Faafoi Kris: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5576. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a pleasure to speak to Part 3 of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I do think there is a strange irony or tension in I think it is the changes to section 5(2) and (3) in clause 69(4). I will read it out as my colleague Phil Goff did because I think section 5(2) and (3) really does talk about the significance of the flag to our nation. Section 5 says: “(2) The New Zealand flag is the symbol of the Realm Government and people of New Zealand. (3) The New Zealand flag—(a) is the national flag of New Zealand for general use on land within New Zealand and where appropriate for international purposes overseas; and (b) is the proper national colours to be worn by all New Zealand Government ships”. So that sets out just how significant the current flag and any possible new flag may be.But the select committee process that this bill went through treated the submitters as though they were insignificant. I believe that there were close to 750 submissions from people who did not get the chance to make a submission in person at all. Those who did submit got 5 minutes on an issue of such national significance. I believe the only organisation that did get more than 5 minutes was the Returned and Services’ Association and I think that is appropriate that it did get more but you would think it would have got more than 10 minutes for something that is of such huge significance to this nation.There is also something within this section that talks of the significance of the timing of this. We have just come back from a 1-week adjournment. I did not have anyone knocking down my electorate office door saying: “Kris can you please make sure that we change the flag.” I had a lot of people come to me to talk about domestic violence and I had a lot of people come to me to talk about housing and about making sure they have jobs but no one came and knocked down the door to ask us to change the flag. In fact the Government turned away as many people at the select committee process as the number of those who actually attended all the meetings right around the country to say: “This is a good idea.”This is a significant issue and I think that section 5 inserted in clause 69(4) does talk about the significance of what we are doing. But it is clear to see from the lack of uptake with the Government process with its engagement with meetings and that cost a hell of a lot of money—I think a lot of the feedback that the Government would have got at the select committee process that it turned away would have been negative about this change. The general feeling amongst the community—I think it was the New Zealand Herald that said that 70 percent of New Zealanders do not want this change and that this is the wrong thing to do right now.A lot has been made about the cost that is involved with this—$26 million is not chump change. There are plenty of other things that this Parliament could do with $26 million rather doing than something that New Zealanders do not want done right now. There may be a time and a place to change the flag but it is not right now. My personal feeling is that I do not want to change the flag. I have changed my mind on the flag. When I was young I said: “Yes let’s have a new flag.” In fact over time I have become much more aware—becoming a bit more mature and having travelled overseas—of the significance of the New Zealand flag.We can talk later when we come to schedules 1 2 and 3 about the process the Government is using to ask the questions of the public which is a bit skew-whiff about changing our flag because it has got that round the wrong way but right now New Zealanders do not want this. Section 5 which is inserted by clause 69(4)of this bill shows just how significant what we are doing is. It is not just a symbol that we throw away; it will go on the arms of people who will fight for this nation. So if we are going to do it let us do it because the people want it changed and they choose what they want to choose. And if they do not want to change the flag right now then let us not do it.But we are not even asking that question first. We are asking what you would like if the flag were to change. I do not think that any kind of sane person would use that process. Any person outside this Chamber would think that that is arse about face. We want to know first whether you want to change the flag not what do we want to change it to if we get the chance to change it.Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Yet again we have a member straying far into a version of irrelevancy. I would point out that under Speakers’ ruling 86/1 there is no reason why I cannot draw that to your attention and I do so now.Carmel Sepuloni: This was raised by our senior whip earlier. It is not the role of the National Government senior whip to point out the relevance of our speeches and we trust Mr Chair that you will use your discretion and advise us if you think there are any problems with relevance.Tim Macindoe: Speaking further to the point of order—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I do not need to continue taking points of order. If there was to be some spat over who can raise what when take it somewhere else. Do not soak up time in the Committee because it undermines the point of order that the member is making that the Committee should not muck around with this particular line of debate. The member has the floor and I invite him to continue.KRIS FAAFOI: Thank you very much Mr Chair. I go back for the benefit of the senior Government whip to clause 69(4) which is about the significance of the decision that we are putting in train. This is not something that we want to do just because the Government wants to do it. It is of significance. It is a symbol of this realm.