New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNew Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5445. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]New Zealand Flag Referendums BillIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsJACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to begin the debate in the Committee stage on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I know that there will be considerable interest from members particularly on this side of the Chamber in canvassing the issues raised by submitters that were not able to be discussed at length by the Justice and Electoral Committee because as will probably be raised by members likeMr Mallard in particular no time was made available to a great number—thousands in fact—of submitters who asked to be heard by the select committee. Seven hundred and forty submitters requested to be heard by the committee when they put forward their submissions. Labour agreed that they should be given the option of being heard. That was voted down by other members of the select committee. So we intend to canvass fully on their behalf the issues that they raised given that that was not an option made available to them.A range of views on the issue of the current flagitself were brought before the Justice and Electoral Committee but let us be absolutely clear that what we are debating today is not whether we personally prefer the current flag or whether we would like a new flag to be considered. In fact Mr Mallard began his submission by saying in front of the select committee that it was his personal opinion that we should have a new flag. I personally believe that a new flag would be no bad thing. That does not mean that the process or the timing that this Government has chosen is correct. In fact we have strongly been of the view that both the money that has gone towards this process and the process itself in the way that the referendum is framed—and I am going to come to that in the purpose clause—is incorrect. Indeed the timing given the number of competing demands that we as a House have right now again makes it inappropriate also. So this is not about our personal preference for a flag; the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill is very much about the process by which we are going about putting the issue before New Zealanders and indeed whether that issue should be put at all.I want to come to the first clause that we are able to debate in this stage of the bill and that is clause 3 in Part 1. As with any bill that is the point at which the purpose of this bill is set out. For the many many listeners and viewers at home the purpose clause for this bill states: “The purpose of this Act is to make provision for 2 postal referendums to be held to enable electors to decide whether New Zealand should have a new flag and to provide for a change of the New Zealand flag if electors decide New Zealand should have a new flag.” Labour’s opposition goes to the heart of this purpose clause. We have always stipulated that if the Government wants to have a referendum in two stages it should make sure that the very first question determines whether indeed the second referendum is necessary. Otherwise we are potentially putting ourselves up for first New Zealanders not having the ability to voice their opinions on whether we should be going down this track in the first place and second a potential waste of money to the tune of up to $6 million when you take into account the act of the second referendum alone and the materials that go with it which was the advice that we received.I need to put this into context. The $6 million is simply for the act of the second postal referendum and the materials that go with it. This entire process has ballooned to $26 million.Dr David Clark: How much?JACINDA ARDERN: $26 million. Nine million dollars have already been spent and we have not even asked anyone anything yet. And why is that? Well members in this Chamber will know. They would have got all of the glossy brochures—$4 million was spent on the kinds of brochures and advertising that our offices have received.Hon Ruth Dyson: How many houses could you build for that?JACINDA ARDERN: I had a question in the back there—a very good question—asking what we could do with the money saved. Well if we stopped tomorrow we could insulate 9000 houses. The fact that the Government stipulated two postal referendums from the very beginning is absolutely to the heart of this purpose clause. It did not say “to set out a process to ask the question”; from the very beginning the Government was very clear that it wanted two postal referendums. How clear was it? Well so clear that when Labour members of the committee put it to officials that perhaps we should be looking at an alternative option as set out in the regulatory impact statement which by restructuring would have again saved a bit of money we were told that we were already too far down the track of the two-ballot option—before the select committee or indeed Parliament had even passed this bill.Let me be very clear: I do not for a moment challenge officials about this. I do not blame them. Personally I do not believe that it is with any ill intent that they have progressed as they have. Why have they done so? They have had very clear instructions from the Government that it wanted this done quickly and that it had a very set idea about how it wanted it to be done. This idea was so set that when the regulatory impact statement was initially canvassing a postal ballot a stand-alone ballot or an online electronic ballot it said: “A referendum is a vote by all enrolled voters on some matter.” It canvassed whether or not it would be online or held with a general election and it stated: “We have not considered holding a ballot together with a general election due to the Prime Minister’s indication that the process should be completed before the 2017 General Election.” We had the option of saving an enormous amount of money by combining this process with the next general election but the Prime Minister made it clear that he wanted it done and dusted by 2017. And why? Because this is a vanity project. This is a vanity project.If this were just about putting the option of flags to the New Zealand public we would be spending $6 million not $26 million. We would distil it into one referendum where we asked yes or no first or at best into two but the first question should be: “Do you want a change—yes or no?”. And why did the Government reject that? Let us go through why.Chris Bishop: Because it’s silly—that’s why. It’s silly.JACINDA ARDERN: Let us go through the reasons Mr Bishop. Let us go through the reasons that were given at the select committee. Basically the majority of the committee—so that means National members—said: “If the majority voted to change the flag under the petition’s proposal the second referendum would be a run-off between the current flag and the highest-ranked alternative. It sounds reasonable. The majority of us recognise that if this procedure were followed many of those who voted against changing the flag would probably proceed to rank alternative flags”. So if they choose not to rank alternative flags then that is their call. That was their first objection.The second objection was the reason stated in the commentary at the beginning of the bill: “There are a variety of reasons for this. For example for a change of flag to occur a majority of voters would have to vote twice for change both in the first and second referendum; whereas those opposed to change could prevail at either referendum.” So if they prevail then it is because that is democracy. If they say no at the first round then that is democracy—listening to what the people say. Here is the kicker of a reason: “A further reason against the proposal is that placing a first-past-the-post vote on whether or not the flag should be changed alongside a preferential vote … would cause complexity and thus confusion for voters.” That is the real reason.The National Government tried to claim that having two options in one ballot was too confusing for New Zealand voters. The New Zealand public are not idiots. They are not idiots. They absolutely could have coped with that option and the Government would have saved millions by doing so. In fact thousands of voters asked for the Government to do that. They said: “Before you show us your range of flags ask us whether we want a new flag. Ask us whether we want a new flag.” The members on that side said: “Oh no no no. They can’t really consider whether they want a new one without seeing the alternative.” Fine—put them in the same ballot. Ask whether they want a new flag. Thenask: “If we were going to have a new flag which of these would you like?”. Simple.Jono Naylor: No.JACINDA ARDERN: New Zealanders would have understood that. If you disagree Mr Naylor stand up and tell me that you think New Zealanders are too stupid to understand that process.Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): E te Tiamana tēnā koe huri noa i te Whare Pāremata me ngā mihi ki ngā mema katoa.[Greetings Mr Chairman the House of Parliament and all the members throughout.]We come now to the preliminary provisions clause 3 which we have heard a very slanted interpretation of a few moments ago. The words “wasteful” “silly” and “illogical” have occurred and that about sums up the arguments we have heard so far. I would add “spurious” to that as well.When we talk about doing something as important as changing the flag of this fair country—and we have had three flags already in our history. We signalled it before the last election. We were absolutely clear there would be a referendum because this is a Government that cares about our nationhood. This is a Government that cares about how we define ourselves and how we are seen on the world stage.So how do we go about this process? Do we go for some budget foolish mad not-likely-to-succeed scenario as outlined by the previous speaker Jacinda Ardern or do we try to do it as fairly as possible? For something that is as important as our national symbol which is often confused with the Australian flag we need to go to the people. We need to let the people decide what that symbol should be. It is very important that we do it by two referendums because that is the fairest way of doing it.Preferential voting where people can list the top four flags in order of preference means that if for example somebody chooses a flag that is not everyone else’s first choice their options will not be discounted. The second choice will also come into play. It is a fairer system—something the Opposition knows little about. When we then come to consideration about the prospect of choice—again something of an unknown for the Opposition—we look at giving people options. If you are going to ask people whether they would like a change the first question they would ask is: what we are going to change to? So it is important to have a lengthy well-considered process by people who are independent from Parliament to sit down and analyse it.This week I understand the Flag Consideration Panel narrowed it down to about 12 flags. It will then be narrowing it down further. The response incidentally has been tremendous—more than 10000 designs. More than 10000 options have been considered. What does that tell you? What it tells me is that the children the young people the middle-aged people and the old people in this country are united in wanting to have a say about it. Labour members prefer being dictatorial. That is why they are on the Opposition benches. They will remain there if they continue with this nonsense. I hope they do because they do not deserve to be in charge of this fine country. What we are seeing through this consideration process is a level of engagement that is going to really I think inform us well. There is no presumption of change. The legislation will come through my ministry the Ministry for Culture and Heritage so I have been taking a keen interest in the way that it plays out.The referendum process will allow a very fair analysis and assessment of what people want.Denis O’Rourke: No it won’t—not this referendum process.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I find it ironic that we hear some braying from the “Winston First Party”—oh New Zealand First of course. Those members are saying that they are usually in favour of referendums but oh not in this case because they did not think of it—because they want to be contrarians. That is their point of difference: negative contrariness. That about sums up that party.When we come back to sensible middle-ground processes where we are attempting to give New Zealanders a say the two-part referendum which is in clause 3 of this bill is very very fair. Clause 6—preferential voting I have outlined as being I think the fairest. But when we come to that second referendum in next March or so it is going to be first past the post. There will be two flags to choose from. That will be the time for people who do not want a change to stand up and say “We want to stick with the one that we have.” or “We rather like this other one.”Personally having just toured the battlefields of western France and Belgium in November last year and I was there for the commemorations of the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month the symbol that defines New Zealand is the silver fern. It is on every New Zealander’s grave and all of the Commonwealth graves. It is the symbol that we are recognised by. So go figure—someone like me with an enduring interest in conservation would find that a silver fern for example is an excellent symbol. I will be looking with an open mind at those flags that they are letting us choose from—the four of them—as to which one we would like. The Commonwealth war graves are something that many of us who are genuine patriots about this country—not the kind of people who knock it wherever possible.I believe that this is the fairest system. I believe the Act will bind the Crown and I think that the referendum process is excellent.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I want to speak on both clauses 3 and 4 in Part 1 of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. The first one relates to the purpose. The purpose clause simply says this: “The purpose of this Act is to make provision for 2 postal referendums to be held to enable electors to decide whether New Zealand should have a new flag and to provide for a change of the New Zealand flag if electors decide New Zealand should have a new flag.” So the first point I want to make is that the purpose refers to deciding whether New Zealand should have a new flag but in fact that is not the question that is actually asked in the first referendum. So why does the purpose clause say that when the bill actually does not have that effect whatsoever? The purpose clause is a complete mis-statement for that reason alone. That should be changed if this bill is to proceed any further.Secondly the purpose clause presupposes that two referendums are needed for the purpose stated—to change the flag—when in fact by adding the current New Zealand flag as one of the options in the first referendum there would be no need for a second referendum at all. So again the purpose clause is a complete mis-statement that presupposes that two referendums are necessary when actually one would be enough.The third point I want to make about the purpose clause is that it should not refer to “electors” at all because it is not electors who are going to decide; it is voters—that is to say people who actually participate in the referendum. It is those who actually participate in the referendum. So that is again an error I think in the purpose clause. But the most important point is as I have just said that it will be only participants who decide which of the preferred four options should go forward. What happens if you get for example below 25 percent participation by voters as distinct from electors? Do we as a nation really want to go ahead with another referendum on the basis of participation as low as that?I believe that the purpose is for New Zealanders as a whole if they want a new flag to say so. This purpose clause and these referendums will not do that. So I believe that it would be fair and proper if there was an addition to Part 1 that said that if in fact there is a participation rate in respect of the first referendum below 25 percent of electors then the whole process should stop right there and proceed no further. I understand that Labour is going to say that that level should be 50 percent. If that is the case we would support that but we believe that if it is below 25 percent—and I think it will be—then the whole thing should stop right there.Secondly I want to talk about clause 4 because I think there is a real problem here. Clause 4 says that the legislation will be repealed 2 years after the date of the result of the second flag referendum is declared. If the legislation is to be repealed then it would also repeal clause 69. That is the clause that actually amends section 5 of Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981. That amendment replaces the current flag with the flag actually chosen as a result of these referendums. Therefore it seems to me that if clause 69 is repealed as part of the repeal of the whole Act then what is the effect of that? Does that not actually repeal clause 69(2) which amends the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act therefore leaving New Zealand without a flag at all? If clause 69 is repealed and the provision to amend the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981 is repealed too that means the new flag is not created as a New Zealand flag. So what would happen then? I think what would happen is there would be a default provision back to the current flag.I would like the Minister to answer that technical question because I actually think that there is a substantial error in this piece of legislation and it needs to be answered. It looks to me like a sloppy bit of drafting that needs to be corrected. It is a very serious question—a very serious question indeed.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want to speak to Part 1—in particular the purpose clause of the bill. I want to start by saying I regret that the Prime Minister is yet to take a call in this debate. This is his vanity project. It is something that he is prepared to talk about all around the country but he will not get on his hind feet and grace this Parliament with his views. I think it is a disgrace the way the Prime Minister treats this Parliament and the way that he is not prepared to take a view and debate in this Chamber the things that are being done for him for his vanity project. I note that the Hon Nikki Kaye has now taken the chair and I think that that is progress. Leaving it in the hands of “the Brains Trust”—Maggie Barry—who was there earlier was somewhat of a mistake as far as the Government is concerned.I do want to start this speech by asking the question again: why is it that the system that New Zealanders were trusted with by a National Government to change the parliamentary election system is not good enough for this? We had the explanation from Maggie Barry that New Zealanders would not understand it. Effectively that New Zealanders are too thick—they are too thick—to understand a yes/no vote and a set of options.Hon Maggie Barry: You weren’t listening as usual.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No no. She said it was too confusing. That is what the member said. She said it was too confusing and New Zealanders would not understand. Well New Zealanders understood it. They were asked to understand it by the Bolger Government and they did understand it when we shifted to MMP but that Minister says—no she did not say it but we know what she means—that if New Zealanders were allowed to have their say they would say to the Prime Minister: “Get lost.” They would say “Get lost.” at the first vote if there was a yes/no vote. I think we are now at the point of about 85 percent of New Zealanders saying that this process is a waste of money and they do not want to proceed with it.About 85 percent of New Zealanders disagree with the Prime Minister and members opposite as to whether or not this process should proceed. I say to members opposite that it is just a disgrace that they are going on with this process against the wishes of the RSA during the commemorations—during the commemorations—of the First World War. We were told by Maggie Barry amongst others on a number of occasions—she referred to visiting the graves on the Western Front in Europe—but what she is doing is moving away from the purpose of this bill. The provision for two postal referenda when there need be only one is something that in my opinion and in the opinion of vast numbers of New Zealanders is totally unnecessary.The purpose clause might describe the bill quite well but the purpose of the bill is wrong. First of all there should not be one referendum; there certainly should not be a bill that proposes necessarily two referenda whatever the people of New Zealand think. There are a number of reasons for that and they have been traversed a bit already. One of them is the expense. I mean why should we have a process that spends $2000 for every single individual who goes to a meeting? That is $2000 each.Dr David Clark: How much?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Over $2000 each for every single individual who attended a meeting that was set up by the National Party person who is currently responsible for wrecking TV3—currently responsible for wrecking TV3.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Who’s that?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am trying to remember the woman’s name. We will get there soon; we will get back to it. She was the one whom the group led by Jonathan Young said should not be in the group but Cabinet overruled them. That is the next point that I want to make.I heard my friend Jacinda Ardern talking about the officials and the fact that she did not blame the officials for the process but I am going to be looking very carefully at the instructions that were either issued or not issued in this area. If instructions were not properly given to officials then in my opinion they have been involved in unnecessary and very questionable expenditure. I want to especially refer to the Electoral Commission and the advertising that it has booked up before this legislation is passed.Hon Ruth Dyson: What?