much paper is going for per pound or per kilogram in the international price but given the relevance of the figure $26 million which I will explain in a moment—I know other colleagues have—I think it may well be relevant as the bill is in the name of the Minister of Finance the Hon Bill English to call this bill “The $26 Million Flag Bill”.That is what it has cost the taxpayer budgeted to date—$26 million—to conduct this exercise which opinion poll after opinion poll suggests no one wants. It has not only been opinion poll after opinion poll but given that so very few people some 700 people turned out to the public meetings on the flag consideration project—these meetings cost $208500 for venues and a further $200000 for panel members and fees and whatnot. There must have been some very good scones and sausage rolls or whatever at these meetings. The average cost per person who turned up was $550 each or $2300 each once advertising is included. So in terms of the title this whole exercise is estimated to have cost $26 million. In respect of this it is very apt and the Government should be upfront and call it what it is. It is a $26 million waste of time.The New Zealand public have demonstrated through opinion polls and by their turnout—some 700-odd people—that they do not see this as a priority. I suspect there are people who have turned out to those meetings who may want to see a change. There are thousands of others who may want to see a change indeed but those people do not view this as a priority in their lives. They view health education their kids’ welfare and other things as a priority in their lives. I suspect speaking again to clause 1 the title that those people who did not show up to those meetings can probably think of 26 million reasons to go along with a $26 million budget for this thing as to how that money could be used in a better way. Or the title could perhaps be “The Prime Minister’s Legacy Project That Has Cost New Zealanders $26 Million”.I put this to the Government. If it were serious about changing our constitutional arrangements about some of the lofty things that the Prime Minister and others have said it may want to consider this. The Government has put the cart before the horse. Surely you would look at our true constitutional arrangements. Should we have a written constitution? Should there be a head of State who differs from the current one? Should that person be elected or appointed or whatever? You would deal with all those heavyweight constitutional arrangements and work that through the community and bring the communities with us. And then the last thing—with no disrespect to the flag but probably the smallest component of true constitutional reform is to change the flag which is one of the symbols of your country. People will be for and against that but I think that is the heavyweight process dealing with heavyweight issues that leads—if the Prime Minister were of a mind to look at that—to a heavyweight debate and possibly a heavyweight legacy.But to have a bill that changes the flag at a cost that is just incredible to most people—you know I have been to public meetings during election campaigns. Election campaigns generally are not that popular where you have had—and I am sure the Minister in the chair the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga has had more people turn up to many of his meetings. In fact there may be more people in his prisons—and I suspect there are—than the 700 people who turned up to the flag meetings.In terms of the name it could be called “The Prime Minister’s $26 Million Legacy Project Bill”. It could be called “The $26 Million Flag Bill”. It could be called a number of things. But I think what is going to be sad in this because I suspect it will not get through—not the bill but the actual change because people are just not for it—is that lost in amongst all of this bunkum and the silly process and a process that is about the Government’s legacy or the Prime Minister’s legacy more than anything else we actually lose the grit and the substance of the issue which is a debate about our constitutional arrangements—