Dean Jacqui: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDean Jacqui: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 28 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5341. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I want to thank the select committee members from all sides of the House for their consideration in this New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. We had a good process with good engagement by the public and enjoyed many submissions. In fact we enjoyed many suggestions for alternative flags. I think that comes to the heart of why this process is so important for New Zealanders because it gives them—it gives New Zealanders—the opportunity to think about and to come to a view on what they think best represents us as a country in terms of a flag.We had a number of submitters some of whom were entertaining and some of whom gave us some very impassioned views on how they saw New Zealand. I think that is the essence of this subject. It is that through the select committee process and also through the flag consideration process which is happening at the same time it gave New Zealanders an opportunity to record what they believed an alternative flag might look like.That brings me back to the structure of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. It was our job in the select committee to consider the structure around the discussion—the structure around the two referendums. If I refer to the bill schedules 1 and 2 outline what the referendum questions are going to be. In the first question which is the first voting paper for the first flag referendum it asks: “If the New Zealand flag changes which flag would you prefer?”—if the New Zealand flag changes which flag would you prefer? That question is asking people to first consider this in their minds: “OK if it changes”. It immediately asks a meaningful question of the public which is: if it changes. The answer might be: “All right so if it changes; you’re right that is something I have to think about.” Then the second part of that first question is: which of these four alternatives do you prefer? So people are then directed to make an informed choice. That is the first question.The second referendum then asks the question—it puts up the existing New Zealand flag which we have had since 1908 and the preferred alternative and then asks them: “Of these two alternatives which do you prefer?”. It is an informed choice and it is the choice that is put out to the New Zealand public to make.It is interesting is it not that the online process for gathering alternative flags has been a pretty busy process. There have been more than 10000 alternative flag designs published which is really interesting—10000 different flag designs. I know that all of us who are interested in these things have had a look at those alternative flags from time to time and we are coming to a view and it will be an informed view because of the structure of this bill. There have been 2.7 million views of the flag gallery and more than 850000 online visits and so this has been a particularly successful online investigation which of course is very appropriate given that this is such a visual question. What do we want for New Zealand? Do we want New Zealand to reflect our rich history? Do we want New Zealand to reflect our modern forward-looking open progressive nature? Well the structure of this bill gives New Zealanders the opportunity to do just that.During the consideration of the select committee we did recommend some changes one of which was the requirement for a preliminary referendum roll for the second referendum. The preliminary referendum roll for the first referendum makes a public roll of electors available for people to check first of all that they are on the roll and secondly that their details are correct. It was the view of the majority of the select committee that because the second referendum was to happen in fairly short order it would be an unnecessary expense and an unnecessary process to make the preliminary referendum roll for the second referendum available.The select committee by majority also recommended to Parliament that a regulated period be inserted into the bill to prohibit members of Parliament from spending parliamentary funding on referendum advertising. This is consistent with the Electoral Act and provides for a level playing field in the consideration of what will be a very focused discussion no doubt leading up to the referendums. So the committee agreed to insert that and make that recommendation.We did consider other aspects that were brought to us. Some submitters said to the committee that they believed that the word “Aotearoa” should be included in the bill. We considered whether the title of the bill should contain “Aotearoa”—of course it is Māori Language Week. But it was determined due really to an issue of a technical nature which is that the New Zealand flag is known as “the New Zealand Flag” within the Flags Emblems and Names—Denis O’Rourke: Really?JACQUI DEAN: I know it is difficult for New Zealand First. I know it is difficult because this is a little bit technical but just breathe through your noses boys and you might get it. So in terms of the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981 it would therefore have been a little inconsistent.The timing of the flag consideration process was also raised by some submitters and the committee considered the views which were strongly given to us particularly by the RSA and other members who had the view that the consideration in this year was inappropriately close to the Gallipoli campaign centenary and Anzac Day commemorations. The reality of it is that it does not matter when these referendums were timed; they were always going to be adjacent to some national celebration or some national event. It was felt and I agree entirely that it is far more appropriate to be having this consideration away from an election year because it would either be eclipsed by or maybe eclipse the consideration in a general election. We believe by majority that it is much more appropriate to give these referendums their own space.The committee considered at the same time a petition from the Hon Trevor Mallard who no doubt will make a contribution on that petition in the House today and in subsequent debates. The committee listened again carefully and with respect to Mr Mallard’s petition and the petitioners calling for the New Zealand Government to include in the first referendum a question asking New Zealanders whether they wanted a change of flag or not. It was considered but by majority the committee held the view that the order of questions as introduced provided for a more informed choice and a more informed consideration of the question at hand.I am very pleased to speak in the second reading of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I believe that the structure that is being proposed in this bill is the right structure to provide New Zealanders with an informed choice. It is an opportunity to provide New Zealanders with the opportunity to consider where we stand in the world what New Zealand stands for and what the alternatives are that might reflect who and what we stand for now. Do they reflect us as the New Zealand we want to be? Do they reflect us as an outward-looking progressive open country? I think this bill puts the structure in place and now it is up to the people. Thank you.