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Advertising that it has booked up in anticipation of this legislation passing and for which there is apparently no refund. The question I have got to ask as we consider the purpose of this bill is whether there has been a direction from the Government to do that and if there has been what the hell is the Government doing directing the Electoral Commission anyway? It does not have the right to do it. So there are some very real issues here about the role of officials in front of the passing of the legislation that we are considering the purpose for now.As I made clear on a number of occasions I support having a new flag; I do not support changing to a new flag at this particular time. I used to go to the Anzac ceremonies and protest and probably for the last 35 years I have been going to commemorate but I have had a longer association with Anzac Day than many many members. What I do know is that soldiers who have served deserve respect and they deserve to have their views listened to and heard. I say to Chris Bishop I say to Jono Naylor and I say to Alfred Ngaro—who were on the select committee and denied the RSA having more than 10 minutes to put its view—that those men and women have served New Zealand. Chris Bishop can laugh all he likes at the service that they have given but I say that you are a disgrace. You are a disgrace to cut back—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Oh sorry Chris Bishop is a disgrace. He knows he is a disgrace because what he has done is not only cut back to 10 minutes the time allowable for people who have served New Zealand but come to this Chamber with a big smirk on his face and he thinks it is funny. It is just absolutely wrong for him to take that approach and for John Key to take the approach that is so anti those people who have fought for New Zealand and to be so unwilling to hear their views.It is almost unbelievable that it takes the generation of the Viet Nam protester to defend against the National Government the rights of service people to be heard by this Parliament. I want to say that 747 people including a significant number who have served New Zealand and who had put in a submission via an email form distributed by the RSA were denied the right to come to the select committee—747 individuals who wanted to give their views to the select committee—CHRIS BISHOP (National): The only disgrace to this House was the contribution by Trevor Mallard just then. The official Labour Party policy is to have a referendum on the flag. It was its policy last week on its website it was its policy at the election and it was the policy of Andrew Little in December last year when he gave a National Business Review interview about it. Actually as we know Trevor Mallard and probably most of the Labour Party members here and the actual members out in the branches—few as they are—probably favour a change of flag.So let us be very clear about why the Labour Party is opposing this bill and in particular the purpose of this bill and the part we are talking about which is clause 3 of the bill. The reason the Labour Party is opposing this and the reason why the Labour Party is disgraceful in this Parliament tonight is spite and jealousy. How petty—how petty—is it for the Labour Party to oppose something that actually is its policy something that it agrees with because the Prime Minister is doing it? And you could hear the hatred and the venom in Mr Mallard’s voice then. Labour members really despise and loathe the fact that it is a man whom they loathe and despise who is putting this to the people.We could have legislated for a change of flag. We could have done what the Canadians did which was come up with a national flag competition and just decide to pass legislation to implement a new flag. Has the Government proposed that? No. What have we done instead? We are having a national conversation and a deliberative and consultative process about it and we are putting it to the people. We are putting it to the people and if in the second referendum the people say “We actually do not want to change the flag. We are all good with the status quo.” well that will be what the flag remains. So we are actually having a conversation about it.Mr Mallard talked about how the process is a waste of time and 85 percent of people are heartily opposed to the process—except in this country we do not govern by opinion poll based on one particular moment. On the logic of Mr Mallard we would not have even bothered with the 2014 election. We would have just looked at the opinion poll on 18 September or some other point when National was streaking ahead and said: “No need to bother with the election. National is ahead. We have taken the opinion of the public by opinion poll at the time.” No that is not the right way to go about it. OK maybe people are opposed to changing the flag at the moment. But what will that opinion be when the second referendum comes around? We do not know. Do you know why we do not know? Because a lot of people are waiting to see what the design panel comes up with. Quite rightly a lot of people say that they may well be in favour of changing the flag but have not seen a design they like yet.But I tell you what: people are really interested in the designs. Go and have a look at the New Zealand Herald website. Go and have a look at the competition Gareth Morgan is running. Go and talk to schoolchildren about the competitions that are being run in classrooms around the country. People are really engaged with this process. Do we want some blue and red? Do we want the tino rangatiratanga flag on it? Do we want some elements of green? What sort of shape is it going to be? Should we have the silver fern or not? Should we have black or not or is that too similar to Islamic State of Iraq and Syria etc.?So there are lots of different questions going on about it. Maybe people did not turn up for those meetings. It is very hard to get people to go to a meeting at 7.30 in Christchurch when there are only chocolate biscuits and a cup of tea. So maybe they did not turn up but I tell you what: people are really engaged in this process. So the question for the Labour Party is this: if we get to the second referendum process and people vote in favour of change will it respect that outcome? At the moment it seems like it will not.I want to talk about the structure of the referendums and in particular the point that Ms Ardern made right at the start at the opening of the Committee stage. The Labour view is that we should insert a prefatory question into the first referendum which is a simple “Do you want to change the flag or not?” question. OK on the face of it that sounds like a good idea except it is not. And that is actually one of the reasons why it was not recommended by the officials. Go and have a look at the regulatory impact statement. It was not one of the top four recommendations for the structure of the referendum and the reason for that is that it biases the referendum in favour of the status quo. Why? Because it means people have to vote twice for change. They have to vote once for change in the first referendum then they have got to go and do it again.So the hurdle is too high for change. It is not a fair and neutral and objective referendum structure and that is why the officials did not recommend it and that is why the Justice and Electoral Committee—or the majority of the Justice and Electoral Committee to pick up Jacinda’s point—Hon Trevor Mallard: The member might have been at kindy but that’s how we got MMP. That’s how the member got his seat—through a referendum.CHRIS BISHOP: And we are getting abuse from Trevor Mallard over there except he knows that—if he has bothered to read the regulatory impact statement—it was not recommended by officials and it was not recommended for a very good reason. It was confusing—Hon Trevor Mallard: Because they are hacks under direction.CHRIS BISHOP: Oh now here we go. Now he is accusing the officials of being Government hacks. The neutral officials of the Ministry of Justice who are the advisers to the committee—Hon Trevor Mallard: Neutral? Neutral? What rubbish!CHRIS BISHOP: Trevor here we go again. He is running his mouth off again abusing officials who cannot fight back—just disgraceful. He is the only disgrace in this House. It would be confusing—DAVID CLENDON (Green): I was almost loath to interrupt Mr Bishop. I was enjoying his speech. It was a good example of how a good debater can disguise obvious flaws in the logic of the proposition that is on the floor. I commend Mr Bishop for displaying that ability. I wish I had it. Unfortunately I do not have that ability to bluster and therefore must rely on logic and sequence and hopefully a little bit of thought. So thank you for the entertainment. I do appreciate it.Part 1 of the bill which we are discussing contains the purpose clause which states: “The purpose of this Act is to make provision for 2 postal referendums to be held to enable electors to decide whether New Zealand should have a new flag”. On the face of it that sounds like a reasonable democratic process. But the way in which the process is structured presupposes that New Zealanders do want to change the flag. We heard it from Mr Bishop. He said it himself. In his view to which he is entitled there is some sort of public preference some public enthusiasm for a change of flag. He may be right but equally you can run arguments to the contrary.Where is the groundswell of public opinion that was evident before this misguided bill was tabled and before the Prime Minister started to talk up the issue in his inimitable fashion? Where was the groundswell of public support for a change that necessitated the expenditure of some $26 million or $27 million? People may wonder how on earth you could spend that much money.Do referenda really cost that much? The answer lies to some extent in the detail and indeed in the regulatory impact statement which identifies the fact that we do not really have a process for running referenda of this nature. We have citizens initiated referenda which have a process and they are fairly well-known and prescribed. We understand how to do that. But with this bill it is a case of making up the rules as you go along and we know this because the regulatory impact statement tells us so. What has to be determined initially in terms of the regulation of referendum advertising for example to enable us to even run these referendums? What will be regulated? How will it be regulated? When will it be regulated? We are having to make up a whole set of rules and processes for one unique discrete decision to be made by New Zealanders.I would say—and I return to the point I was making—that in the way in which these referendums are structured there is a presupposition that New Zealanders want a change. That is unproven and unprovable I think. To suggest that New Zealanders can decide whether they want to change their flag only when they see an alternative or indeed a range of alternatives undersells I think the importance of the symbol of the flag. Again looking to the regulatory impact statement we are told that the flag is a common and enduring symbol of unity.The referendums on the future of the flag need to have an enduring result. This means the process needs to have a high degree of legitimacy integrity and public confidence. I would argue that the process to date has lacked all of that. We have seen appallingly low turnouts. There is not the groundswell of public interest. There is a great deal of public entertainment being derived. Everybody and his friend are coming out with a bright idea. My personal favourite is the little kiwi with the green laser shooting out of its eyes. People are treating this in a very jovial fashion.Hon Member: Not his eyes.DAVID CLENDON: Well it is his eyes actually; we will not go there. People are treating this in large part as something of a joke as an entertainment and that devalues the whole proposition of our national flag. If there is a groundswell of support for a change it will emerge of its own volition over time.This has been a very forced process. The Prime Minister has led it using his considerable charm and wit to persuade people that they should participate but the idea of running two referendums really fails and in the way it is structured there is a presupposition that we want a change. That is unproven.It is interesting that the first referendum logically enough will be a preferential vote and that is described in this part of the bill. The preferential voting process involves simply ranking the four choices—or however many it is—and that is a legitimate way to do it. The second vote if we get to that point will be a simple majority vote. Fifty percent plus one of however many people even bother to participate will change our flag.CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you for this opportunity to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in the Committee stage of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I have had real pleasure listening to Trevor Mallard and to my colleague Denis O’Rourke. I listened initially to Maggie Barry who has got the sweetest voice to be honest. If you are going to listen to rubbish it is good to listen to it from somebody who has a great voice for radio. I have to say however that she has got the IQ of an ice cream cone if she thinks that New Zealanders are going to be confused by adding a New Zealand flag into the first of the referendums.I take the point of Chris Bishop who said that this is going to be in balance and impartial in terms of what New Zealanders are expecting when we put the New Zealand flag up into the final discussion point. But I have to read out something here from a submitter from the RSA who actually summed it up quite nicely: “The substantial budget given to the alternative flag is intended to weigh heavily in its favour when the referendum is held. No funding has been allocated to champion the existing New Zealand flag which therefore presents difficulties for people in making an informed and objective decision.” That to me sums it up quite nicely Mr Bishop. All of a sudden your party and your leader are pushing this referendum through at the expense of Kiwis and I suggest that the vast majority of New Zealanders do not want this referendum. We cannot afford it. It is not the right time and it is not the right place.I would also like to say that New Zealand First is the only party and has been the only party to actively stand against this in its entirety. We do not have divisions in our ranks against this referendum that has been put in front of us. New Zealand First says it is inappropriate to have a new flag put before us.There are two points I want to make. The first concerns the purpose clause in Part 1. I am talking about clause 3 and I will give you my take on it. An issue that everybody has raised is the vanity of the John Key Government. He is pushing for this for his own personal ingratiation if you like when it would be a good idea as has been pointed out by Jacinda Ardern to have this referendum at the 2017 election if you really cared for it. The problem is of course that John Key knows along with National that the likelihood of you being in Government—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!CLAYTON MITCHELL: Sorry Mr Chair. The likelihood of that party being in after the 2017 election is very very minuscule. Therefore having a referendum at the next general election is going to weigh heavily on his mind in terms of whether or not it can be put through. The second point about clause 3 the purpose clause is the sleight of hand. The actual purpose of having the referendum is to create a fugazi—something happening over there when in actual fact there are bigger issues like the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is coming through this week but my word we are going almost in urgency to put through the final stages of the legislation for this referendum. The Government is creating headlines to try to take attention away from what is actually going on in this country which is that our sovereignty is being sold off.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!CLAYTON MITCHELL: Now we as a party are 100 percent—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!CLAYTON MITCHELL: —supportive of making sure that we have a trade agreement but—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is well out of scope. The member should just concentrate on what is in front of us.CLAYTON MITCHELL: Thank you Mr Chair. I thought I was pushing it a little bit—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You were right.CLAYTON MITCHELL: —and I will bring right it back in. But you get my point people. That is exactly what is going on. The point here is that we have got $26 million going into a referendum when we have got far more important issues that need to be addressed. We have got things like unaffordable housing and we have got issues with our housing stock in this country which is so abysmally upheld—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!CLAYTON MITCHELL: —and in such a state. This is coming back to the purpose Mr Chair. That $26 million will bring in around 900 houses in terms of their upgrading. That is a far better spending of New Zealand taxpayers’ money than a referendum for a flag. That money would give around about 1400 hip replacements. That I would suggest is far more important than a referendum on a flag. The polls by the way are saying absolutely outstandingly that we do not want this referendum.Many people in this country—myself included as a young schoolboy—have watched our flag go up on our school-grounds and we have sung our national anthem with pride. Our returned servicemen and women as well our service people who are overseas at the moment are standing by that national flag. I would hate to think Mr Mark Mitchell what you are going to do with the tattoo you have on your heart or is it on your shoulder? I cannot remember. You will have to change it to the new flag if the referendum goes through which we do not think for a second will actually happen. A lot of New Zealanders have tagged themselves with this very iconic flag.Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for ACC): I am very pleased to speak in this debate. I am very pleased to speak in this debate as the member for Auckland Central with an electorate that is multicultural because this debate is actually about nationhood. This is about democracy and nationhood. When we look at the purpose of this bill it is about whether the New Zealand people should have the opportunity to have a vote on nationhood and where our country is going. I absolutely believe that they should.Our country has never had the opportunity to have the debate on what our flag is. That is correct. A lot of people do not realise that as a nation we have actually had several flags but we have never had that opportunity to have a vote. So when we hear from the Opposition members that they do not want people to have a vote that actually maybe it should be politicians who choose or maybe we should have one question and that maybe that question should be completely biased against change I completely disagree with them. I believe it is the right of every New Zealander to have a vote on our flag and that is what the purpose of this bill is about.The second question the second issue that has been raised is about participation. We heard from Trevor Mallard: “Oh there’s only a few people who’ve turned up to the meetings.” Well I want to tell you Trevor Mallard that we are an online country and actually there have been hundreds of thousands of people who have participated in this debate. This morning I went to Ngaio School and I looked up on the wall and what did I see? I saw a whole lot of flags designed by schoolchildren. The reality is that a whole lot of people are participating in this debate. They are participating online. They are participating by putting flags up on walls. They are sending us flags from around this country.The next issue is timing. Well I want to say to the Labour Party that it has never been a more important time to have a debate about nationhood given the match that you lit under race relations in this country—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!Hon NIKKI KAYE: —with the issues that you raised in terms of housing. We are a multicultural nation and this is a very important time—Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.Hon NIKKI KAYE: —to have a chat about—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!Denis O’Rourke: I heard the speaker say “you” Mr Chairman—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No I told her about that. You would not have heard it but I did. Now let us come back to the debate—some decorum please.Hon NIKKI KAYE: Absolutely I come back to the purpose of this referendum. It is important to have a debate about a multicultural country. I am a member of Parliament for Auckland. We are a diverse city and actually for a lot of people the current flag does not represent them. It does not represent an inclusive democratic—Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I am sitting a couple of metres from the member. I cannot hear her. Can we please ask the Committee to—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No look I am the judge of that. I can hear the Minister. I asked for some decorum. I know it is testy—some of the issues—and that is fine so long as it is a robust debate. I am asking the Minister to continue.Hon NIKKI KAYE: I come back to the purpose. [Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): OK I ask the member now to just calm that down. Let us now concentrate back on the bill. Just come back to the debate on the referendum on the flag. Let us move on from there.Hon NIKKI KAYE: It is a really important point because it comes back to the purpose of this bill. This bill is about giving New Zealanders a vote on our national symbol on the issue of nationhood and that actually does come back to issues like being a multicultural nation. It does matter actually for some people that this flag does not currently represent them and they should have the ability to have that debate.Actually that is what has come through from a lot of people. A number of people have said to me: “Look it’s too close to the Australian flag.” Or they do not think that it actually represents a multicultural nation or that the Treaty of Waitangi is adequately reflected in the flag design. These are really important issues and actually that is what this is about. It is about giving people a democratic vote; it is about our nationhood. It is about ensuring that people having that opportunity is not decided by politicians. That is the purpose of this bill. It is more than just a flag. It is about our national identity and there has never been a more important time in our country in some of the debates that have been happening. This is the ideal time to be having this debate. It is very important for an open inclusive democratic and multicultural nation that we have this debate as a country.