Lees-Galloway Iain: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5456. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): The member Jono Naylor interjected a little bit earlier on. He was correcting Clayton Mitchell I think about the use of the word “referendums”. He said that no he should be using the word “referenda”. I would just like to point out that a member who was on the select committee—Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s either/or—it’s AC/DC.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well no the point I am trying to make Mr Mallard is that the title of the bill is the “New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill”. It is a bit concerning that a National MP who was on the Justice and Electoral Committee which has been closely considering this legislation giving it all the scrutiny that it deserves did not even know what the title of the bill was. But it is a fair question. I was a bit confused myself when I saw in clause 5 the interpretation clause that we have “ ‘referendums’ means the first flag referendum and the second flag referendum” but it turns out that Trevor Mallard is correct: “referenda” or “referendums”—we could use either. But the title of the bill is the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. For the members of Parliament who are considering the legislation—Hon Member: We are debating the purpose not the title.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well “referendums” is in clause 5 the interpretation clause in Part 1 which is what we are debating right now and I would hope that the members who are so passionate about this legislation and who have been on the select committee hearing the submissions scrutinising this bill closely might even have known what words and what terminology was being used in the legislation itself.I would like to move to clause 3 which is the purpose clause. I have some real concerns about the way clause 3 is worded. You get the impression from reading clause 3 that what this bill would introduce would be first a referendum for electors to decide whether New Zealand should have a new flag and then a referendum for electors to decide whether we should change the flag. That is certainly the way the purpose clause reads and that is certainly what most New Zealanders want. If we are going to have a referendum let us have the question first: “Do you want to change the flag?”. But that is not actually what the bill does so this purpose clause is somewhat misleading. What the bill actually does is it says that we have to have two referendums before the decision on whether or not we are going to change the flag can be completed.This could result in an absolute waste of money. All the $26 million that is being spent on this could all come to nought if after two referendums the people of New Zealand say: “No actually we don’t want to change the flag.” Why not trust the people of New Zealand in exactly the same way as we did on the question about changing the electoral system and have the first question asking “Do you want a change?” and then we will know whether it is worth proceeding with the rest of the referendums with the rest of the questions and the rest of the expenditure that comes with it. I have had a lot of feedback from people who say: “Look I am interested in changing the flag but it’s a ‘nice-to-have’ not a must-have.” When we are $101 billion in debt and the Government still has not achieved surplus and is not going to start paying off debt for at least another 4 or 5 years now is not the time for “nice-to-haves” like changing the flag. Now is the time to knuckle down and focus on things like housing jobs and making sure people have enough to get by to put a roof over their head and food on the table for their family.This purpose clause is extremely misleading. I think it really needs to be amended so that it actually represents what this legislation will do.I would like to refer to clauses 6 and 7 as well. These are two clauses that have not had as much attention in the debate so far. I want to say something positive. Let us have something positive about this legislation. Positive comments have been few and far between because there is not a lot positive that you can say about this legislation. But in clause 6 the general description of the preferential voting electoral system for the decision about the four flag options I think is a good step forward. We do need to give people the opportunity to rank those flags. It would be a real shame if the flag that people were being asked to change to was one that say got only 30 percent support from the general population and others just happened to get slightly less than that.I am glad that the select committee and the Government listened to what Trevor Mallard was saying and what many others were saying which is that the first-past-the-post system was not appropriate for that decision around which of the four options that we will eventually get to from this panel which is led by the likes of Julie Christie and others who will determine which of those four—Hon Trevor Mallard: She doesn’t quite lead it.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: She does not quite lead it?Hon Trevor Mallard: The really good guy Burrows is leading it. She’s in charge of wasting the money.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: She is in charge of wasting the money. Thank you for the clarification. We will be able to decide which of those four options we prefer through a preferential voting system.I am not convinced that clause 7 the inclusion of the description of the first-past-the-post electoral system for the second referendum is entirely necessary. By definition when you have got only two options it essentially by default becomes a first-past-the-post election. I think the inclusion of that description is entirely unnecessary. Even if it were technically a preferential voting system when you have got only two options one of them is going to win and one of them is going to lose. Possibly we have got some redundant material in here with clause 7 and the other clauses that relate to the first-past-the-post system. As someone who was not on the select committee I would be very happy if any of the members on that committee are able to advise us on this.Clause 8 “Application of Act to conduct outside New Zealand” states: “This Act applies in respect of the publication of a referendum advertisement—(a) in New Zealand”. Clause 8(b) refers to “outside New Zealand”. There might be some really good reasons why that has been included. I would like to know what they are. But it is a little bit concerning that the bill appears at a superficial level anyway to allow for influence outside New Zealand on a decision about our New Zealand flag. As I say there may be good arguments for that. I would really appreciate it if the members who have so closely scrutinised this legislation at the select committee could give the Committee an explanation as to why clause 8 is necessary.I come back to the interpretation clause. The word “panel” means “any panel appointed by the Minister to conduct on behalf of the New Zealand Government a publicity campaign or other activity in relation to a referendum or referendums”. I suppose this is where a lot of the concern comes from. [Interruption] Yes referendums Mr Naylor. Why it is in relation to “a referendum” I am not sure because we know there is going to be more than one referendum. But this panel is actually probably the source of a lot of the concern that people have had such as the expense that has been outlaid on this panel on getting expensive people to sit on the panel and on having them travel around the countryside spending over $2000 per person who comes to one of their meetings and receiving designs for the flag which have all sorts of unusual things on them—Kiwis with laser beams sheep with rainbows coming out of their backsides and all sorts of things.Hon Trevor Mallard: They’re the nicer ones.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I am told that they are the nicer ones. That is right. This panel has been the source of a lot of the concern and the conjecture out there amongst people because it just does seem like the Government has spent an awful lot of money on that panel on a process that seems more like a publicity campaign—a public relations campaign for the Government and for the Prime Minister as part of his vanity project and his desperate attempt to have some kind of legacy that the historians will in the future have something to remember him by because there is not an awful lot else that people will be able to remember Mr Key for.There are a number of questions there which maybe the Minister might be able to answer. I know that the Minister who is currently in the chair the Hon Nikki Kaye probably has not been terribly close to this process but maybe members on the select committee might be able to make a contribution to the debate and enlighten those of us who were not sitting on the select committee closely considering the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. They might be able to enlighten us as to exactly what some of those issues that I have raised are all about and why they have been included in the legislation.