Goff Phil: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 12 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2223. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): There is a fundamental flaw in what Jacqui Dean was saying and I would just invite Mrs Dean to think back to the last time we had a binding referendum. It was in 2011 and it was on MMP—nothing more fundamental than our voting system. Was the first referendum—and there could have been two—on whether we wanted single transferable vote supplementary member first past the post or MMP and when we decided what the alternative was we would decide whether we kept the status quo? Of course not. The last time we had a binding referendum in this country the electorate of New Zealand was quite properly asked first of all: “Do you want to change the voting system?”. That is why the whole logic of the referendum on a flag if we are going to have the referendum is: let New Zealanders decide first of all whether we want to change the flag. Why would we spend $26 million on two referendums if the majority of New Zealanders did not want change?I have got the three latest polls on the flag and I have got to say that the Television New Zealand (TVNZ) one on September 2014 was 35 percent for change 65 percent against. The March 2014 New ZealandHerald poll was 40 percent for change and 52 percent against. The February 2014 TVNZ poll was 28 percent for change 72 percent against. So here we have got a Government that wants to have change—and I will come to what my view is on that shortly—but it is going to say what we are going to change to before it gives New Zealanders the right to say whether or not they want it. This is not a decision for 121 members of Parliament to make in this Chamber; this is a decision for all New Zealanders. Surely we should ask New Zealanders the first question in the logical order: “Do you want change?”. Is there anything that is not understandable about that priority? That is how we decided on our voting system. That is how we could be deciding on our flag.The other thing about those polls that I have just talked about is that the TVNZ poll found the total of all of the New Zealanders who thought that changing the flag was an important issue. Do you know what the total came to? Two percent—2 percent of New Zealanders thought that this was an important issue. It is therefore hard to understand what the obsession of the Prime Minister is with this issue. On the one hand it could be a vanity project. The Prime Minister is about to retire and he wants to be remembered for something. It is hard to think what he will be remembered for but maybe he could be remembered for changing the flag. The alternative explanation for why the Prime Minister has this obsession is that it is a bit like bread and circuses. It is a great diversion is it not? When things are not happening the way they should be around the country let them look at something else: “Watch this flag. See we could change this flag. Don’t worry about education. Don’t worry about the failure of the charter schools and the loss of public money. Don’t worry about the district health boards not having enough to provide decent health services. Don’t worry about the fact that we have cut policing in real terms every year in the last 5 years. Look at the flag.” That is a diversion.You know I probably share with most New Zealanders the kind of bemusement about why this is being put up as a priority issue. I noticed that the American comedian John Oliver also said that. He said that the New Zealand Prime Minister—to his audience if they knew where New Zealand is—was going to change the flag. Then he went on and said that John Key as the newly elected Prime Minister is “ready to tackle the most pressing issues facing the country.” Well I disagree—I disagree. John Oliver was obviously being sarcastic about that.Hon Members: No!Hon PHIL GOFF: Just for the dimmer members across the House I thought I should explain that in case Government members got excited.I think there are other priorities. I think the level of child poverty in our country is a priority. Why would we not be focusing on that in a debate this afternoon? I think the transport gridlock in Auckland is a priority. They have to worry about that—Ron Mark: No not to the National Party—not to the National Party.Hon PHIL GOFF: Well maybe not in the Wairarapa Mr Mark but certainly for a third of the country who are Aucklanders. I think the housing crisis where every year fewer and fewer New Zealanders get the chance to own their own home is a priority. So I do not know why we have a priority where we are going to be spending $26 million on a couple of referendums in the wrong order—a couple of referendums in the wrong order. I know that the people in Mt Roskill will be asking me when I go back there tonight: “Why are we spending $26 million? Is there nothing better that the National Government has got to spend it on?”. I could say that it is spending $65 million on sending 16 trainers to Iraq—that is not too good—and it is spending $69 million on trying to buy an election which is being totally counter-productive. So I guess my confession to my electorate will be that the Government is wasting lot of money and this $26 million is part of the wastage.There are a couple of other things that I think we need to take into account. If we are trying to cut down the cost of it it makes sense to have one referendum first to see whether people want to have change. But there is another proposal that I have for the House and that is that if we are going to have a referendum on something as significant as the symbol of the country the flag why would we not hold that at the same time as an election? There are two big advantages in that. The first of course is that it is much cheaper but the second advantage is that you are going to get a decent turnout. If you have a stand-alone referendum you might get 40 percent or maybe 50 percent going out to vote. I am saying that if you are going to change the flag at least get a genuine indicator of what people feel and the best way to do that is by coinciding a referendum with an election. Is it so pressing that we have to have two stand-alone referendums before the next election? Nobody thinks it is that pressing. Two percent of New Zealanders think that changing the flag is an important issue. So let us be logical.Let us in this House be sensible and I am directing this to the members of the National caucus. Why not have at the next election one referendum with two parts? Part A will ask: “Do you want to change the flag? Yes or no?”. Easy. Then Part B will ask: “If there is a majority that wants to change the flag which of these preferences do you prefer?”. You do not have to run it as two separate stand-alone referenda. You could hold it with one referendum coinciding with the election. What is illogical about that? It is totally sensible. It is what we should be doing. That is what every party on the cross-party committee wants to do with the exception of National and if you call it a stand-alone party ACT. That is what the majority of people in this House want.My own preference is that I would actually like to see a new flag—a 21st century flag—and I kind of like the one by Kyle Lockwood. It has the silver fern through the middle. It has the blue of the Pacific and the Southern Cross and it is three colours. It is quite attractive. But it is not my decision to make.There is something else I want to say about timing. When the RSA makes as strong a stand as it has I think we should do it the courtesy of listening to it. We all say: “What a debt we owe to our veterans.” and by God we do owe a debt to our veterans. So why would you as the Prime Minister introduce a bill to change the flag a month before the centenary of Anzac Day—a month before the most important day for our veterans and because it is the centenary the most important one in 100 years?Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s pathetic.Hon PHIL GOFF: This is just throwing it up into their faces Mr Smith. That is what it is doing. Why could we not have waited for the RSA and our veterans? They feel strongly about it and I understand why they feel strongly about it. They fought under that flag Dr Smith something you and I have never had to do. They saw their mates die under that flag. They feel strongly about it. I have a different view on the flag but I do respect their view and I do respect the fact that in a month’s time we will be commemorating the centenary of the Anzacs. I think we could do them at least the courtesy of waiting until after that before we start this debate and bring this legislation into the House. I have to say that the logic is entirely in favour of having one referendum with the first question asking whether people want to change the flag and the second part asking what they want to change it to. We should do it at the same time as the general election to save the $26 million the Government is spending and to get a decent turnout in terms of the answers to both those questions.I have to say as well because it has been raised time and again with me that there is a panel of 12 people. Some of them are very good people. Some of them are National Party hacks. We could have cut that committee down. In my electorate where people are struggling to pay their rent and make sure their kids get what they want people are wondering why there is $600 to $800 a day being paid to National Party hacks to sit on the panel. That is wrong and I am against that as well.