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.JONO NAYLOR (National): Can I just start by acknowledging and thanking the members of the New Zealand First caucus for outlining exactly what would be a really good reason to change the New Zealand flag. I note that on top of their boxes they have got the current New Zealand flag but in case people get it mixed up with the Australian flag they have written “New Zealand” on it. I just think that is outstanding of them. Obviously they know there is a possibility that it could get mixed up with the Australian flag. So just to make sure people do not think they are from “Australia First” they have put New Zealand on their flags so everybody knows that it is the New Zealand flag. I think that was very good of them to be able to help reinforce the rationale and the reason why we might want to have a look at this.It has been quite interesting hearing some of the thoughts that have been coming from across the Chamber today with regard to this referendum particularly from the Labour members. It has been kind of hard to a certain degree to get a real understanding of what it is they actually want. This is what we have heard from the Labour Party members thus far: they back full consultation on the flag and having a referendum the second thing they want to do is abandon the referendum because it is completely a waste of money the third thing they want to do is to keep the order of the referendums but require a minimum turnout—but wait; no they want to reverse the order of the referendums—and finally the fifth and last thing they did come up with recently was: “Let’s ditch the flag referendum and change the anthem.”Well those are the kinds of diverse views that we are getting from across the other side of the Chamber. Those members cannot seem to make up their minds as to what it is they want to do. Perhaps they could go back to their own policy—their policy in 2014 leading into the election. Under the title “The New Zealand Flag” the Labour Party said: “We believe that the time has come for a change and it is right for the issue to be put to the public.” That is actually the policy of the Labour Party. So I hear from the other side that this is just a vanity project. I think that is the term that keeps getting thrown around. I hear: “This is the Prime Minister’s vanity project. Oh it’s just a vanity project.” Whose vanity project was it in the Labour Party when it decided to put in its policy that the time has come for a change and that the public should be involved? Whose vanity project in the Labour Party was it? Those members keep telling us that changing the flag is simply a vanity project. That is all I am hearing from them.I will come back to the purpose. The purpose of this bill is the provision of two referendums. It seems that there are two ways you can actually say the plural of referendum. I would like to thank Mr Lees-Galloway for pointing out that I probably should have done year 13 English and then I might have been a little bit better equipped to deal with the issue of whether it is referenda or referendums.Iain Lees-Galloway: No just read the bill Jono. Just read the bill—that’s all I’m asking.JONO NAYLOR: I can read the bill. At the end of the day the idea is that we have two referendums. The first speaker in this debate was actually Jacinda Ardern and she invited me to explain to her why it is that we need to have two referendums. She challenged me to say that it is because the people of New Zealand are not bright enough to deal with it. I am not going to say that because I have got absolute faith in the voting public of New Zealand because in September of last year they returned this National Government for a third term. So I have got very good confidence in the voting public of New Zealand because they have shown three times in a row exactly what sort of Government they want to have.The reason and the rationale for having two referendums and the reason for putting them in this order to me are plain and simple: there are a lot of people out there who are open to the idea of changing the New Zealand flag. I am one of them my son is one of them and other people I have talked to are in the same boat. But it is totally dependent—[Interruption] People on that side of the Chamber want to understand why we will have two so I will just explain it to them very slowly and very carefully. There are a lot of people—Carmel Sepuloni: A lot?JONO NAYLOR: —yes—who are willing to change the flag or who are open to a change of flag but for whom it depends on what it will be changed to. For myself I am not prepared to engage in a yes/no vote until I know what the alternative is and I know that there are many other people who are not prepared to vote until they know what the alternative is.By having two referendums we allow everybody in New Zealand—the people who are dead against changing the flag those who are definitely for changing the flag and those who are open to it—to be able to participate fully in the process. So what we have is everybody as I was saying able to participate fully whether they are dead against changing the flag absolutely for changing the flag or open to changing it. Those people who want to change the flag no matter what will get to vote in the second referendum. Those people who no matter what do not want to change the flag will get their say in the second referendum. Those people who are interested in what the alternatives will be will first of all cast their votes in the preferential vote in the first referendum. Then when the opportunity comes when we put a proposed new flag up against the old flag everybody gets to have a vote.I can only anticipate that the members opposite and those people who want to cut it down simply want to eliminate those people who have yet to make up their minds from the process. Because if you do a yes/no question up front you have eliminated from the process those people who have yet to make up their minds based on what the alternative will be. That seems to me to be undemocratic. That would be like you know calling a snap election and saying that if you have not made up your mind by Friday you will not be allowed to vote. That is pretty much what they are saying when they put forward this proposal.It was also proposed by Mr O’Rourke beforehand that there be a minimum participation rate of 25 percent because if we get less than 25 percent of people taking part in the vote people are not interested enough. Well I was sitting there thinking that there are some political parties in this Parliament that have less than 25 percent of the vote. So are we going to say to those people that perhaps they should not be there either? As soon as you start getting into thresholds for voting you get into very dangerous territory. At what point is it? Why 25 percent? Why not 50 percent? Why not 5 percent? Why not 67 percent? It is a number that has been plucked out of the air. If you really wanted to say 25 percent is the measure of participation—even local government elections get 30-odd percent so it seems bizarre that 25 percent would be the threshold.Overall this is a very good process. It is a process that allows everybody in New Zealand to participate. We have heard so far from members opposite about the thousands of people who participated who sent in submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee and who were against changing the flag. What we have also had is a whole lot of people who have been on to the website and had a look at it. There have been a whole lot of people who have put forward different proposals. And yes some of those proposals are a little bit ridiculous. Some of them are people having a bit of fun. But do you know what? It is people getting engaged in the process of Government. It is people getting engaged in deciding the future of their nation.I can tell you that the members on this side of the Chamber are absolutely keen to see what the people of New Zealand think about this. I highlighted it yesterday as well. No New Zealanders have ever got to choose their flag before. It may well be that through this process New Zealanders will choose the existing flag and if they do I say all power to them because what has actually happened is that there has been a democratic process through which they got to choose. But guess what? If they choose to change the flagas well it would be what the people of New Zealand have decided.Last time I checked New Zealand was a democratic nation. It was one that values the thoughts and views of its people and this is a process that will do that. The purpose of this bill is very sound the way that we are going to implement it is very sound and I absolutely look forward to seeing just how it is that this turns out. I will be watching with interest. I cannot wait to see the four options that come up. I will be putting my ranking alongside them and then we will get to choose in March next year or thereabouts—or April; I am not quite sure exactly which. But around that time we will get to decide as a nation. I only hope that we will start to get people—even if they did not want to change the flag—getting behind New Zealand and going forward with New Zealand because this is what this country is all about.It has been a good process. We have heard people talking about a waste of money. Well I say that this actually has been a great debate because we are talking about what is important in New Zealand. We have got New Zealanders talking about what is important to them. We have got New Zealanders helping to decide how the New Zealand they want is reflected in their national symbol and I am looking forward to the outcome. Thank you very much.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Kia ora Mr Chair. I am going to try to use as much Māori language in this speech as possible given that it is Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. I did just ask my colleague Peeni Henare how to say “vanity project” in Māori but he said that there is no such word as “vain” in Māoridom because there is no vanity in Māoridom. I take that on board. But what there is a translation for in Māori is “no ears” which is taringa kāhore and that is our Government. It has not been listening. It has not been listening to the public. It has been ignoring the fact that Kiwis do not want to change the flag—70 percent of Kiwis said that they do not want to change the flag and that Government is saying: “We’re giving them an option.” If it was really truly interested in giving Kiwis an option then the first question would be: “Do you want to change the flag?”. But no we have had Maggie Barry standing up in the Chamber and saying: “That would be just too confusing for New Zealanders. Surely they wouldn’t understand it if we asked them first: ‘Do you want to change the flag?’ ”.I think that Maggie Barry and the National Government underestimate New Zealanders actually. I wonder what is going to happen when we look at the commencement part of this bill in clause 2 where it says: “If in the second flag referendum the current New Zealand Flag gains a greater number of votes than the alternative flag design then sections 69 70 and 71 do not commence.” Does the Government not think that there are going to be a lot of New Zealanders out there saying: “Well what was the point of spending that other $6.8 million?”. There are going to be a lot of New Zealanders saying: “OK you have dumped the whole thing. You have now wasted not only our time but our good taxpayer dollars on two referendums when that was completely unnecessary.”Looking at the purpose of this bill we see that there are going to be two postal referendums held to enable electors to decide whether New Zealand should have a new flag. Well if that was the case then actually the first referendum question should be: “Do you want a new flag?”—very clear. So actually I think the Government is going to have to revisit this purpose clause because if that really was the purpose the first question would be: “Do you want to change the flag?”. We have seen that there has been a lack of interest from the general public in respect of this issue. No one is showing up to the meetings and I think we have got information here that just over 700 people turned up to public meetings on the flag consideration project. That cost $208500 for venues and a further $200000 for the panel members’ fees for them to be there. New Zealanders are thinking: “What a waste of our money.” The average cost per person who turned up was $550 each or $2300 each once advertising is included.I think that there are a lot of New Zealanders out there thinking: “Just give us the cash rather than force us to show up for these really boring meetings about things that we are not interested in.” or for the majority of people they would be showing up to say: “We don’t want this to happen.” Actually the only way that that Prime Minister could get a good audience on this issue was to arrange to go to secondary schools where those students had no choice but to sit there in the hall and listen to him talk about the flag. I know this because my own son texted me a few weeks ago and said: “Mum guess who’s at our school? John Key.” I said: “What’s he there for?” and he said: “To talk about the flag.”—to talk about the flag. A low-decile school a room full of Māori and Pacific boys—there must be so many more important things to talk to them about but what was he there to talk to them about? The flag. Why was he there? It was the only way he could get a guaranteed audience. The only way he could get a guaranteed audience was to show up at schools.Members on that side of the Chamber know that this is unpopular. They have seen the New Zealand Herald poll. They would have done their own internal polling. New Zealanders are looking at them and thinking: “There are so many more serious issues to be considering and you’re concerned about changing a flag.” As my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard has said and a few of my other colleagues in the Chamber have also said it today it is not that we are all necessarily opposed to changing the flag; it is just that this is not the right time.Clearly this is not the issue of the day for New Zealanders. There is a lot more on the minds of New Zealanders and my New Zealand First colleague pointed this out. What is on the minds of New Zealanders? Um housing—yes? What is on the minds of New Zealanders? Um the fact that our prisons are unsafe—yes? What is on the minds of New Zealanders? Poverty and the fact that nothing that the Government has done has done anything to lift children out of poverty. What else is on the minds of New Zealanders? The failed charter schools and a National Government that is failing to listen.So before I finish this speech I just want to use some more Te Reo Māori. I just want to say that this is one of the many mistakes that the National Government has made so the word for that is hapamaha which means multiple mistakes. Hapamaha—multiple mistakes. Can we say it together? Hapamaha.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am truly delighted to take the opportunity to take a call in this Committee of the whole House as we debate this New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill and speak to clauses 1 and 3. This process is an essential element of our democracy—this grand New Zealand democracy one of only half a dozen in the world with an uninterrupted tradition stretching back more than 150 years and for better than two-thirds of that time the current New Zealand ensign has been the symbol of that democracy. It was approved and gazetted in 1902 fully 2 years before the Australian flag for which it is occasionally mistaken by the ignorant and the unpatriotic. In fact interestingly enough the current Australian flag did not become the official legal flag of Australia until 1954—1954—so if anyone is going to be changing their flag it is going to be them.But actually we are not here to talk about the flag itself. We are here to debate this bill and these two proposed referenda to which the bill pertains and the process of which they are a part by which we as a Parliament and a nation will either vote to change the New Zealand flag or we will not. Binding referenda have been a core policy of New Zealand First since our inception 22 years ago. We are glad that if nothing else this Government has deigned that it will be bound by the results of these referenda. It is perhaps the only thing it has got right regarding this whole sorry process. We are being faced with the prospect of having two referenda when only one would have been entirely sufficient. We are holding them the wrong way round and we are wasting $26 million of taxpayers’ money in the process a process for which there is no call. No one other than the Prime Minister is calling for a change to the New Zealand flag. No one wants it. Better than three-quarters of the population—and rising—are perfectly happy with the flag that we have and everyone apart from John Key thinks that $26 million could be far better spent on any one of any number of actually worthwhile projects from a very long list of such projects rather than on this pointless personal vanity project that the man has.John Key wants a legacy. When the Prime Minister was asked if he could wave a magic wand and have one particular thing he did not want to end unemployment he did not want to clear the hospital waiting lists and he did not want to make sure that every child in this country goes to school every morning with breakfast in their belly and lunch in their schoolbag and shoes on their feet and a raincoat if it is raining. No he wanted to change the flag. Well what a shallow hollow vacuous dream that is but at least he has agreed that the outcome of these two pointless wasteful unwanted unnecessary unwarranted referenda will be binding on his Government. It is a small mercy because for the most part the Prime Minister and this Government feel that they have the right to ignore the results of referenda. Well at least this time he will have no option. When the public tell him to go and take a running jump with his referenda and his flag change he will have no option but to take it on the chin and slink away with his tail between his legs.The nation will speak. It will speak in these referenda. It is speaking already. We already know what the outcome will be. We all know it and yet this Government is pushing ahead anyway with this unwanted and unwarranted waste of money—this colossal waste of taxpayers’ money on this colossal farcical vanity project which the Prime Minister wants for his legacy. Well it will be his legacy but not for the reasons he would like it to be and it can be stopped. It does not have to go any further.The Government could pull the pin on this ridiculous bill. Even now it could choose to see reason. It could save the nation the expense of a $26 million farce that no one wants. Or any of the Government members could stop it. Any member from the Government benches could choose to make a stand—stand up for their democracy stand up for what they believe stand up for what their constituents are telling them and stand up for what their own party members and supporters are telling them. In this 800th year of the anniversary of the sealing of the Magna Carta which was the birth of our democracy itself and on the 161st anniversary of uninterrupted parliamentary democracy in New Zealand any one of the members opposite could stand up and make a stand for the flag of this country over and above the ego of the Prime Minister. If one of them had the intestinal fortitude or the backbone to do that this process could stop and the taxpayer could be saved $26 million.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the member but in the absence of any member of the Government taking this point of order I think that that has long been ruled out of order. To accuse members of lacking backbone is a breach of the Standing Orders.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I take the member’s point of order. I did hear what he said. I noticed that it was a general broadcast as opposed to being directed at one particular person. I would like to point out to the Committee but particularly to this member that everything is pretty much repetition. We have had an hour and a half on this part of the debate. No one seems to be saying anything new. So I hope that others who are going to seek to make a contribution will provide something new.RICHARD PROSSER: Thank you Mr Chair. I will finish succinctly then by simply putting the challenge to the members on the Government benches. The ball is in their court. Any one of them could stop it. I ask have any of these members from the Government benches got the cojones to stand up and support the flag of their nation?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Do not push it.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I want to speak to the purpose clause clause 3 of this bill which talks about the holding of two referendums in order to determine whether we should have a change to our flag. What I want to say first of all is that I think that the purpose clause has got the sequencing right because the purpose clause says that the referendums are held “to decide whether New Zealand should have a new flag” and then to decide for a process of change. I think the drafting of the bill is absolutely logical because the first decision we as New Zealanders need to make is whether there is a desire to change the flag at all and if there is yes we go on to find whether there is a consensus around an alternative flag. When we had the vote on MMP we did not ask people to decide—in the latest vote in the referendum last year we did not decide first of all what system we wanted to choose; we decided whether we wanted to change from MMP. It was logical and it was rational and it would be logical and rational for the Government to have approached this in exactly the same way.Next what do New Zealanders think about this issue? All of us have had feedback from our constituents and I want to pass on in the Committee of the whole House the feedback that I have had. The first thing is that the flag is not a burning issue for our constituents. We do not get people turning up at our constituency offices saying: “The most important issue facing New Zealand is whether we have a new symbol for our nation.” They come to us to talk about the risk of recession or the $7 billion that has been taken out of the economy because of the collapse of dairy. They talk about their housing problems and they talk about the disarray of the prisons. They do not talk about the flag. So the first point I want to make here is it is not a burning issue for New Zealanders. I have also got to relay to the Committee what my constituents are saying. They are approaching it quite cynically because of the way in which this has been handled. They are saying: “We think this might be a deliberate and cynical attempt to distract us from the issues that are actually out there.” That is what I am being told.The next thing that I am hearing from constituents is that they think the process that this Government has adopted is extravagantly expensive. New Zealanders have internalised the fact that times have been tough and there are a whole lot of pressing issues that the Government has not addressed supposedly because the money is not there. Then they ask me: “Why are we spending $26 million on this process when what a logical thing to do would be to hold a referendum?”