Hipkins Chris: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5571. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am very happy to take my call on this particular bill. I am just turning to Part 3 the part that we are debating. Of course the major issue that the people in my electorate want to know about is why on earth the Government is spending so much money on this referendum at this given time. They simply cannot understand it when there is no appetite for change. Why has the Government not made the decision to firstly test the will of the public towards the need for a change or the desire for a change before it then goes and has another expensive referendum asking people to choose the option they wish to have? The issue here is why we would have a run-off competition to choose the preferred design if it is ultimately going to be voted down in the end anyway. Why bother going through that particular part of the process if it is going to be voted down anyway? That is the question that everybody has been raising with me and I think it is a very legitimate one.I have yet to hear anyone from the Government—anyone from the Government—provide a comprehensive answer.Chris Bishop: Wasn’t it in my speech?CHRIS HIPKINS: No not at all—not at all. We have not had an answer as to why not ask yes or no before asking people which option they would prefer if the answer was yes. There has not been a good answer from the Government on that. It is trying to do everything it possibly can to generate as much interest in the referendum but what is interesting is that the more interest the Government generates in it the more opposed people are becoming to the idea of changing the flag.I think that says everything about where the current Government’s priorities are. It is more interested in talking about the flag than many of the very important issues that face New Zealand at the moment and I think—Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are currently in debate on Part 3 which is a very narrow part of this bill—essentially dealing with regulations and validation of irregularities. The member has had nothing to say yet on either on those topics and I would invite him to either speak to Part 3 or cease his call.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The point of order is well made. I am listening closely.CHRIS HIPKINS: While we are on Part 3 if we turn to the highlighted section 5 as inserted by clause 69 which describes the New Zealand flag I think that this might be a good place for me to address some of the comments that I have been raising. The New Zealand flag is described as “the national flag of New Zealand for general use on land within New Zealand and where appropriate for international purposes overseas; and … is the proper national colours to be worn by all New Zealand Government ships and by such other New Zealand ships as may for the time being be authorised to wear the New Zealand Flag by or under the Ship Registration Act 1992.”One of the reasons that I am interested in that is I made the suggestion at the beginning that if New Zealand were to adopt a new flag why would it not do something similar to what was done with the national anthem and actually have for a period of time two New Zealand flags so that those who wished to continue to fly the existing flag could do so? That is the arrangement that we have in place for the national anthem. We actually have two national anthems in New Zealand. “God Save the Queen” is still ournational anthem. It is very very seldom used in New Zealand but those who wish to use it can still do so. The definitions of the New Zealand flag in this bill make provision for there being only a single flag.I thank my colleague Tim Macindoe for providing me with the opportunity to read that particular section while he raised his point of order because the issue here is why the Government did not allow for the possibility that in fact although there may be some desire on the part of some New Zealanders to have a change of flag the vast bulk of people would prefer to stick with the existingflag. Why did the Government not make provision for that within the legislation? It would actually have been perfectly possible for the Government to make provision for there to be twoflags just as we have two national anthems so that those who are for whatever reason very attached to the currentflag—and I have to say that I am not one of them but I note that the vast bulk of my constituents are. So I ask why the Government would not make provision for people to continue to use thatflag.It may be that there are some occasions when the use of the current flag would be more appropriate than the use of a new flag. I note for example that much of the feedback in this debate is about why we are doing this when we are commemorating the First World War and that in fact people would rather have the existingflag—the flagthat New Zealand soldiers fought under in the First World War—on display at those events. That would be a legitimate reason why potentially we might have a definition that allowed there to be more than one official flag of New Zealand. At those events where it is more appropriate and that are of a commemorative nature it may be more appropriate to have a definition in the bill that allows there to be another official flag which is the existing flageven if New Zealanders voted to change.