O'Rourke Denis: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5581. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Clause 1 is indeed the clause I wish to speak about because this bill’s title clearly is not appropriate and this has not been referred to so far in the debate. It is not appropriate because it does not actually state what the bill is really about. It is not fundamentally about referendums—and that is what the title says. It is actually about replacing New Zealand’s historic and well-respected national flag. But the title does not refer to that at all. The current name reflects only the means which are the referendums and not the end which is the replacement or not of the current flag with an alternative. And it is about the legislation that puts that into effect because the most important part of the bill is the part that replaces the current flag with a new one should that be the result of the two referendums. This is not reflected at all in the name of the bill and so I am very disappointed in the name for that reason. It really should be changed.Some name such as for example “New Zealand Flag (Replacement With a Gormless Meaningless Modern Symbol) Bill” would be a lot more relevant to this particular legislation than the name that has been given for the reason that I gave. I have seen the long list of flags already published and I do not think that my term “gormless meaningless modern symbol” is entirely out of place when you look at those possible alternative flags. That name would be totally appropriate and much better than the name that this legislation has been given. That list is a patchwork of gaudy and ugly designs and that needs to be referred to and reflected in the name of this bill. None of them even slightly represents New Zealand’s heritage in any way like the current flag does. Another point—Tim Macindoe: How ridiculous.DENIS O’ROURKE: The member opposite says: “How ridiculous.” But it is absolutely true. The current flag this flag that I am holding actually does represent New Zealand’s heritage and none of the rubbish—absolute rubbish—that I saw in that gaudy list could possibly compare to it on those grounds.Furthermore the title is not truly representative of the actual referendum process. The name would be better as something like the “New Zealand Flag (Gerrymandered Back To Front) Referendum Bill” because that actually is what this bill is. It is not just the New Zealand flag referendum bill; it is a gerrymandered back to front referendum bill and therefore the name should say so. It is gerrymandered because of the fundamental flaw in the first referendum which is that people wanting none of the alternatives have no way to vote in the first referendum because the New Zealand flag is not there. So they can participate only by casting a vote with none of the options chosen—just leaving the voting paper blank and putting it back into the ballot box or perhaps writing across it: “I want the current New Zealand flag.” That would do it because they are now currently disenfranchised from participating in the first flag referendum.If those people want none of the alternatives how can they participate? They cannot. The only two ways that I know of that they could participate are by drawing a vote and then putting it back with nothing written on it or by writing: “I want the current New Zealand flag.” on it. There is no provision in the first referendum allowing them to express their feelings. That is wrong and that is why I say that it is gerrymandered and that that should be referred to and reflected in the title.New Zealand First does call on people to do one of those two things because they have been disenfranchised. New Zealand First says to those people who want the current flag: “Go along and vote but don’t choose any of the alternatives if you want the current flag or write across it ‘I want the current New Zealand flag.’ ” I think that is a perfectly valid thing for them to do and New Zealand First says that they should feel free to do so.