—because everybody agrees that any decision on the flag ought to be made by the people not by 121 parliamentarians. They say: “Why not hold the referendum at the time of the next election?”. This is not so pressing that it must be decided in 2015 rather than 2017. They say: “Why not hold it at the time of the next election?” And I want to pose that question to the Minister in the chair Nikki Kaye because I want to put to the Minister that firstly you could have the public have its say for a fraction of the $26 million. At the time of the election you are not setting up a separate electoral process which is incredibly expensive.Secondly for this referendum to have real weight we want high participation. We want high participation in the decision and we know that if there is a postal referendum maybe a third of New Zealanders will go out—well they will not go out. Well they will go out to post the ballot that comes through the mail to them. And if it is 30 percent of the population that say whether they want this design or that design we are not getting the majority opinion of New Zealanders; we are spending $26 million and we are getting a minority view back from New Zealanders. So if you hold this referendum at the time of the next election you get full participation by New Zealanders you get 80 percent of people having their say and you have no cost. And what I have not heard and what I want the Minister to address at this stage of the bill is why the decision was made to do it in this way instead of the logical way of coinciding it with an election and getting a better turn out.Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for ACC): I am pleased to take a second call. I want to start by reiterating what I said before: if you consider this is about the flag then we are actually not dealing with what is the most important issue which is who we are what we stand for our nationhood and New Zealanders having a democratic vote which is part of the purpose of this bill.I just want to address Phil Goff’s issue that he raised about the timing of this referendum. Actually I think the Justice and Electoral Committee did consider this. The Electoral Commission did recommend I think in 2011 that referendums were not held at the time of a general election. My understanding is some of the complexity and cost do not go away if they are held at that time.But I want to cover five issues—five issues that have been covered in this debate that relate to the purpose of this bill. The first is that it costs too much. Well actually referendums cost a lot of money. It costs money to give people a vote. Would members opposite actually say that they are anti-referendums because that is what it costs to hold a referendum and give people that vote? Phil Goff has just said and admitted that they actually do agree with the fact that there should be a referendum. We saw in the Labour Party policy very clearly outlined on its website—New Zealanders can google that right now; “Labour Party policy”—that it believes we should consult on the flag. Andrew Little is on record as saying it should be by referendum.In terms of it costing too much well we saw under the last Labour Government what it did with the Privy Council. It was a constitutional issue; an issue of nationhood. Labour never campaigned on it. Labour came in and bowled the thing. Actually we disagree with you. On an issue of nationhood it should go to a referendum.When you come to the issue of the timing well I said before I think actually that what this is about is it is all very well and good for Labour Party members to stand up and say “We are going to campaign on consulting on the flag.” and for its leader—well not its then leader; it is hard to keep up with the Labour Party—to say “We believe in referendums.” but then we come into this House and the reason it is not good timing is actually the issues of a multicultural open nation that relate to things like housing immigration and trade. They cut to the heart of those issues. They are the exact issues that the Labour Party does not want to be talking about right at the moment.In terms of the process let us come back to the purpose and let us talk about the process. As I have said before on an issue like this it is very important. We have never as a country in 100 years had the ability to have a vote on the flag. That we do actually have a vote—and actually it is not appropriate that politicians decide. It is appropriate that it actually goes to a vote. Secondly in terms of process we have heard a range of things around you know spending $7 million on the question of “Should we have a change?”. It is different in terms of our electoral system and the vote that happened there. People were very clear about the options before they had that opportunity to have a question. We have had thousands of flags out there. I am in and out of schools and the whole issue of the fact that people have not participated in this is absolutely wrong.It is absolutely wrong that people can argue in this Committee that people have not been participating in this debate. That shows very clearly that certain members of this Committee do not understand the modern world. They do not understand that there are a group of New Zealanders who would turn up to public meetings but more and more there are an increasing number of New Zealanders as we saw with this process—I think over 800000 people—being involved online and looking at those flag designs.So from our perspective on this side of the Chamber it is important and it is timely as a nation to consider who we are. It cuts to the very heart of trade of housing and of immigration. We have never had a vote as a nation on this. It is time for us to have our vote. Our side of the Chamber is going to ensure that New Zealanders get that vote. We are very confident of the process. If you are going to have a referendum it is going to cost an amount of money and we are going to give New Zealanders that opportunity.RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): It is a pleasure actually to be able to speak to this appalling bill for the purpose of actually putting a couple of things on the record. I think that we need to understand what the purpose of this bill is—it is to enable two referendums. It is to enable John Key his backbench members who want to be Ministers in the next Government and his Ministers who want to be Ministers again to change our flag. I listened in my office to the speech by the former Mayor of Palmerston North who is now a backbench MP in the National Government and I am going to say that we will post that speech. When one says that they are not scared of the public’s reaction that they are not scared of what people are saying and that they proudly stand by what they are doing then good. In 2017 the member will proudly stand by what he said.So what are people saying? I have heard comments before in the House that we are an online nation and that people may not have turned up to express their views but they can give them online. Well actually we have some information from offline. New Zealand First actually put out a call to all New Zealanders who are against the referendum to write “Keep our flag” on the ballot paper. That way the vote will be ruled informal. If there are more informal votes than votes on the design then there can be no credibility in the process and a second referendum cannot surely go ahead and that hopefully will save us millions of dollars. When we look at what people are saying I have got to say that on the Facebook page of the Rt Hon Winston Peters we have had 19849 likes and 11347 shares. The Minister is right: we are an online nation.And what are they saying online? Well let us go to a couple of things that people are saying online. D Berry said: “It doesn’t matter what we say this National Government will do what they want regardless of the rest of us.” And as for the people who turned up to the meetings—you know I have heard numbers quoted for how many people have turned up at meetings. What was it? Collectively 130 people nationwide turned up for the select committee hearings—round that number. Well understand this: last Friday we held a public meeting in Palmerston North. I spoke on Iraq and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. We packed out the hall. We had to go and get more chairs and bring them in. So there were 120-odd people seated in the hall in the Globe in Palmerston North to hear me speak about Iraq—Chris Bishop: 120? Don’t exaggerate.RON MARK: —and nationwide $7 million later Chris Berry $7 million later how many people turned up?Chris Bishop: Who’s Chris Berry?RON MARK: And the vast majority of those people turned up to tell the member Chris Berry that they did not want a flag change.What else are they saying online? Online they are saying things like: “Yes I agree. Leave the flag alone. I’m 61 and I’m proud of the one I have and I’ve known for that long. A waste of money. Spend it on the homeless.” Spend it on the homeless. What else are people saying online? “Leave the flag alone and spend the money on special needs kids educational purposes like more hours for teacher aides.” Do you want to hear what people are saying online? Rochelle Anderson: “Keep our flag. Don’t fix what’s not broken.” So why are we fixing what is not broken? It is because it is a personal little agenda.I hear the Minister saying that we need to understand who we are where our place is in the world and what we stand for. Well it seems from all of the feedback that there is only one political party that has no idea who it is or what it stands for. We have had all the banners before—“A decent society” “A better future” “A brighter future”. We know what the National Party thinks it stood for in each successive election. If it has a problem understanding what it stands for and who it is now the National Party should go back to one of those focus groups and go and do an analysis. Talk to your own people National because the public in New Zealand know clearly who they are. They are proud New Zealanders. And it is interesting as we head up to 8 August when we will commemorate the battle of Chunuk Bair that nobody out there whom I speak to in the RSAs nobody whom I speak to in the Defence Force nobody whom I speak to in rural provincial New Zealand has a problem understanding who they are where their place is in this world and what they stand for.No this is what it is and this is what people online are saying it is: it is a particular desire of the Prime Minister to leave a legacy issue and all of his MPs are falling in behind him to give him that because they want to be Ministers in the next Government. Do you know what the irony is? On Radio Live—was it today—94 percent of people polled were against the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement; against the signing. Keep this up and the members will guarantee that they are not in Government and it will not be anybody else’s doing; it will be their own.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):Tēnā koutou katoa. He mihi nui ki a koutou. There is an expression for arrogance I believe in Te Reo Māori: tino whakahīhī. At the risk of being tino whakahīhī I would like to say that I have not heard of a referendum before that was instigated by a Prime Minister with no groundswell of public support no group of people who have lobbied developed created or called for it. There may have been one—I may be tino whakahīhī in saying that—but I think it is very unusual for this referendum to be imposed upon us because of one person’s idea. And when that person is the leader of the country you have got to ask why they are doing it. One of the reasons that this is such a faltering confused bill and a faltering confused process is that there is no call for it. So the problem the Government has with this bill with these referenda is that nobody—nobody—really asked for it. And it is not as if all of us—and there I possibly differ a little from my colleague in New Zealand First. I do think we have identity issues in Aotearoa. I do think we are often quite confused about what we stand for and that it is good to look at identity. However the question “Ko wai tātau?”—who are we—is not being asked in this referendum. That is not what we are talking about.I have also been disturbed to hear in the debate that history started a hundred years ago because it did not. There were flags in Aotearoa going way back—He Whakaputanga. The people of Tai Tokerau can tell you about the flag. They can tell you about the Declaration of Independence and they can tell you about the United Tribes flag which was there to make sure that the people who were sailing the tangata whenua ships that went to Sydney to trade had a flag. We have often had different flags but for a long time we have had this one. If we are going to change it we have to have a genuine people’s movement calling for it and we do not. It is pretty simple. That genuine people’s movement does not exist. But it is absolutely clear whose people’s movement exists: the movement of the Prime Minister because he really really does need to distract us from the economy and he really does need to distract us from a country where people are lying in doorways and begging and struggling to find homes.Let us talk about something that Russel Norman I think yesterday called optics which is: let us have something that is visual. This is very visual. Let us distract ourselves with a picture and we can all look at it online. I am sure lots of people have looked at it because it is fun to look at pictures. But actually that is not what our identity as a nation is about. Our identity as a nation is about constitutional debate. We are supposedly having a constitutional debate but I have not heard the Prime Minister talk about it for a very long time. He is talking about a referendum. He is talking about two referendums. Have we had a referendum on the constitutional change issues? I personally am glad we have not because I do not feel we are mature enough as a country to have a referendum on that issue. But actually at least it is a real issue. The status of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in Aotearoa is a real issue. What flag to have comes after we have resolved that issue. It is the cart—and very very much a vanity cart—before a very very complex horse.If we want to have discussion about constitutional issues we need to start with the ones that really matter—not with even a piece of cloth that means a lot to some people. I guarantee it means a lot to some people. It means more to them than to me. I am 61 years old. It does not mean much to me. It does not represent my aspirations for Aotearoa at all but I do not support and the Greens do not support this farcical process and this referendum bill because it is a waste of money and it is a vanity project that is actually not about identity. If we want to talk about national identity bring it on but this is not the conversation Minister. This is not about national identity. National identity is not about what design we have. It is about who we are. It is about what is really going on in the country. It is not about the design. We have not had the conversation that you claim to be at the end of. It has not even started and these referendums which are a colossal waste of money already—and I do feel sorry for the very genuine people who went around the country and did the meeting consultation. I mean how many people in this Chamber have enjoyed going to a meeting where there are hardly any people and no one wants to know? I have been to a few—Chris Bishop: You’d be well used to it I imagine.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: —and I would imagine that most of us have been to a few. But at least we are not forcing a $26 million referendum on to the citizens who do not want it. The Greens want a genuine discussion.SUE MORONEY (Labour): I want to address clause 4 in Part 1 of this bill because I am perplexed about the expiry date for this folly that is called the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. And while I am mentioning the title of the bill can I say at the outset that I think “referenda” is in fact the correct way to say this. It is important because actually as we know children up and down this country in our State schooling system were forced to do projects on this to try to beef up—[Interruption] well they were—the number of website hits because they were all directed by their teacher to go and look at the website. This is the reason for the Government gloating about the number of people who went on to the website. It was children forced to do projects on this issue in their schools who were actually driving those numbers up. The reason I raise that is because I do think it is important when children have been doing this project—as I know they have been—that they are taught the correct English and I think that the plural of “referendum” is in fact “referenda” but that is not what the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill says.The expiry date under clause 4 is 2 years after the result of the second referendum is known. I would like to know what the reason for that could possibly be. Is it that the Prime Minister wants to milk this until the election date? That is the only reason I can think of about why the expiry date might be 2 years after the result is known. But even more worrying when it comes to the issues that the public have quite rightly raised about the cost of this vanity project clause 4(2) introduces the idea of having a fresh referendum. So we could in fact end up having three referenda under clause 4. It actually says that if there is a declaration by the court that the referendum is void then there is the ability under clause 4 to have yet another referendum—a third referendum—which is introduced in clause 4 of Part 1.Ron Mark: The costs are going up again.SUE MORONEY: Yes so what does that mean? That means we are probably up to about $36 million by then and this is of concern because I have families talking to me all the time about how upset they were that that Government could not even find $4 million to increase paid parental leave to 6 months for families whose children had been born prematurely had been born with disabilities or had been part of a multiple birth. That miserable Government opposite could not even find $4 million for that very good purpose for those families who desperately needed that support but it will spend $26 million—potentially $36 million—on this folly this vanity project of the Prime Minister’s to find out what it already knows. For goodness’ sake! The Government already pays David Farrar a lot of money to poll everything within an inch of its life. Why can it not actually get him to do some basic polling on this issue to find out what has been published up and down the country already?Ron Mark: He has and it’s not good.SUE MORONEY: What we know is that about 70 percent of New Zealanders do not want to change the flag. They do not want to change the flag and I think Ron Mark is right. I am sure David Farrar has done some polling on this. Government members know already what the results of these referenda will be but they have decided to push ahead because they actually think that $26 million—maybe $36 million—is a fair enough amount of taxpayer money to spend on promoting John Key. That at the end of the day is what this is all about.I really do want an answer from someone from the Justice and Electoral Committee or perhaps the Minister himself about why on earth this legislation would stay in place and not expire for 2 years after the final result is known. By the way I confidently predict that the final result will be a resounding no—a resounding “No John Key we don’t want to pay for your folly. We don’t actually want you to use our children as website fodder by forcing them to do these projects on changing the flag so that they have to go to the website and get the answers for their school project off the website and therefore drive the numbers up. No John Key we didn’t want all that money spent making the panel go around New Zealand to see nobody.”JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e te Heamana mō tō mātauranga te tohu nei tēnei mema kia tū ki te tuku atu i ōku whakaaro mō tēnei take.[Thank you Mr Chair for your wisdom to give this member the call to stand and express my views on this matter.]As a Māori speaker and it being Māori Language Week I thought the Committee might be interested in knowing that the word “haki” is flag but the word “hakihaki” is a festering sore and that is actually what the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill is. That is exactly what it is and no matter what band-aid you put over it no matter what medicine you rub on it it is just going to keep on festering.Members across the Chamber also mentioned polls. They were talking about public opinion and how they do not have just a knee-jerk reaction to whatever poll might come out. Well as far as I understood it you needed a pole to fly a flag and what is happening here is that—Chris Bishop: Ha ha!PEENI HENARE: Mr Bishop might laugh but it was actually he who said it. But you need a pole to fly that flag and what our polls are telling us—and it is not just the Labour Party polls it is not just the New Zealand First polls; I am sure everybody in this Chamber has heard of the New Zealand Herald which is telling us—is that there is definitely not an appetite for us to change the flag.I am also reminded of a sense of ceremony. Mr Bishop in previous exchanges in this Chamber has always mentioned how important ceremony is and how it cannot be lost when we are looking at processes moving forward. I make particular reference to the actual ceremonial process of voting. Well the same thing applies to this. When I think about some of the contributions this evening around the ceremony of our flag and what it means to our defence force it has already been highlighted and I do not want to draw the point out. However that ceremony is important to our people and certainly to the people who speak to me in my electorate.This morning I sat on the plane returning from Tāmaki Makarau—the great electorate of Tāmaki Makarau. Last night I attended a funeral and at that funeral in fact we flew the New Zealand flag. Everybody rose and acknowledged it. This morning on the plane down I sat next to a member of the defence force and he too had a flag on his sleeve.The importance of our flag cannot be understated. It might cause a few members in the Chamber to scratch their head but I also want to echo the words of the Hon Trevor Mallard. It is not that I am against changing the flag; I will be honest with you here. In a discussion with my son who is 19 years old he actually said to me: “Dad I don’t think the flag best reflects us moving forward.” And I take that point. However I still consider myself pretty young and I got to see my grandfather raise that flag every morning and every evening take that flag down. It means something to me. So I am a little bit torn on that.However what I am not torn on is the actual process. It has been stated—“referendums” or “referenda”—that the New Zealand public are not quite as smart as we think we are. Well the Government will tell us that there is confusion. When you see our flag and the Australian flag together people are often confused. Well let me talk a little bit about ceremony. When the Olympic Games happen we know that the first country out is Greece. From there it goes through an alphabetical process and Australia is far far far away ahead in terms of the alphabetical process than New Zealand. Secondly overseas in the State Department building—you are talking about confusion; actually it is not that confusing. Overseas when we went to the State Department—not last week—it was the same thing. All the flags were lined up in alphabetical order and there was certainly no confusion from the National members who were part of the delegation as well as the Labour members.Another Māori word for us in the vocab today is “tohutohu”. “Tohutohu” is to direct and that is exactly what these referendums will do. What it will not do is allow our country the first question which is whether we want to change the flag. What it is actually doing is it is directing us it is channelling us it is funnelling us—Ron Mark: Manipulating.PEENI HENARE: —and manipulating us into making a forced decision and I do not think that is fair. I think our people deserve more.What it also does is it talks about how many young people have engaged—and my esteemed colleague here Sue Moroney mentioned how kids were instructed to make this a project in their schools. I am concerned that as a result—JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I want to follow my colleague Peeni Henare in this particular debate and say that I agree with him. The first question in clause 6 should have been “Do you want to change the flag?”