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:5445. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to begin the debate in the Committee stage on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I know that there will be considerable interest from members particularly on this side of the Chamber in canvassing the issues raised by submitters that were not able to be discussed at length by the Justice and Electoral Committee because as will probably be raised by members likeMr Mallard in particular no time was made available to a great number—thousands in fact—of submitters who asked to be heard by the select committee. Seven hundred and forty submitters requested to be heard by the committee when they put forward their submissions. Labour agreed that they should be given the option of being heard. That was voted down by other members of the select committee. So we intend to canvass fully on their behalf the issues that they raised given that that was not an option made available to them.A range of views on the issue of the current flagitself were brought before the Justice and Electoral Committee but let us be absolutely clear that what we are debating today is not whether we personally prefer the current flag or whether we would like a new flag to be considered. In fact Mr Mallard began his submission by saying in front of the select committee that it was his personal opinion that we should have a new flag. I personally believe that a new flag would be no bad thing. That does not mean that the process or the timing that this Government has chosen is correct. In fact we have strongly been of the view that both the money that has gone towards this process and the process itself in the way that the referendum is framed—and I am going to come to that in the purpose clause—is incorrect. Indeed the timing given the number of competing demands that we as a House have right now again makes it inappropriate also. So this is not about our personal preference for a flag; the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill is very much about the process by which we are going about putting the issue before New Zealanders and indeed whether that issue should be put at all.I want to come to the first clause that we are able to debate in this stage of the bill and that is clause 3 in Part 1. As with any bill that is the point at which the purpose of this bill is set out. For the many many listeners and viewers at home the purpose clause for this bill states: “The purpose of this Act is to make provision for 2 postal referendums to be held to enable electors to decide whether New Zealand should have a new flag and to provide for a change of the New Zealand flag if electors decide New Zealand should have a new flag.” Labour’s opposition goes to the heart of this purpose clause. We have always stipulated that if the Government wants to have a referendum in two stages it should make sure that the very first question determines whether indeed the second referendum is necessary. Otherwise we are potentially putting ourselves up for first New Zealanders not having the ability to voice their opinions on whether we should be going down this track in the first place and second a potential waste of money to the tune of up to $6 million when you take into account the act of the second referendum alone and the materials that go with it which was the advice that we received.I need to put this into context. The $6 million is simply for the act of the second postal referendum and the materials that go with it. This entire process has ballooned to $26 million.Dr David Clark: How much?JACINDA ARDERN: $26 million. Nine million dollars have already been spent and we have not even asked anyone anything yet. And why is that? Well members in this Chamber will know. They would have got all of the glossy brochures—$4 million was spent on the kinds of brochures and advertising that our offices have received.Hon Ruth Dyson: How many houses could you build for that?JACINDA ARDERN: I had a question in the back there—a very good question—asking what we could do with the money saved. Well if we stopped tomorrow we could insulate 9000 houses. The fact that the Government stipulated two postal referendums from the very beginning is absolutely to the heart of this purpose clause. It did not say “to set out a process to ask the question”; from the very beginning the Government was very clear that it wanted two postal referendums. How clear was it? Well so clear that when Labour members of the committee put it to officials that perhaps we should be looking at an alternative option as set out in the regulatory impact statement which by restructuring would have again saved a bit of money we were told that we were already too far down the track of the two-ballot option—before the select committee or indeed Parliament had even passed this bill.Let me be very clear: I do not for a moment challenge officials about this. I do not blame them. Personally I do not believe that it is with any ill intent that they have progressed as they have. Why have they done so? They have had very clear instructions from the Government that it wanted this done quickly and that it had a very set idea about how it wanted it to be done. This idea was so set that when the regulatory impact statement was initially canvassing a postal ballot a stand-alone ballot or an online electronic ballot it said: “A referendum is a vote by all enrolled voters on some matter.” It canvassed whether or not it would be online or held with a general election and it stated: “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.” We had the option of saving an enormous amount of money by combining this process with the next general election but the Prime Minister made it clear that he wanted it done and dusted by 2017. And why? Because this is a vanity project. This is a vanity project.If this were just about putting the option of flags to the New Zealand public we would be spending $6 million not $26 million. We would distil it into one referendum where we asked yes or no first or at best into two but the first question should be: “Do you want a change—yes or no?”. And why did the Government reject that? Let us go through why.Chris Bishop: Because it’s silly—that’s why. It’s silly.JACINDA ARDERN: Let us go through the reasons Mr Bishop. Let us go through the reasons that were given at the select committee. Basically the majority of the committee—so that means National members—said: “If the majority voted to change the flag under the petition’s proposal the second referendum would be a run-off between the current flag and the highest-ranked alternative. It sounds reasonable. The majority of us recognise that if this procedure were followed many of those who voted against changing the flag would probably proceed to rank alternative flags”. So if they choose not to rank alternative flags then that is their call. That was their first objection.The second objection was the reason stated in the commentary at the beginning of the bill: “There are a variety of reasons for this. For example for a change of flag to occur a majority of voters would have to vote twice for change both in the first and second referendum; whereas those opposed to change could prevail at either referendum.” So if they prevail then it is because that is democracy. If they say no at the first round then that is democracy—listening to what the people say. Here is the kicker of a reason: “A further reason against the proposal is that placing a first-past-the-post vote on whether or not the flag should be changed alongside a preferential vote … would cause complexity and thus confusion for voters.” That is the real reason.The National Government tried to claim that having two options in one ballot was too confusing for New Zealand voters. The New Zealand public are not idiots. They are not idiots. They absolutely could have coped with that option and the Government would have saved millions by doing so. In fact thousands of voters asked for the Government to do that. They said: “Before you show us your range of flags ask us whether we want a new flag. Ask us whether we want a new flag.” The members on that side said: “Oh no no no. They can’t really consider whether they want a new one without seeing the alternative.” Fine—put them in the same ballot. Ask whether they want a new flag. Thenask: “If we were going to have a new flag which of these would you like?”. Simple.Jono Naylor: No.JACINDA ARDERN: New Zealanders would have understood that. If you disagree Mr Naylor stand up and tell me that you think New Zealanders are too stupid to understand that process.