Rurawhe Adrian: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRurawhe Adrian: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5499. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e te Heamana o te Komiti o te Whare tēnei te mi’i ake ki a koe. E hari koa ana ahau kia tū ake ki te kōrero ki te wāhanga tuatoru o tēnei pire i tēnei wā.[Thank you Mr Chair of the Committee of the whole House and I acknowledge you. I am pleased to rise at this point in time to address the third reading of this bill.]I am really concerned about the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill overall but in particular about clause 68 in Part 3 which was pointed out by my colleague Trevor Mallard. What concerns me is that this bill is giving that kind of power to the Government. In actual fact what is stated in earlier clauses—and I know we are not debating this issue—is relevant to this clause. Clause 26(4) states: “Each extension is to be for the period the Returning Officer thinks necessary up to a maximum of 14 days.” In actual fact clause 68 overrules that because it says that by Order in Council the Governor-General can change that. He can change that clause. There are a number of other clauses in Part 2 that can be altered because of what this clause allows.I think it is a sad day for our democracy. We heard from members opposite who talked about this bill being about democracy. In relation to that clause and other clauses I want to talk about access to democracy. In Māori electorates—in my electorate the turnout for the last general election was 65 percent which is quite low compared with other electorates. But under the postal ballot that this bill allows for we are going to get even less participation. I think this validation of irregularities goes to point out that even the Government thinks there could be situations where the process is not necessarily followed or it needs a bit of wriggle room to change the time frame in which things can happen. We should all be concerned about that because of calls from the members opposite around this issue being one of democracy. I am afraid to say I totally disagree with what this bill intends to do. It has been dressed up to do something else. Clause 68 validates that issue not the irregularities although it gives powers for those irregularities to be rubber-stamped afterwards. As one of the clauses in Part 2 states information can be received in any language that the voter wants to receive it in. If that information does not come in a timely manner whereby that person is able to fully participate in this process then there is an out clause in clause 68. The Governor-General can overrule that. I think that is counter-democratic. Members opposite should think carefully again about this particular clause and what it does.I think that the process the methodology for this referendum—a postal referendum—is a 20th century methodology and we actually need democratic processes to be in the 21st century. That means for me electronic voting. I think facsimiles raise the whole issue—and we heard members opposite also talk about responding to local body elections and the low turnout there. Well that actually raises a bigger picture. So what are the—Stuart Nash: Mr Chairperson—