. That would have saved us going on to clause 7. You see in the Pacific community although we agree that there is a need for us to debate and discuss the future of this country the future does not belong to a flag or symbol. It belongs to the people first. And that discussion has not happened first.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Kia ora tātou katoa. Before the dinner break I had made mention that my colleague Peeni Henare the member of Parliament for Tāmaki Makaurau had made a very strong point before this Committee as to why it is that the Government wants to have two referendums in clause 6 and clause 7 when this matter could be resolved by asking the right question. The right question is: do New Zealanders want to change the flag? I would say based on the polls that we have seen that the resounding answer from many New Zealanders would be no. In fact I understand that one particular poll run by a newspaper had 70 percent of respondents say that they did not want to change the flag.The reason that is important is if you look at clause 6 it talks about the first referendum being conducted under a preferential voting electoral system. Therefore the community is going to be asked to choose between one two three four maybe five maybe six flags. Instead of just choosing one they are asked to choose based on this preferential vote one two three and four.Why is it that we are spending the time to undertake this long process when it could be resolved simply by the question that my colleague asked earlier—that we ask the right question of the New Zealand public in one referendum: do New Zealanders want to change the flag? If the answer is a resounding no then there is no need for a second referendum. That is the first point.New Zealanders will be quite suspicious as to why we are spending $26 million over the next while trying to determine whether we change the flag or not. I heard Minister Nikki Kaye say that this is about nationhood. Although I agree that when we talk about nationhood symbols are important I will tell you what this old man from the Māngere market said to me about the flag debate: E le mafai ona ai se fu’a. We cannot eat the flag.E le mafai ona totogi e le fu’a le pili o le matou moli ma le fale. A flag does not pay for my rent; it does not pay for my electricity bill. The point I make there is that the people are right. When we talk about nationhood we talk about laying the foundations that are important going forward building a society where everyone has some common principles and common values by which we live and not the symbols. We do not live by the symbols. We live by the means by which this country is able to share its wealth.I want to make another point: the flag has had symbolic importance to many who fought and died for this flag. Simply presenting other alternatives is really a disgrace on this Government because it is showing immense disrespect to those to whom this symbol means so much. It is not just Pākehā; it also includes Māori and Pacific people who fought and died. Therefore the issue is why it is that this Government wants to prolong the process by introducing clause 6 and clause 7 two separate and distinct voting patterns when the issue could be resolved simply by asking the question that Peeni Henare had asked earlier: do New Zealanders want to change the flag? I would say that the answer is no.We need to begin the discussion about the future of New Zealand. We have got the flag first instead of laying the foundation for how to share the wealth of this country. That is why $26 million—PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I move That the question be now put.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want to acknowledge that since I had an earlier call in this debate there has been quite a lot said by a number of members and I do want to go back over that in rebuttal of some of the points made.I think one of the first members I want to address is Jono Naylor who spoke earlier in the debate. In his discussion he totally failed to make the case for not hearing the people who wanted an amendment to the purpose clause. A large number of people 747 people wanted an amendment to the purpose clause so that provision would be made for one referendum not two. I do want to acknowledge the point that he has made I think in points of order and by interjection. There is at least according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary—some of the modernisms have crept in and saying “referendums” is actually acceptable; although I think probably when you and I went to school Mr Deputy Chairperson it would not have been. It would have been “referenda”. But—Hon Ruth Dyson: Mr Chairman’s a lot younger than you.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I know he looks a lot younger. I am not sure that he is significantly—well maybe he is. The point that I am trying to make and that I really want to focus on in this purpose clause is whether we should have the opportunity to have one instead of two referenda. I want to say that even if it was changed I would still vote against it. But part of the deal with the Committee of whole House stage is that having accepted albeit by quite a narrow margin the principle that this bill is going through it is now our responsibility to look at the detail of the bill and whether it fulfils the overall objectives—the principles that we agreed to in the second reading—in the best possible way. The case that I am making is that it would be better for New Zealand if we had a clear approach at the beginning whereby individuals were given the choice whether or not they wanted to proceed with a second referendum as well as being clear in the way that we were with the MMP legislation.I do find it slightly ironic that the front row for the National Party on this the core of the select committee that rejected the 747 people who wanted to be heard the Justice and Electoral Committee are Alfred Ngaro Jono Naylor and Chris Bishop none of whom would have been present in the House if in fact the MMP referendum had not been shaped in the way that it was. There was a system that at the time was regarded as fair; a system that at the—[Interruption] Paul Foster-Bell points out the New Zealand First members in a way that I think is particularly interesting. They know it and they accept it. They do the job of going and listening to the people within the electorates and the people around them and where they live whereas National Party members block-voted—no absolutely on the point—to deny people who wanted the purpose clause changed and denied 747 of those people the right to attend the committee. I think that is outrageous. It is the Todd McClay approach to running a select committee. It is the sort of select committee where you have to have hearings on a bill when you do not really want to have hearings because you just want to ramrod the thing through.There are some other points and I do want to ask whether this Government is one that really enjoys churning up more paper than is necessary. Why for example as we look through the interpretation clause of this bill do we have to define “Clerk of the House”? I mean how many Clerks of the House are there in New Zealand? It says: “Clerk of the House means the Clerk of the House of Representatives”. Is that a necessary part of the legislation in order to make it work? Which House are we talking about? We are not talking about David Clark’s house are we? It is spelt differently. We are talking about the Clerk of the House of Representatives. Why is that necessary?Why do we need the definition that the “current New Zealand flag means the flag declared by section 5(1) of the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981”? We know what the current New Zealand flag is. It is fairly well indicated in this House at the moment. As it happens I spent a short period of time today in the south-east foyer of the Executive Wing on the ground floor and I saw there the New Zealand flag that was part of the World Trade Center bombing. That just sort of brought back to me that it is not only at war time but there are some other times when flags are important.I just want to work through these other definitions. The Electoral Commission—why I ask the Hon Paul Goldsmith the Minister in the chair do we have to have the Electoral Commission defined in clause 5 of the bill? It is defined as “the Electoral Commission established by section 4B of the Electoral Act 1993”. How many electoral commissions do we have in New Zealand? I just want to know why we are including stuff within this legislation that is unnecessary. I am going to be really interested in the Minister’s response to this. Some of these may be necessary—a Minister means “the Minister of the Crown”. Well the chances are that that was the case. Perhaps it was going to be the Rev. Dr David Clark in his new incarnation but not the sort of Minister that he is at the moment.Just working through this my question to the Minister in the chair is whether it is necessary to have promoters referred to in the interpretation clause. It is already in—it is already in the bill. There is an assumption here that people who are reading this legislation are just thick that they do not understand the approach that should be taken. I think it is fair to say and it was made very clear in the speech by Chris Bishop that he thought people could not understand having two questions asked on the same day: do you want a change and if so what sort? As I indicated earlier that was the approach that was taken earlier.Returning officer—do we really need with all our electoral legislation at the moment to redefine a returning officer? Do we need to define “working day”? Actually “working day” is pretty well defined in lots and lots of pieces of legislation at the beginning. Is there any chance Mr Goldsmith of telling us why it is necessary to have a different definition of “working day” in this legislation or to repeat the definition of “working day” in this legislation that is any different from the generally accepted form of what a “working day” is elsewhere in legislation?I also want to ask the Minister whether he is absolutely satisfied with the general description of the preferential voting system. Without wanting to get too much further into the legislation I want to ask whether he thinks the Government is taking too much on itself with its ability to adjust parts of this legislation by way of Order in Council. That is what—SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 62New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 58.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Part 1 agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 58.Part 2 Provisions relating to referendumsThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): We come now to the debate on Part 2 of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. Members will find for their interest that Part 2 is about the conducting of the referendums themselves. It covers such things as the processing of voting papers informal voting papers the appointment of electoral officers and bribery of persons at any time. We have had a wide-ranging colourful and dramatic debate on Part 1. Part 2 is relatively narrow. It also contains though of course Supplementary Order Paper 102 in the name of Jacinda Ardern. I ask members to stick to the parameters of Part 2 and to try to be novel and innovative to keep us all awake.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Although as you have pointed out there is a lot of detail in Part 2 this is by far the most substantive part of the bill so I certainly have an expectation that there will be a wide range of contributions from this side of the Chamber to the substance of this part. I want to start at the top of Part 2 because as you pointed out Mr Chair I do indeed have a Supplementary Order Paper in this part and it does apply to the very beginning. Under clause 10 “Subject of referendums” it sets out in subclause (1) that: “During the voting period for the first flag referendum a referendum of electors must be held on the question set out in the voting paper in Schedule 1.” Schedule 1 then sets out that voting paper. Subclause (2) then states: “During the voting period for the second flag referendum a referendum of electors must be held”. My Supplementary Order Paper 102 disrupts that order of events by inserting a new clause clause 10A. Clause 10A if passed—which I implore this Chamber to support for reasons I will outline—states: “Fifty percent of electors must return votes. Despite section 10(2) the second flag referendum may take place only if more than 50% of electors return a valid voting paper to the Returning Officer in the first flag referendum.” Obviously that Supplementary Order Paper makes it very clear that if after the first round regardless of what is returned in that first round regardless of whether or not people have ticked all of their options and sent it back if less than 50 percent of—Hon Ruth Dyson: Fewer.JACINDA ARDERN: Thank you. If fewer than 50 percent of those who are eligible to participate in that referendum return their voting papers then the second referendum would not take place.Let us run through the rationale for why that might be. Well obviously if something that is as constitutionally important—as the Prime Minister claimed in question time—as this flag referendum is to be considered valid amongst the New Zealand population and indeed amongst members of Parliament surely we would want at least 50 percent of the population to participate in that vote. You could argue that having a clause like this if people wanted to participate would make people think: “Right. If I want to have my say in this and I really want to see it changed then I have got to get out there.” So what could the Government possibly be afraid of? If it genuinely believes that every New Zealander wants to see change as it seems to believe because it is so unwilling to allow a simple yes/no vote first—if it is so convinced that the New Zealand public wants change and indeed wants this in the first place—then surely it would be willing to support Supplementary Order Paper 102 which puts that to the test. If you were so sure that everyone would participate you would have no problem with a Supplementary Order Paper like this one.I ask the Government to back the decision that you have made to put this to the public. Back the fact that you believe that 50 percent of the population will come out. The bonus of that then becomes that if there is a 50 percent turnout there is no problem. Your bill proceeds as planned. If they do not we do not run the risk of having a referendum that does not have the mandate of the public and we do not waste another $6 million by holding round two. Win-win. So I challenge the Government: if Government members tonight do not support this Supplementary Order Paper I will take that as a very clear indication that they right now actually do not believe that the New Zealand public will participate in this referendum because if you did you would have no qualms supporting it. You would have no qualms supporting that little backstop measure that says that if the public will not come out let us not waste our money on round two—let us not waste our money. Let us not waste our money and let us not bring in a flag that people are not willing to participate in a debate over.We have heard some defensiveness about the level of participation so far. Maggie Barry stood up in the House today and said that there was a fantastic national conversation—very defensive about that. I can see why because her department has spent a considerable amount of money on this. The Ministry for Culture and Heritage is a part of this legislation—the same department that is facing a $3 million cut in funding and so I can see why she would want to push the fact that this is a national conversation. Ultimately put your money where your mouth is. That is what I am arguing with this Supplementary Order Paper. So I look forward to a member on that side of the Chamber giving me a rational set of reasons why they would not be willing to have that test in there. We have put in other tests before. We have tried to alter the structure of the voting papers. The Government has not bought in to that; I am hoping that at least it will not be afraid to support this Supplementary Order Paper.Moving down through Part 2 I want to come then to clause 13. Clause 13 sets out the process with the alternative flag designs. Clause 13(1) sets out the way that “The Governor-General must by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister at least 60 days before the commencement of the voting period … prescribe 4 alternative flag designs to appear on the voting paper.” Let us be really clear. There were not always just four alternatives as a potential way of structuring this ballot. Officials put forward the idea of having a few more flag design options. In fact seven options were proposed for the way that this referendum could be set out. As much as the Government has come in behind its option and said that that was the primary one actually some of the others canvassed were tested against how complex they would be and how difficult they would be to manage. Most of them came out looking OK as alternative options but for this one we have gone with four options prescribed. The public gets 60 days to see them.What is unfortunate about this is that although it is not legislated in here specifically the Minister is the one referring the alternative flag designs to the Governor-General but of course those recommendations are coming from the panel. If you are not familiar with the panel—I do not blame you—I point out that there are no designers on the panel. One might think that if you were going to be choosing alternative flag options you would have someone who had some background in design—no. They are being paid half a million as a board to exist and I would call it a small number when you look at the amount they are costing us such as $200000 to hold public meetings with this panel which 26 people on average are showing up to. Even though the legislation sets out that it is the Governor-General on the Minister’s recommendation who prescribes alternative designs it is the board that is sitting behind that decision and I wanted to make that point very clear.I come to clause 18 “Rolls of electors”. There is a minor amendment in this clause which has been made by the select committee. It sets out that there is an exemption here for the second referendum that would usually apply to others and that is for the usual requirement to allow the inspection of the rolls. That will not happen for the second referendum because there is such a short time frame between the two. That is a common-sense amendment I think you will agree demonstrating where the different costs come in by holding two referendums because there is a considerable logistical process that exists behind each. There is a small cost saving there though none the less. But it is indicative.One of the more significant issues that we debated on the Justice and Electoral Committee was how we treat spending limits and whether or not you have to have promoter statements. The recommendation of the select committee was based on the discussion that was had by the parliamentary group that was considering the way these referendums would be held. The decision was generally made that a spending limit in this case was not required because the view was that those who come in as parties to this debate would not necessarily be of particular political persuasions. If someone wanted to spend their personal millions promoting a flag so be it. If Gareth Morgan wants to spend $20000 on a prize for a flag so be it. But I want it to be stated clearly in Hansard for the record—let it stand—that the absence of a spending limit in these referendums is not in any way indicative of the general view of the committee that that needs to apply to any other referendum or election. These are very special circumstances where it was deemed that special interests would not really be played out via paid advertising and registered promoters in these particular circumstances. But we need to be really really clear on that. We also need to be clear that you cannot use parliamentary funding to promote a particular alternative. That is very clearly stipulated. So promoting the referendums is fine; promoting an alternative is not OK under parliamentary spending rules or the rules set out in this bill.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I want to speak on clauses 10 13 and 27 in Part 2. As we know clause 10 is actually the crux of the whole bill because that is the clause that provides for the question in the first flag referendum. That question—which appears in schedule 1—is: “If the New Zealand flag changes which flag would you prefer?”