Martin Tracey: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:7007. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Chair. I cannot say it is a joy to follow Mr Seymour in the debate. It is interesting that Mr Seymour brings into the debate how people came into this House. I think that of all the people in this House who should not mention babysitters or special treatment or other things that have been manipulated by this Government to allow Mr Seymour to sit here to participate in a debate it is he who should not speak of such things. I think also that it is interesting that Mr Seymour suggests that only those who are reasonable would want to push forward this New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill and not waste the House’s time.It is interesting that Mr Seymour now stands for referendums whenevery other party in this House has lost its ability to take the high ground with regard to referendums. Every other party in this House refused to allow the New Zealand public to have binding referendums on other issues.Only in the last 4 years we have had issues that would have made massive social change and yet somehow National members treat the changing of the colours that we carry into the world without the same level of importance. They would not allow the New Zealand public to express its voice around marriage amendment or alcohol laws or other laws but around this referendum bill apparently it is OK to trust the public. Mr Macindoe waxed lyrical last night at how wonderful and magnanimous it was that the Government was responding to 50000 likes so that this referendum bill is now here. Yet when the people of New Zealand stood outside and asked for a voice over another bill in only the last 3 years this House said: “You can’t be trusted with it—you can’t be trusted with it.”The other thing that I think is very interesting—and I want to acknowledge the contribution on this bill last night by Mr Mallard when he acknowledged that the Labour Party had been naive to participate with the National Government—Paul Foster-Bell: The Greens—he said the Greens were naive.TRACEY MARTIN: With the National Government—go and have a look at the transcripts Mr Foster-Bell; I was here. Mr Mallard recognised that the Labour Party had been naive by participating in what it thought was going to be a cross-party conversation with mutual respect with the Government around the creation of a panel of people to select the flag design and then to go forward also around creating the bill that would put through the way that the referendum would be done. Mr Mallard quite clearly articulated that it was at that committee that they believed—and everybody on the committee supposedly agreed—that the first referendum question would be: “Yes or no—do you want a change or not?”but apparently the Government overrode that. So I want to recognise that Mr Mallard gave a nod to the wisdom of New Zealand First members who said: “We are not going to participate in the charade.”And the charade continues—the charade continues with this bill. Not only was there the charade of a cross-party political consensus to form the panel that selected four designs—four designs that nobody wants or that 70 percent of New Zealand does not want—but there was also the charade that there should be only four that the panel should be independent and that nobody should interfere with it. But when the polls start to turn—when the polls start to turn—and it looks like the Prime Minister will not get his legacy the item that he wants to have run up the flagpole so that everybody sees his name on it in the history books suddenly that independent process can be affected. Suddenly it is quite OK and somehow the Government is now responding to the will of the public.When New Zealand First actually listens to the public and the public says it wants binding citizen initiated referenda—when New Zealand First responds to that and puts it in its manifesto it is accused of being populist. How much more populist could one be than deciding to put legislation into the House off a Facebook vote? It is not even a scientific Facebook vote. It is a vote where you do not know whether 10000 people voted five times. Yet apparently this is not populist politics. Apparently this is worthy of the time and the money of this House.It is interesting that those who wish to rush it through for whatever reason they hold themselves suggest that it is those who stand for the current flag those who represent the 70 percent of New Zealanders who do not wish to see change those who represent the 70 percent of New Zealanders who do not want to see $26 million wasted on this referendum when there are more important issues those of us who stand for the history of this country those who fought and died under this flag and those of us who wish to truly hear the voice of New Zealand not on a Facebook page but on a scientific poll—apparently we are now accused by the ACT Party of all people of wasting Parliament’s time and money.David Seymour: Well you are.TRACEY MARTIN: By the ACT Party of all people. It is one of the largest wastes of time and money in this Parliament. So it is interesting that those who want to push this through are accusing those of us standing up against this legislation tonight of wasting Parliament’s time and money. Well we will continue to stand against it.I think the other thing too that is interesting is this push-through for flags and I want to now speak about Mr Macindoe’s contribution to this bill yesterday when Mr Macindoe again waxed lyrical about his personal preference. Obviously I am doing the same thing. I am making a statement that I prefer the flag that has the history that we currently have. We also note that there is now a push by the RSA to include the current New Zealand flag in the first debate. Mr Mallard suggested that that was possible. Mr Mallard suggested that this bill has been so badly written that it could pass it could go back to the executive and the executive—now that Parliament has interfered in the process and removed the independence of the panel—could decide on a whole new series a whole new five flags and put them in front of the public.The question New Zealand First has is not only whether there will be a commitment that that will not happen that this legislation will be amended during the Committee stage to make sure that actually we will not trash all those options and start all over again with whatever the Prime Minister likes—or perhaps the Prime Minister and Richie McCaw could get together and tell the country what they think we should have—but also how much extra money will this cost? How much extra money now by deciding we are going to change the independent process is this going to add to the $26 million bill that has already been budgeted for this event?David Seymour: Zero.TRACEY MARTIN: Mr Seymour shouts from the side again with no knowledge or understanding and it is interesting that he shouts from the side because the Government continues to protect him through the status he holds here. It does not allow Mr Seymour to be questioned. Nobody can question Mr Seymour because he is under the protection of the Government through his parliamentary under-secretary role. Yet he continues—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!TRACEY MARTIN: —to advocate—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Look this is well wide of the content of Part 1 so I ask the member to come back to Part 1.TRACEY MARTIN: That particular member argues for this legislation in the House. This particular member who cannot be scrutinised in any way stands and argues for a change to what is the historical emblem of this nation and we would question that. We question every part of this process. We question every dollar spent on this process and New Zealand First will continue to question every dollar spent on this process.We will not be supporting this bill. It comes as no surprise to anybody that we will not be supporting this bill. Not only should there not be any other designs; there should not be five designs or four designs and Red Peak with only 50000 likes has not been shown to have popular endorsement. So I think I have made my point fairly clear. We will not support the bill. We stand for the current flag; we do not stand for the wasting of this House’s time and money. But it was not New Zealand First that started this waste of time and money.It was this Government and John Key.