O'Rourke Denis: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5497. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): First of all I would like to comment on what the Hon Trevor Mallard said in relation to clause 68 “Validation of irregularities”. I would have to agree that this is an extraordinarily wide authority for the Governor-General to act on the advice of the Prime Minister. If you look at the whole of clause 68 subclauses (1) (2) and (3) you can see that just about anything could be authorised. I thank the Hon Trevor Mallard because it is something that I had not realised during the select committee process and I do not think others had either and it certainly did not go to the Regulations Review Committee. So I think this is a very valid concern.I point out this: if you look particularly at clause 68(1) it says: “In the circumstances described in subsection (2) the Governor-General may by Order in Council do any of the things described in subsection (3).” So then you look at subclause (2) and you find that in paragraph (e) it says: “if sufficient provision for something that needs to be done is not made by or under this Act.” Sufficient provision for something—that is about as wide as language can get and then when you carry on and you look at—Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s about three buses wide.DENIS O’ROURKE: —yes even more—subclause (3) and particularly at paragraph (d) it says: “to make such other provision for the case as the Governor-General thinks fit.” Such other provision—I mean how wide can a provision in an enactment get? In terms of validation of irregularities we have an open door for the Prime Minister to tell the Governor-General to do just about anything in relation to this legislation. I do think that it is going too far and that that provision should be struck out and I would invite the Minister to have a look at that and to take action on this before it goes any further. That is a serious issue.I would also like to refer to new section 5A in clause 69(4). If you look at that it says in subsection (2): “Any person or body (other than a government department) may use the 1902 Flag except where required by law to use the New Zealand Flag or another specified flag”. That is fair enough by itself but then you go down a little bit further in the bill and you see that in new section 5A(8) it talks about replacing section 10(2) and (3) of the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981 with this: “(2) The Minister may either in any notice issued under subsection (1) or otherwise set out for general information and guidance rules of conduct and the etiquette to be followed in the flying or other use of any of the following: (a) the New Zealand Flag: (b) the 1902 Flag:”.So the Minister appears to be able to instruct how the 1902 flag will be used. That does not sit well in my mind with the provisions of new section 5A(2) which says that “Any person … may use the 1902 Flag”. So what is it? Is there a freedom to use that flag? That of course does not need to be conveyed anyway because I do not think there is any intention or any law against any person using any flag as they think fit. Nevertheless there is this power for the Minister to dictate the etiquette to be followed in the flying of the 1902 flag. Why on earth is that there? Why is there any reference to the 1902 flag in that provision? It should be struck out and I would like the Minister to consider that as well before the matter goes any further.In fact this whole section I would say actually results in general confusion. I am not sure when I read it whether the 1902 flag is still a New Zealand flag or not. It says that it is a flag of historical significance but it says that it is a flag. What flag? What is its real status? This new section does not really describe what the status of the 1902 flag is. As far as I am concerned I will use when I need to the 1902 flag but this provision is not good enough.