. It is a simple question but it is problematic and it is poorly drafted. It suggests in the first few words that the flag will change and of course that is not necessarily the case. So the question should never have been drafted in that way and it should never have referred to any suggestion that the flag will change. The last few words are the only ones that are relevant: “which flag would you prefer?”. The first few words are superfluous and should be deleted but the real point is that this constitutes in my mind undue influence and bad practice if not gerrymandering. I say that quite seriously; I am not just trying to make a political point. It is actually a badly drafted question and it should not proceed in that way.New Zealand First of course says that the question should be: “Do you want a flag change?”—period. But we know that that is going to be rejected. Nevertheless even as it is there is a glaring defect in the currently provided for question and that is that the current flag is not there at all amongst those that people can select. It should be there. It should be there for comparison purposes so that people can see four options plus the New Zealand flag. Why not do that? It should do that. And it should be there as a choicealso because without the New Zealand flag being there at all there is no genuine referendum in the first referendum process. It would be easy to simply delete the words “If the New Zealand flag changes” and add the current flag as an option. If you do that of course you do not have to have the second referendum at all. People can look at the four options and the New Zealand flag and say “Well actually I just want the New Zealand flag.” and vote for that. Or if they wish to of course they can vote for one of the others. So I do not understand why we have to go through this convoluted difficult complicated and extremely expensive process of having two referendums when we could do it all under clause 10 in one hit. We could do it fairly. We could do it without any undue influence without any bad practice and in a way that everyone could participate in.The reason why this is such a glaring defect is thataccording to the polls there will be probably more than 70 percent of the population actually who do not want to take part in the first referendum because they do not want any of the four options. So how on earth can they participate in the first flag referendum when it does not offer them any acceptable flag—not one? I believe that the vast majority of people are in that category. The result of this is going to be a very very poor turnout and in addition a huge number of spoiled votes. Is that an efficient and proper way for a country like this to proceed on something as important as choosing a new flag—if indeed that is what we want to do at all? I think that this is a very very badly drafted clause and a badly conceived referendum process.I talk about clause 14 and I particularly refer to subclause (3) which is the subclause that says: “The Governor-General must by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister at least 28 days before the commencement of the voting period for the second flag referendum prescribe an official description of the current New Zealand Flag to be used …”. It says: “prescribe an official description of the current New Zealand Flag”—like we do not know what it is already. I mean for goodness’ sake. We know what the current flag is. Nevertheless there does need to be some description but the description should not be: “This is what it looks like. It’s got the Union Jack there it’s got stars there and so on.” That is not what we want. What we do need in this clause is some information about the history and the heritage of the current flag because contrary to what Nikki Kaye says this flag actually does represent the culture.CARMEL SEPULONI (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am just seeking your advice Mr Chair. We have just been informed that the ACT Party member was not on site when the last vote was cast. I just seek your advice and to check whether or not he had permission or whether the Speaker gave him permission to be off site and whether they were able to cast that vote given he was not on the precinct.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I have the proxy vote for the ACT Party on that issue here with me. I have absolute confidence in the honour of my colleague David Seymour to afford himself leave as appropriate and to be on the premises when he has not. So I am taking personal exception to my word as a whip being taken into question. [Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No I do not need any further advice in respect of this matter. A member can be off site if he has leave and if he has supplied a proxy vote. The vote has already been taken. You cannot call for a personal vote this far down the track as far as I am aware although I am prepared to take advice on that. As far as process would have it the vote has been called. The vote has been taken. A personal vote was not called for at that time and there is not any reason to believe that should there be a personal vote that would affect the outcome of the vote because it was 63 to 58. Even a sole member of a party has the complete right to be off site if he has supplied a proxy.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I think there is one further point. The member certainly has the ability to supply a proxy and be off site if he has leave. I think that is the question that was being asked by my colleague—an assurance from the Government whips that the member who was at the hotel opposite has leave.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well in respect of that the Government whip is not responsible for giving leave to Mr Seymour. But he has a proxy which indicates that Mr Seymour knows what he is doing because he has supplied a proxy in expectation of not being in the Chamber at the time. In any event the call around a personal vote is the expectation that a personal vote would change the outcome of that vote and it clearly would not because the vote was 63 to 58.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Sorry this is just a point of clarification as a new member. In referring to the absence of a specific member would that be out of order in this particular circumstance? [Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I do not need any assistance in respect of that. Obviously the statement was made in respect of seeking clarification around a personal vote and I suggest that we move on with the debate.CARMEL SEPULONI (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am just going to refer to Standing Order 155(4). Basically it says that he needs to have leave. If he is giving his proxy he has to have sought leave otherwise he has to be on the precinct.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The point is that he does not need to have leave from the National Party so you cannot expect the chief Government whip to know whether or not he has leave. The fact is that he has supplied a proxy vote to the National Party as part of an arrangement that they have. I do not see that there is any point in continuing with this level of points of order in respect of this vote.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): The member who has just returned to his seat Denis O’Rourke raises a couple of issues that I thought needed to be addressed. The first is that as he rightly says the current flag is not one of the four options that will be the subject of the first referendum. He is absolutely right about that. I guess that comes down to the very issue that we are debating tonight—that is what the best process is for this New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. And on that point turns quite a bit of the debate because there are some in the Committee who say that it should be a simple run-off yes/no and then there are others in the Committee—and the Government is of this opinion—who say “Yes we do have a yes/no vote in this referendum.” and that comes in the second question once the New Zealand public has had a chance to evaluate and to choose one of the four potential fresh flags that have been submitted by the New Zealand public.My view is that to put in the current flag would certainly muddy the waters on two counts. One of those is that it would not be a fair comparison between the three I presume new alternatives. So that is confusing in itself. And who is to say that people will recognise the New Zealand flag on that voting paper anyway? Because one of the problems with the current flag is that people get confused about it and do not recognise it. Is it the New Zealand flag? Is it the Australian flag? I think that is a valid point. If you have a look at the New Zealand First benches resplendent as they are even those members do not know which flag is the New Zealand flag. The only way that they do know which flag is the New Zealand flag is to have it written on the flags themselves which are decorating the fronts of their boxes. I think that is a point well made by my colleague Jono Naylor.I think that Labour members are pretty confused about this process overall if you do not mind my saying so and that brings me to the contribution of Jacinda Ardern. Excellent though it was it showed a very high level of confusion by Labour over just what its position on this debateis. So if I turn to Labour’s policy which it proudly went to the electorate on at the last election and that still remains on its website we have the New Zealand flag. If you will permit me this is good stuff so I am going to—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): As long as it applies to Part 2.JACQUI DEAN: Yes thank you. I am speaking to Part 2 of the bill and also referencing the contributions of previous speakers.Stuart Nash: What clause?JACQUI DEAN: Clause 18 in Part 2 which describes the two referenda: the first one and the second one. I am touching on that. I will just read out Labour’s policy because it is good stuff and it is worth reading. Labour believes that the time has come for a change and that it is right for the issue to be put to the public. “I would however support the ability of the RSA”—Stuart Nash: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You have yourself said that this is a wide-ranging debate etc. but clause 18 which the member has referred to never mentions Labour Party policy in any way shape or form.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I take the member’s point that it is fairly tenuous. I must say that this is probably about the sixth time that I have heard Labour Party policyread outin the course of this debate. I would urge the member to speak to Part 2.JACQUI DEAN: Thank you for your advice Mr Chair. I do appreciate it. I am referring generally to clause 19 “Who may vote”; clause 20 “Electoral systems for referendums”; and clause 21 but perhaps not touching on clause 22 which is around voting papers which of course is the method of the referendum. So I am speaking directly to the referendum here.I will just finish off with the Labour Party policy that is still on its website and that does bear reading again because it is still up on the website. What it seems to me and in fact what it did say to the public of New Zealand is that the Labour Party is supporting a referendum on this issue. What Labour members need to stand up and explain to the Committee is if they are—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—CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I was up like a rocket. Thank you Mr Chair—I appreciate this call. It is the quick or the dead around here this evening. Welcome back after a great break.I am here to talk about Part 2—provisions relating to the referendum—and specifically on clauses 10 11 13 and if I have got time I might even get to clause 20. I would just like to start by talking about Jacqui Dean who made some pretty bold statements around the New Zealand flag versus the Australian flag. I have to say that New Zealand did have its flag before Australia but if the Australians want to change their flag because they are getting confused with which is their flag and where it sits then let them change it. It sounds likely that they have got more support in their country for breaking away and becoming a republic than we have here in New Zealand at this current stage.Clause 10 talks about the subject of referendums. We are talking about Supplementary Order Paper 102 which I think in light of what is going on here today New Zealand First will find itself supporting. The simple fact is that it says in Supplementary Order Paper 102 that 50 percent of electors must return votes. If they do not return those votes then the second referendum will be null and void. I think that is going to be a very strong indication for this Government particularly from New Zealanders suggesting that they do not actually want this referendum. The money would certainly be better spent elsewhere in our communities than just for the sake given on having that second referendum at the cost of some $7 million to $9 million.We move on to clause 11 which is about the appointment of dates for the referendum. Just quickly it is talking about getting this bill through quite quickly so that the Government can be given 90 days for the referendum to take place. After that first referendum there is another 90 days until the second referendum can take place which would probably make it around about January or February before we could actually get it under way and implement things in relation to this bill.I think the timing of this is absolutely pertinent. When we are talking about the 100-year commemorations of the landing at Gallipoli—and we have got of course the World War I commemorations—the timing of this let alone the fact that New Zealand First strongly opposes this referendum being held in the first place is absolutely inappropriate. So we would question that and its part in that regard.I would now like to talk about clause 13 “Alternative flag designs”. I find it difficult to come to the conclusion that a small group of members from this Committee can sit around the table and consider the 10000-odd flags that have been put before them—and clearly there are a few there that you can just look at in a second and put aside—and whittle that number down to just four. That to me is undemocratic in itself—that you are allowing a select small group of elected members to justify their reasoning for putting forward what they think is the right design.We heard from the Prime Minister today about the things that he holds as reference points—the silver fern; it is on this and it is on that. Well that is just his opinion. When you have a very small group of people making a decision for a very large group of people I have some concern with that.It does bring me to this fantastic competition that Gareth Morgan recently held. I do not necessarily think that this flag that I am holding up is a particularly great flag option but I do have to ask the question whether Gareth Morgan is a New Zealand First supporter because it does look like Labour on the left National on the right and of course New Zealand First coming right up the middle and I do quite like that idea. I cannot take that flag seriously in all seriousness. I am not trying to make a mockery of this process but the reality is that we are going to get some weird and wonderful designs out there and who is to say that we have the choice as members of Parliament to make that decision for the wider community. I just want to touch again very strongly on Supplementary Order Paper 102 which would stop the second referendum if we do not have 50 percent or more votes returned that are not ruined.We now turn the page and we are on to clause 20 “Electoral systems for referendums”. The first referendum is conducted in accordance with the preferential voting system that would of course allow the voters—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Stuart Nash.Grant Robertson: Good choice.STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Thank you very much Mr Robertson. In the Committee stage of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill I am quite keen to talk to Subpart 1 of Part 2 “Referendums on New Zealand flag”. I agree with one of the earlier speakers when we talked about schedule 1 the voting paper for the first flag referendum and the question asked: “If the New Zealand flag changes which would you prefer?”. I actually think this is quite counter-intuitive. Even the regulatory impact statement says when it talks about this option: “Voters are unable to express a preference for the current flag in the first referendum. This is potentially confusing for voters and may also risk engagement.” So what we have got here is a question that risks voters’ disengagement with the process where the purpose of the bill talks about engaging voters. It is quite counterintuitive.Hon Nanaia Mahuta: That doesn’t make sense.STUART NASH: It does not. It is like asking the question: “If you don’t want the All Blacks to win the Rugby World Cup who would you prefer to win?”. I mean we all want the All Blacks to win the Rugby World Cup so the question is quite redundant.This brings me to Jacinda Ardern’s Supplementary Order Paper 102. I will distil this down to Part 2 clause 14(1)(a)—this is “Voting paper in second flag referendum” where it talks about the alternative flag design that is successful in the first referendum. What defines “success”? What Jacinda has put forward is a definition of “success” that would allow at least 50 percent of New Zealanders to have a say in what is happening. But what we have got here means that we could potentially end up with a definition of “success” where around 15 percent of eligible voters make a decision that goes on to the second referendum. I do not know how many people are going to vote in this referendum; we never know these things. But what we do know is that the turnout in a postal vote is usually a lot lower than it is when you have to go to a polling station. In fact the regulatory impact statement also highlighted this. The regulatory impact statement actually said that the best time to have this referendum is when you are having a general election because you turn up you tick it and away you go. But obviously the Government and the Prime Minister decided against that option.We could end up in quite a weird way with a flag chosen by four people. We have got a flag panel at the moment and with all due respect to Clayton Mitchell the last speaker he actually got this a little wrong. The people who determine the final four designs are those people on the flag committee. They include people like Rod Drury. Rod is an exceptionally good businessman; I do not know about his design skills. You have got Julie Christie who made The GC heaven help us. Again she is very successful but I am not too sure what her credentials are around flag design or any sort of design for that matter. So what we could end up with is four people making a final decision on the flag that goes through. How we come to this is that they have got to choose four flags that go into the first referendum and with 12 people on the panel—if it goes for preferential voting like a majority—you could end up with only four people choosing the flag that ends up going through to the choice between the current New Zealand flag and the final flag.But again let us take it back to how many people here may end up voting and therefore the definition of “success”. At the last general election there were around about 2.4 million voters who voted which is not high but it is about standard and it is what we have come to expect in this day and age. In local body elections where it is a postal vote you are really lucky if you get 50 percent of people voting. In fact that is quite high. In Napier for example where there was a very very strong local issue we got about 50 percent voting and that was considered by all and sundry as a high percentage for a postal vote. So let us assume that we get 50 percent of people voting in this first referendum. It is preferential voting as outlined in clause 20 which talks about the electoral systems for the referendums. Clause 20(1) states that it is the preferential voting electoral system for the first referendum. We could end up with let us say 700000 people voting and because it is preferential voting we may end up with in fact about 30 percent of those who voted voting for the successful flag as their first preference. Again we end up with about 350000 Kiwis determining the final vote that goes through so one-tenth of those who are eligible to vote may end up making that decision. I know and I understand that there is going to be a whole lot of advertising on this and as Jacinda Ardern pointed out there is no spending cap so someone like Gareth Morgan or perhaps—and I do not mean to cast aspersions on anyone’s character in way shape or form—those on the voting panel for example and there are some who are incredibly wealthy may want their first preference to be the flag that goes through to the final referendum.JONO NAYLOR (National): It has been a really interesting debate as we have got into Part 2. I was actually quite amazed that the members opposite wanted to shut down any mention of the Labour Party policy. I thought that they would have been really keen for their policy to be out there in the public domain but anyway I will not go there because I know that for whatever reason they do not want their policy out there.I do just want to get into Supplementary Order Paper 102 which has been put forward with a new clause 10A which talks about there needing to be a 50 percent return of valid votes. I have a bit of an issue with that. The previous speaker Stuart Nash talked a little bit about local government elections. If you were going to go with the 50 percent rule almost every council in New Zealand would be invalid. I know that some people do not particularly like local government. I know that a lot of people do not necessarily like local government and they might want to get rid of local government but what you are saying is in fact that no council in New Zealand would be valid unless 50 percent of the population turned out to vote. I was fortunate enough in that I did get over 50 percent of the votes cast when I was in local government and so that was an important part.I think this hang-up with a specific number is quite dangerous territory for us to get into. It would be setting a constitutional precedent because at the moment it is in none of our elections—none of our elections. Whether it be local government or central government whenever elections are held in New Zealand we do not have this minimum threshold for participation. So I think that if we were to put something like this in place it is changing something that is quite significant.What we are saying is that not everybody must participate. We actually do not have compulsory participation in voting in New Zealand. If we want to change the rules and make things compulsory well we can go into that debate at another time. But at the moment we do not have that so we cannot compel people to vote. So if people choose not to participate that is their right. That is a choice that people can choose to make which is not to participate.There has been a little bit of concern I think and people have asked whether if people do not participate in the first vote because they just want to vote No they will be excluded from participating. Well there will be a second referendum and they can participate at that point. But my advice to those people is absolutely to vote in the first referendum because if the way that things turn out is that there is a vote for change in the second referendum I would advise anybody who has got a view about any of the alternatives to actually make that view known.When Mr O’Rourke was talking he said that there was a presumption in the first referendum that there will be a change because I think the wording says “if”—“If the New Zealand flag changes which flag would you prefer?”