Mallard Trevor: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5479. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): There are times in this Chamber when I despair and listening to that last member Jacqui Dean is one of those times—the fact that someone could chair a select committee and not have the ability to do 5 minutes on the broadest debate on the bill. This Part 2 includes “Subpart 1—Referendums on New Zealand flag” and we will have some speakers on that. It also includes “Subpart 2—Officials” which concerns the officials who are involved. I am going to reflect on the appropriateness of the behaviour of some of the officials as we get further into the debate. Subpart 3 covers the rolls of electors and whether we have one roll or two rolls and the interrelationship with the local body elections that are involved in the same year. The conduct of the referendums is in Subpart 4 and the application for an inquiry into the conduct of referendums in Subpart 5.I have got only one question on Subpart 5 but I have got multiple questions on other subparts. Why should the application be allowed to be made only in Wellington? Why should an application for an inquiry into the conduct of a referendum be allowed to be made only in the High Court in Wellington? What is fair about that? I know the Government is into closing courts all the way around the country but why does it say that someone who lives in Auckland someone who lives in Rotorua—do they have a High Court in Whangarei? Probably not but certainly they do in Hamilton Dunedin and Christchurch. Why should someone not be allowed under Subpart 5 to make an application for an inquiry in one of those courts? I would be interested in the Minister’s comments.There is Subpart 6 which members on this side will get back to and also Subpart 7 which has to do with advertising. I say that I was pretty extensively consulted on the question of advertising especially on the spending limits by my colleagues who sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee. Frankly it was a fine call around whether or not there should be limits. But the Labour Party came down on balance and only just on the side of having a bit of open slather there. So if the RSA wants to spend quite a lot of money on defending the current flag then that is OK. Part of the problem of course is that John Key wants to spend a fortune on advertising the four alternatives that are going to go up. He wants to spend nothing of taxpayers’ money on advertising the current flag. We will get back to that.Then of course within this very broad part of the bill are the schedules. The schedules are where some of the guts of the legislation is. A copy of the ballot paper for the first referendum is in schedule 1. Have we got that right or not? What is the system of randomisation within that? There is quite a big debate to be had I think about whether it is better to be consistent or randomised within that. In respect of the copy of the ballot paper for the second referendum—and I would be interested in the Minister’s comments because I have not quite caught up with that one—is that randomised as well? Are the current flag and the alternative flag going to be alternated within that ballot paper or not? If so what are the reasons for that?The copies of the various forms relating to the process are in schedule 3 of the bill. I want to check my understanding—a nod would do Mr Chairperson—that schedule 3 and schedule 4 are in fact part of this debate and not part of the later debates. Am I correct?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Yes.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes I am correct. Thank you Mr Chairman. As I said at the beginning this is therefore the area where the Labour Party would like to focus most of the debate because it is as I say the substantive part of it.One of the questions I would like to ask goes to the officials who are involved with this particular piece of legislation and what appears to be their prejudice from as early as the end of last year and the beginning of this year as to the format of the referendum and the spending that was going to be done on it. Well in advance of any budget approval for the referendum well in advance of any legislation being passed officials especially from the Electoral Commission but also from the Ministry of Justice were showing their prejudice as to the approach to be taken. If that prejudgment was as a result of direction and it was from Ministry of Justice officials that is fine. Those officials can be directed; they are part of a ministry. But it appeared to me sitting on the cross-party committee that in fact it was the Electoral Commission officials who had been the subject of direction and prejudice. If the Electoral Commission officials had been the subject of direction or had shown a party political bias to support the Prime Minister then those officials should not be in their jobs.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! I just wonder whether the member would reflect a little bit on what he is saying and the allegations he is making around the partiality of officials employed as public servants in respect of this. It is not easy for them to be able to speak in response to that. I just ask him to be a little measured in his speech.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have thought carefully about what I am saying. I understand the fact that the officials themselves do not have a response available to them. The State Services Commissioner does respond on behalf of State servants if he thinks it is appropriate. But I say absolutely as a member of the committee that there was predetermination from officials at that committee before members of the cross-party committee had come to any consensus at all. We were told that the process was so far down the track in December and January that we did not have the ability to change it. We were told what the budget was to be. The very deliberate point that I am making is that if these smirking officials from the Ministry of Justice were involved in it and were subject to direction then in fact I understand that and we will be looking for the direction amongst the papers because that sort of direction of course would have to be a written direction.But as far as the Electoral Commission officials are concerned there is no ability for a Minister to direct them and if they have shown prejudice to follow effectively a direction of the Prime Minister’s without proper authority then in fact it is my submission that that organisation is the wrong organisation to run a fair referendum on this process. I am very sad to saythat because we have had a history in New Zealand of people from the Electoral Commission and people involved in elections being beyond reproach. Sometimes I think they spend too much. Sometimes I have doubts about their judgments around interpretations of particular pieces of legislation but I think they do their jobs honestly fairly and without prejudice. I am not convinced that that has occurred in this process. I used to be a State services Minister. I take right to heart the importance of defending public and State services. I think it is something that is really important because they have got to work from Government to Government. But in this particular case where we have this particular issue I think it would ill behove me not to raise the matter in the Committee so that members are generally aware.I do look forward to Jonathan Young coming to the Committee and taking a call. I had an email from Jonathan Young yesterday complaining about the fact that I had indicated that the processes in the committee did not go that well. He said he did not have the ability to respond. Well he has the ability to respond now and I challenge him—