. The last time that I ever heard anyone use the word “if” there was no presumption that it would occur. So asking “If the New Zealand flag changes which flag would you prefer?” does not exclude anybody. It is not presumptive that it will change; it is simply asking: “If”—if—“in the second referendum there is a vote for change which one of these four would you prefer?”. It is pretty simple it is pretty clear and it is pretty concise.Here we go. In clause 10 we are talking about the subject of the referendums. We have got these two referendums in sequence. I know that I mentioned this when we discussed the last part but it seems that people are still not that clear on how it is that people might be excluded. Everyone will get a vote in both referendums and in the second one anyone who wants to reject it will simply be able to reject it and anyone who just wants to change for whatever reason can vote for it. But if you have a yes/no vote first you will exclude those people who are open to the idea of change but it will depend on what the option is. That is the important reason. That is why we are doing two referendums. That is why we are doing them in this order—so that it includes everybody not just those people who have already made up their minds about what they think about the flag.I just want to touch on a few of the other clauses as we go through Part 2. I have mentioned the need for us to have the alternatives in there. I have mentioned that it is in fact simply a very clear choice.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I was only too sad to hear that contribution from Jono Naylor come to an end. It was very enlightening on the word “if” and his views on local government.But I want to turn my attention to Subpart 4 in Part 2 of this bill particularly around the dispatching of voting papers and the marking and returning of voting papers in clause 21 through to clause 26 and clause 27 through to clause 30 in this the first of my contributions. I want to look at the way in which this referendum is going to be held. We are doing this in a way that is replicating a system of voting where we have evidence—which builds up every 3 years—that it does not work.My colleague Stuart Nash has talked about the very low voter turnout that we get at local government elections. So I want to turn our attention to clause 24 which sets out in this legislation some ways you might be able to vote other than by postal voting. It is reasonably prescriptive about how you might be able to get your voting papers by some other new and fandangled method such as a fax machine or by email or by having it dictated to you if you are on Tokelau Campbell Island or Raoul Island; if you are in the Ross Dependency; if you are on a fishing vessel or a naval vessel; or if you are in some remote location overseas. Also if you have not—Hon Ruth Dyson: Or Christchurch.Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes if you are in Christchurch—would that count? Cook Strait is between these islands so we would have to question that.There is also the situation in subclause (1) where you have not received your voting paper that you might be able to apply to receive it in this way—that you cannot reasonably be expected in all circumstances to make your own arrangements for the voting paper to be forwarded and you have the facility for receiving the voting paper by the method applied for.In the justifications that we have heard from this Government for the ridiculously low turnout at the public meetings against the large level of spending we have heard from the Minister Nikki Kaye that we live in a digital age and that people do not meet in meeting halls any more. She pointed to the large number of online submissions. So why—and I would like to hear from the Minister in the chair Paul Goldsmith his contribution on this—are we persevering with this method of voting? Why is it postal voting a method that we know excludes young people? It has a predominance to exclude many groups which I will go through.Why are we not making allowances for the dispatching of voting papers in more innovative ways? We are not talking about voting in a council election or a community election where if it goes wrong you can change it in 3 years. We are talking about a symbol of nationhood here. We have a Government that likes to talk about itself as nation-building which is going through a tired exercise and a glory mission for the Prime Minister and not thinking about how we truly can have voter input on this.If we have a look at the evidence from local body elections about where these voting papers are going to be dispatched by the methods that are described in this piece of legislation we already know there are groups that are not going to turn out. We know that if people are young they are unlikely to turn out because the evidence points there. I would like to see the Minister make a call and hear him talk about what plans the Government has and what there is in this legislation to ensure that we are engaging young people—young people whose symbol of nationhood this will be if this referendum is successful for a very long time to come.I would also like to point to the low voter turnout we have in local body elections—well in all elections but particularly in local body elections—in low socio-economic areas. One of the reasons is actually New Zealand Post has withdrawn postboxes from a large number of those suburbs. It cites vandalism as the reason. The research has pointed to the fact that it is actually much harder to vote in these suburbs because there simply are not ways to return the voting papers in communities and neighbourhoods where people are often quite transport poor and they rely on being able to do things locally.What we also know is that new subdivisions that spring up do not necessarily have postboxes. Actually as a member of Parliament in the west of Christchurch where a large number of subdivisions are springing up I spend an inordinate amount of time trying to get New Zealand Post to put postboxes into these new subdivisions so people do have that facility. This all goes to the fact that we are putting in place—Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):Tēnā koe e te Heamana. I first tried to get the call on this legislation at I think around 4 o’clock so thank you very much for choosing me at last Mr Chairman. It is a great pleasure to speak to Part 2 of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. It is Māori Language Week as we all know and I think it has been one of the better weeks for celebrating Māori language that we have had in this Parliament. There have been a lot of really excellent contributions. So I will acknowledge “Wīremu Pākehā” whose name is on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill but I have also heard the bill described during the debate—not yet on Part 2 but now to be on Part 2—as the kaupapa whakapihapiha in the name of “Hone Kī” and that is spelt K-i not Key which means of course the vanity project of the Prime Minister.This part Part 2 is very wide ranging. It goes from clause 10 right through to clause 66A and as you indicated earlier Mr Chairperson it covers the processing of the referendums ranging from the issuing of ballot papers the types—it obviously specifies the subject consistent with what we have discussed earlier in Part 1—right through to the appointment of officers. There are many questions for me that have been raised during this debate already and I would be very appreciative if the Minister who is currently in the chair Todd McClay could make an effort to get some information from his officials and pass it on to the Committee of the whole House particularly for the benefit of those of us who were not sitting on the Justice and Electoral Committee.I am really interested as to why we seem to have brand new provisions in this part relating to issues that have arisen in numerous other voting procedures. So we have the new way of appointing officials; we have a different voting period; and we have obviously the specificity for the second flag referendum as opposed to the first flag referendum. That is understandable because we have not had a flag referendum before but why do we have for example the new dispatching provisions of voting papers? Why do we have this extraordinary situation where the only way that you can use this modern fax machine to get your voting paper or have it emailed to you is if you happen to be “on Tokelau Campbell Island or Raoul Island; or (ii) in the Ross Dependency; or (iii) on a fishing vessel or naval vessel; or (iv) in some remote location overseas;”? What is that about? We have computers and we have fax machines in the South Island and I would really appreciate it if we could be considered as part of this too.My point is—and the Minister who is now in the chair Michael Woodhouse may wish to pick this up get some advice from his officials and relay—are these provisions consistent with other provisions in electoral legislation; and if so why are they duplicated in this which is not consistent with best practice in drafting legislation? If they are not the same as we have and if we do not have the same dispatching of voting paper provisions and we do not have the same criteria for when people are able to get papers emailed or faxed or dictated to them why is that the case?Exactly the same question applies in terms of advertising. I was very surprised to see that there appears to be no limit on the ability of people to promote a particular favourite in this. We have been very rigorous in New Zealand in ensuring that money does not buy votes. It is quite fundamental. We know that more exposure able to be generated only by more money or by access to the media is likely to generate a familiarity that will then translate into votes. So why do we not have in this legislation any advertising curtailment or any limit on the amount of money that can be spent? Not only is there no limit on that during the period leading into the referendum but what about when the panel of 12 people I think it is who have been so busy spending taxpayers’ money having meetings all around the country—what about when they choose their top four flags? What ability are they going to have to promote those?GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Thank you very much Mr Chairman and I am quite sure we will come back to my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson who has a number of important matters to raise under Part 2 of this bill.I want to raise two matters in this first call on this both of which eventually find their way to schedule 1 which we are considering under Part 2 of the bill around the voting papers. But I want to first talk about how the voting papers will make it to electors or to voters in these referenda. As other colleagues have mentioned this is as the Government tells us a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. I think that is challengeable in some ways but if we just for a moment accept the Government’s rhetoric that we are talking about a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the flag surely we should be coming to the House to debate under Part 2 the use of the best way in which we could engage New Zealanders in this vote. I mean I have a personal view which I doubt is shared by all of my colleagues that this is actually the kind of referendum that 16 and 17-year-olds should be participating in potentially because I actually believe that we are talking about something with such long-lasting consequences that actually we should be looking at extending the franchise to the greatest number of people.That was not something picked up during the discussion but when we actually look at the way in which ballot papers will be distributed we have a sorry lack of imagination from the Government in terms of how it will get material out in particular the fact that it is relying on two or three main ways of ballot papers returning. The first of those is obviously the postal vote. I think everyone in this Committee knows that postal services are declining—be it in terms of the number of days of delivery of postal services or be it the positioning of postboxes both of which are declining. In my own electorate here I am currently in discussions with New Zealand Post about the loss of postal services in a number of parts of my community and here we have in Part 2 a piece of legislation that anchors itself on the postal service and getting things back through that way. But it is all right because the Government has got a solution. It has discovered a thing called the fax machine and that is apparently going to be what will rescue this referendum from its possible low turnout! There is an enormous amount of time in Part 2 devoted to how the fax machine will be used to return ballot papers. I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that most organisations and places that people who might want to return their ballot papers would go to do not have fax machines any longer. They actually do not have them.Dr Megan Woods: No!GRANT ROBERTSON: I know it is tragic. I know that—Dr Megan Woods: Is this the future?GRANT ROBERTSON: This is the future.Hon Trevor Mallard: I’ve got one—I’ve got one but it hasn’t been attached for 4 years.GRANT ROBERTSON: It comes as no surprise to me to learn that the Hon Trevor Mallard is in possession of a fax machine. It sits very well alongside his fondue set and VHS recorder that he also has at his house. But most New Zealanders will find that they will struggle to find a fax machine.Hon Trevor Mallard: What’s wrong with a fondue set?GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right. Let us not go any further on this Mr Mallard or I will start talking about fondue sets and key parties in the 1970s and we do not need that.So we have here in Part 2 the idea that the fax machine is the next best thing alongside the return of the ballot papers. This is a sad indictment and unfortunately will lead to the very problem that Jono Naylor accidentally revealed when he gave his speech earlier on which is that the Government knows it is heading towards a turnout of under 50 percent for this referendum because Mr Naylor stood up and said—Denis O’Rourke: Under 25.GRANT ROBERTSON: Well indeed—under 25 Denis O’Rourke says and that is quite possible as well because Jono Naylor a man with experience of poor turnouts in local body elections stood up and told us that that is what you get with these things. Well that is not good enough. That is not good enough for a referendum of this type.But as I said I want to move on to the question of the actual ballot papers themselves that will be released. I want to ask a question of the Minister in the chair to get absolutely clear and that is the question of the randomisation of the ballot paper.Hon Member: Oh good question.GRANT ROBERTSON: Thank you. In clause 13(4) we know that for the first referendum it says: “For the purposes of subsection (3) the Electoral Commission must arrange the alternative flag designs on the voting paper in random order.” This is repeated for the second referendum in clause 14(2): “For the purposes of subsection (1) the Electoral Commission must arrange the 2 options on the voting paper in random order.” What I want clarification on from the Minister in the chair is: is random order the same as a unique order on each ballot paper? So to explain it is possible in schedule 1 when we view the voting paper for the first flag referendum to see the four options put out. Is what we are saying here in this bill that they will simply be not necessarily A B C and D but D B C and A or will it be on each ballot paper that they will be uniquely random? This is actually a very important point because there is a lot of international research that would tell you that the order in these situations is very important. In one British study we are told that if you are first you are twice as likely as the second position on a ballot paper to be voted for.Hon Trevor Mallard: Didn’t work for Chris Bishop.GRANT ROBERTSON: No it did not Mr Mallard and we will make sure that gets in Hansard for you there. So that is good. To have the four in random order is not actually enough. It needs to be uniquely random.But that is only the first issue that I have with this. Obviously in the second referendum we have got two options and similarly the question would be raised for that. What concerns me about the ballot paper for the first referendum contained in schedule 1 is that we run into that question that is—I mean I wonder whether anybody who is watching tonight can see this bill in my hand. They probably will not be able to and they do not do close-ups onParliament TV but they would see that in extremely small writing to the left of the options it says—says he looking over his glasses—“Write number(s) here”. I can already see the beginning of the problem.Hon Ruth Dyson: Sorry where are you at? What page?GRANT ROBERTSON: Sorry Schedule 1 of the bill. I can already see the beginning of problems here of attaching to options A B C and D numbers 1 2 3 and 4—whether or not people will be able to sufficiently understand the question they have been asked. So let us read the question they have been asked: “If the New Zealand flag changes which flag would you prefer?”. The answer to that question under this ballot paper is four options that you have to rank. You do not have to put that in obviously but you will be presented with four. The question is actually not what is then done. If you are a person who thinks visually rather than somebody who thinks in terms of words you are actually getting two different instructions. You are being asked which flag you prefer a singular and then you have four boxes that you are being asked to fill numbers in on. I think there is a risk that Mr O’Rourke’s 25 percent turnout could turn into a 25 percent turnout and then half of the ballot papers being spoiled or invalid because people have actually failed to understand exactly what it is they are being asked.This of course brings us back to the very point of why we are doing the referenda in this order why we are having the conversation this way because New Zealanders are going to have a ballot paper placed in front of them. If they have got decent eyesight they will be able to work out that they have to write some numbers in the boxes underneath the flags. But actually they may well think they are answering a question that is: which flag would you prefer? I suspect there will be a great deal of ballot paper spoiling that goes on. There are instructions of course and I do need to point out that the ballot paper says that there will be instructions above. I think we all know from other electoral processes that it does not matter how many instructions you put on a ballot paper or above a ballot paper like this people will continue to make mistakes. Unfortunately I do not think the voting paper for the first referendum is clear in terms of what is being asked of New Zealanders.So on those two points on Part 2 I would like a response from the Minister just to clarify for us whether or not there is going to be a unique random ballot paper—each ballot paper will be uniquely random. If that is not the case I think we have a significant problem. If it is the case then he can at least provide some reassurance to us. But I also think it is time for a Minister to get on their feet and explain to us why they are locked with Mr Mallard somewhere in the 1970s asking New Zealanders to fax their ballot papers back.Hon Ruth Dyson: I take offence on behalf of Trevor.GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right. Ruth Dyson takes offence on behalf of the 1970s but I say that we are now in the 21st century. It is now time for us to have a modern election.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I wanted to talk about clauses 14 and 27 and schedule 2. First of all regarding clause 14 in my previous speech I referred to subclause (3) in which there is a prescription for an official description of the current New Zealand flag and I was saying that it actually needs a lot more than that. It needs information for people—especially young people but all people—on the history and heritage of the current flag. I think it should be explained to people that it is not just by coincidence that we have this flag. It was not just something somebody dreamed up because it looked nice. It actually has a lot of history and heritage with it.It has components. First of all there is the Union Jack. A lot of people do not even know what the Union Jack is that it is actually three other flags put together: St Patrick’s flag a red diagonal on a white background for Ireland; the English St George’s flag an upright red cross on a white background; and the Scottish flag St Andrew’s flag a white diagonal on a blue background. A lot of people do not even know that but also they do not know why there are four stars on a blue background—the Pacific-blue background and the four stars of the Southern Cross representing the Māori navigators who first discovered New Zealand for the human race. All of that heritage should also be explained because it is important. A flag does need to represent what a country is and not be just a pretty design.I also wanted to speak about clause 27 because that refers to the method of voting. Clause 27(1)(a) says that an elector “must mark the voting paper by expressing a first preference for 1 option;” and in paragraph (b) may express other preferences as well. But nowhere is it possible for anyone to express no preference for any of the four options. People simply do not get that choice and they should. The point I am making is that there should be provision for people to say “I don’t want any of these four flags.” and for that to be recorded and for that to be made public because that is actually important. I think that it is very important and that it should say that. It is a real shame that it does not.In any event and I agree with Mr Robertson on this a lot of people are going to make a mess of that particular first referendum ballot because it is not clear what people should say. So some people will also wrongly believe that even if they do not want any of those four preferences they must choose one. Some people will think that and they will wrongly choose one when they need not do so. So I think there is a real problem with understanding as far as the first ballot is concerned.Referring to the second referendum ballot which is in schedule 2 of the bill the question there is: “What is your choice for the New Zealand flag?”. There is an “Option A” and an “Option B” one of which is the current New Zealand flag and the other the alternative chosen as a result of the first referendum.I think this question is the wrong question. It should say for example “Do you want to retain the current New Zealand flag or do you want to have the alternative flag shown?” because that is actually the real choice. It is not just a choice between designs or between “Option A” and “Option B”; it is actually a choice between retaining the current flag or not and it refers back to what I was saying before about the fact that the current flag has with it a lot of heritage and a lot of history. It represents a partnership between what was the British heritage of New Zealand—the British legal system the Westminster style of Government the English language and so on—and the Pacific and Māori culture. That partnership is also contained of course as we all know in the Treaty of Waitangi.So the flag actually does represent New Zealand in terms of that bicultural culture and history. OK I admit also and Nikki Kaye made the point that it is also a multicultural country. But the fundamental culture is that partnership and that is what that flag represents. That is not reflected in the voting paper for the second flag referendum as set out in schedule 2; I believe that to be accurate it should.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): I would like to talk to clause 37 which is “Procedure after close of voting period”. It says: “As soon as practicable after 7 pm on the last day of the voting period the Returning Officer must—(a) in the case of the first flag referendum count in the manner described in Schedule 4 the votes received for each option …”.Before I turn to schedule 4 I would just like to ponder the incredible contribution from Jacqui Dean—an incredibly ridiculous contribution I believe from Jacqui Dean—who said that we should not have five options in schedule 1 the fifth option being the New Zealand flag because we may get it confused with other flags. She does not think New Zealanders are intelligent enough to look and think: “Option A—oh that is an alternative design; option B is an alternative design; option C is an alternative design; option D is an alternative design; option E—oh that is the New Zealand flag.” It is too hard to recognise that there.So let us turn to schedule 4 instead and the method of counting votes. If she thinks New Zealanders are too simple to recognise the New Zealand flag out of five options let us turn to the method of counting votes in schedule 4. It says: “Votes are counted by recognising preferences as provided for in Part 2 of this schedule and by performing the steps in clause 3 to 9 until an option is successful.” Here is step 1: “Determine the absolute majority of votes using the following formula: m = (v – vnt) ÷ 2”. Look if New Zealanders are incapable of recognising the New Zealand flag out of five options put to us how on earth are we going to be able to understand step 1 in the method of counting votes?Let me explain a bit further. The key states: “m is the absolute majority of votes and if m is not a whole number it is rounded up to the next whole number”. How can we have a number of votes that is not a whole number? Are we going to have 1365000.2 votes cast? It is absolute nonsense that we will not have a whole number in terms of the numbers of people voting. Also “v is the number of voting papers” and “vnt is the total number of non-transferable votes.” Clause 4 states: “An option is successful if the number of first preference votes equals or exceeds the absolute majority of votes.” I am glad that is really clear for all of New Zealand to understand. As a former teacher I say that it goes to prove the rule that you do not actually have to know what you are teaching you just have to teach it because I certainly do not understand that formula there. That was step 1 that we went through.Step 2 states: “If no option is successful the option with the fewest first preference votes is excluded.” OK that means that the one with the least votes is discounted. That is fine. Clause 6 states: “For each voting paper on which the option excluded under clause 5 is the first preference redistribute that vote to the option that is the next preference on that voting paper.” I am sure the people of Tai Tokerau really understand this! They are really going to understand the process that we are going to go through to select the flag how they are going to vote and how the counting is done with the clarity of these instructions bearing in mind the extraordinary contribution from Jacqui Dean that New Zealanders are incapable of distinguishing the New Zealand flag from a list of five flags.Where is she the MP for? I did not realise we had an electorate called la-la land but she is certainly the MP for la-la land if she does not trust New Zealanders to be able to distinguish the New Zealand flag out of a list of five flags. I mean it is not like they have to read the description of the flags; pictures are going to be there. She is probably talking about herself—that she will not be able to recognise the New Zealand flag out of five pictures.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ngā mihi ki a koutou katoa. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to this Committee stage debate on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I particularly want to focus on clause 10 and clause 13 in Part 2 and I want to start by commending my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard who managed to get 43000 people to sign a petition to say that they wanted a yes/no vote. It is interesting because the flag consideration process got only 700 people along to the public consultations which represents 1.6 percent of the people who engaged in the Hon Trevor Mallard’s process. So I think that he has done a great service to democracy because he has got New Zealanders to engage in this process.In terms of clause 10 I want to congratulate my colleague Jacinda Ardern because I 100 percent support her Supplementary Order Paper 102 which wants to insert new clause 10A which reads: “the second flag referendum may take place only if more than 50% of electors return a valid voting paper to the Returning Officer in the first flag referendum.” Why do I think that a simple majority actually is sufficient? Because a simple majority represents that the majority of electors in our democracy actually agree with the proposition that in fact our flag should change. Why do I think that is incredibly important? Because I fundamentally believe in democracy and a democratic principle actually is about majority rules. What this Supplementary Order Paper ensures is that the voice of the majority of New Zealanders is more than taken into consideration but actually guarantees the passage of this piece of legislation.In fact if we were to do that we would not be the only country in the world to do that because in places like Armenia they actually require 50 percent of registered voters’ support for any constitutional change. In the Cayman Islands it is the same process—more than 50 percent of registered voters have to vote for any constitutional change. In Hungary they are a little bit different because they say that half of the people who are registered to vote have to vote and then half of those who have voted have to vote in favour of whatever particular constitutional question is at hand. Ireland for example—theirs is not quite a majority but they require 33.3 percent of voters who are registered to vote in favour of a particular proposition. In Sri Lanka you have to have a turnout of more than 66.7 percent and of those a third of all possible voters have to support any constitutional amendments. In Zambia there is a 50 percent turnout requirement and of those 50 percent have to approve of any constitutional change. In Fiji one of our Pacific cousins they require a 75 percent approval. Essentially what I am trying to do is to highlight that what my colleague Jacinda Ardern is doing is actually ingraining the principle of majority rules which is a fundamental principle of democracy in this piece of legislation for any constitutional change to happen.I also want to speak to clause 13 which is about alternative flag designs. It has been really interesting reading some of the media commentary about the participation in this flag referendum bill. We have had over 10293 flags submitted to the process of which the Flag Consideration Panel is now trying to ascertain four flags that will go into this referendum. But the interesting thing I want to highlight is that of those 25 percent are actually from people living overseas so they are not New Zealanders. They have got no vested interest in our country. They actually do not live here and so you kind of have to question what the legitimacy of their entry is in this process. Because 25 percent of people living overseas actually to me just reeks of them participating in an art competition—that New Zealand basically has had this big art competition and people overseas now think that actually they can decide what the identity of our country is. Is that valid? And actually are all those flags going to be considered by this Flag Consideration Panel? Because I would have thought that they should not be because if people have just put in a design and actually it is not about—STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I would like to talk about clause 27 and this is about the method of voting. There is a little bit of confusion—I apologise; I am just a simple boy from the regions so hopefully someone will be able to enlighten me.What it says in “Method of voting” clause 27(1)(a) this is talking about the first flag referendum is: “An elector voting in the first flag referendum—(a) must”—the word “must” is important because in legislation we have the word “must” which compels someone and we have the word “may” which does not compel but recommends “mark the voting paper by expressing a first preference for 1 option;”. OK?So you have got to put a “1” for example—1 2 3 4. It sets it out in schedule 1 how this is supposed to be.I suppose my concern about this is that in the second referendumclause 27(2) it talks about “[you] must mark the voting”—you “must”; again it has used the word “must”—“paper with a tick in the circle …”.Where this breeds a little bit of confusion—again I would like the Minister in the chair Michael Woodhouse to enlighten me on this—is if for example in that first referendum a voter does not put 1 2 3 or 4 or has only one flag design that they would like and they tick that box. Is that valid? Is that vote informal? Or does it still stand if a voter has given a very clear preference for their flag design? Perhaps there should even be a “clause 27(1)(c)” that says for example “If it is obvious that the elector has clearly indicated a preference for only one design this shall be deemed a valid vote.”Again I have the same point around clause 27(2) where it says—again this is the second referendum here where there are only two preferences; so it is the current New Zealand flag and the design that wins out of the first preference—“An elector voting in the second flag referendum must mark the voting paper with a tick in the circle …”.My concern about this is if for example—I am making an assumption here that could be right or might not be—people have partaken in the first referendum where it is a 1 2 3 or 4 and in the second referendum if they put a “1” as opposed to a tick in one of the boxes but it is still very clear that their preference is for one of the options i.e. they have not spoilt the paper in any way then will that vote be informal? Again perhaps there should have been a clause 27(2)(a) where it says: “If it is obvious that the elector has clearly indicated a preference for only one design this shall be deemed a valid vote.”If we go to clause 32 it talks about informal voting papers. This is where I am a little bit confused because as mentioned—I do this a lot; you look at the writing of the legislation because it has to be tight for a reason we all understand that—this is where the words “must” and “may” often change a clause quite substantially in legislation. It says here: “A voting paper is informal if the Returning Officer is satisfied—(a) in the case of the first flag referendum that the voting paper does not clearly indicate the voter’s first preference;”.So to me this says that in that first referendum if a person puts a tick or puts a cross just beside one preference then that vote is valid.However in clause 27(1)(a) that may indicate that that vote is ruled out.I have the same concern for clause 27(2) in the second referendum where it says that the elector must tick the second flag referendum with a tick in a circle. Again we look at informal votes here at clause 32(b) which is “in the case of the second flag referendum that the voting paper does not clearly indicate”—so we are talking about a different issue an informal vote here—“the option for which the elector wished to vote.” I suppose my concern here is that there is the sort of common sense aspect to this. I am assuming that the returning officer will use the pragmatic approach where even though the legislation says in the second referendum that it must be a tick if however the elector has put a cross or put a “1” but it is very very clear what their preference is—JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 102 in the name of Jacinda Ardern to insert new clause 10A be agreed to.Ayes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Part 2 agreed to.Part 3 Miscellaneous provisionsThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members we now move to Part 3. This is debate on clauses 67 to 71 and schedule 5.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can I just ask whether the voting that you have just concluded included voting on schedules 3 and 4; if not when will those votes be taken given that the Chair of the Committee ruled that the debate was including schedule 3 and schedule 4?The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No the schedules are separately identified and they will be voted on after Part 3.Hon RUTH DYSON: We were debating them.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes you were debating them but they are voted on separately and they are voted on after Part 3.Hon RUTH DYSON: Good.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to stand and take a call on Part 3 of the bill. I know that my counterpart Mr Mallard will be very pleased to take a call on this part as well.To date we have had a wide-ranging debate. The substantive parts of this bill are contained in Part 2. It sets out the way that the referendum would be conducted and it also sets out the provisions as to how this referendum would be slightly different from your average referendum. Coming to Part 3 obviously it is a slightly less detailed part of the bill and it includes miscellaneous provisions.It includes amendments to the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981 which sets out the various flags under which we already operate. This was a really interesting part of the discussion during our select committee. Although it was an interesting part of the discussion it is one I would like to give a brief call on for the benefit of my colleagues. Basically what we learnt is that there are a number of emblems under which New Zealand currently operates. There is of course the New Zealand flag as we know it—well as we know it; on that side of the House Jacqui Dean seemed to be of the view that not everyone in New Zealand would be able to identify the New Zealand flag. Obviously she holds slightly less hope for both our education system and the New Zealand public generally.The New Zealand flag as we know it is one of the flags under which we operate but also there is some provision for the 1902 flag already within legislation. I want to make reference to that briefly because I found that fascinating. Section 5A in clause 69(4) of Part 3 states: “(1) The 1902 Flag is recognised as a flag of historical significance to the Realm”—it is not often that we have that terminology in a bill—“Government and people of New Zealand. (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 for a particular purpose.”What is interesting there is that there are not actually many areas in which it is specified that you must use the New Zealand flag. The reason that this is interesting is that the select committee found that if we change the flag there will not necessarily be a requirement in many areas for the new flag to be used. In fact we could arrive at a scenario where we end up with both flags. You are still able to use the old 1902 flag as set out under the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981. You could feasibly still use the old New Zealand flag because under this bill we still would recognise it as a past flag of New Zealand. You could then have a third flag which is obviously the new flag if it were to be voted upon. Of course we would also have the Tino Rangatiratanga flag flown during Waitangi Day as well and in the military often you will see our soldiers wearing the kiwi on their arm. Technically that is five different emblems—five different emblems that we could feasibly have and be able to use by law.That seemed like quite a ridiculous situation but one of the Government’s arguments as to why the RSA should not be upset by this flag referendum was that it could feasibly still fly the old New Zealand flag anyway. New Zealand First could still have its flags on its boxes—great news. I know that you have invested a lot in buying some of those really great House boxes with the flag on it. You would not have to get rid of them—Barbara Stewart: Thank you.JACINDA ARDERN: I have noticed. You would not have to get rid of them. They would still technically be able to be used.On that side of the Chamber they thought that was a lovely elegant solution. On this side of the Chamber we thought that just seemed a bit bizarre. Under that Act we would have as I described the 1902 flag the New Zealand flag and any other flag that you may choose to have. It was really noted that in particular those in the armed forces may use whatever emblem they choose to and it might be the old flag. I think it is a confused situation and I think this referendum only adds to it. Another reason for there to be no change at all is the cost that we are incurring to have this debacle anyway. Thank you.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Mr Chairperson—Jacinda Ardern: What is that?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: This is the point. I know that we have gone beyond clause 24 now but luckily I have been looking very carefully at clause 68 which is “Validation of irregularities” and clause 68 refers back to clause 24. Therefore I thought it would be a good idea for the members who earlier in the debate pleaded that they did not know what a facsimile machine if I found one for them and I brought it here.To be absolutely fair I could be just about accused of trawling through the rubbish to get it. I found this machine in a pile of things that were heading towards the rubbish and had been sitting outside a member’s office for some time. For members around this Chamber who are not aware what a facsimile machine is this is one of them.Hon Ruth Dyson: How does it work?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am not absolutely certain but there are plugs that go into a telephone line. To be absolutely fair this is a modern version because it can also act as a photocopier. It is one of the more modern machines around—Dr Megan Woods: Where do you put the carbon?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No there is no carbon required in this photocopier-facsimile machine. In fact it will work with things that are written on golf ball typewriters as well as the old Imperials which most of us used two fingers for.I am looking at the members. Other than my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson who I know is above 40 I think hardly any other members on the Labour side of this Chamber would have in their working lives been involved in jobs where facsimile machines were still technology that was used.This is what a facsimile machine is and I would like to bet that there are not many people on Raoul Island who use them anymore.Hon Ruth Dyson: What about on ships?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: And of course not on ships. Clearly if you can get through to a ship you can get through by email. If you have got the technology to get there by telephone line—or not a line obviously with a ship—or remotely then these machines can be used.But the interesting thing is that in trying to work out how I could get the facsimile machine into the debate in a proper way it caused me to look very very carefully at clause 67 and in particular clause 68. I want to say that this clause is an outrage. This clause is an absolute outrage. What this clause effectively does especially in 68(3)(d)—under a claim to validate irregularities—is allow the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister “to make such other provision for the case as the Governor-General thinks fit.” I want to ask Denis O’Rourke down there. Remembering that the Governor-General has to act on the advice of the Prime Minister if the Prime Minister says “I do not like the result of the referendum.” is it within the bounds of the Governor-General under 68(3) by dictation of the Prime Minister to override the legislation and to change the result? I know Mr O’Rourke is a lawyer.I just want to ask people to look really really carefully at clause 68(1) and ask what is a fundamental constitutional question and that is whether primary legislation should be overridden by regulation.Chris Bishop: Sounds like a Regs Review issue.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Chris Bishop says yes. Chris Bishop says: “Yes that is a good approach for legislation.” Well I just tend to differ. I tend to differ with Chris Bishop on that. You know all of the constitutional arrangements I have ever understood said that Parliament made the law and that regulation was subservient to that and that regulation—secondary legislation—should not override primary legislation.I ask the Hon Michael Woodhouse the Minister in the chair whether in fact all of clause 68(2)(a) to (e) and 68(3)(a) to (d) has the effect of giving the right to make secondary legislation that would override the provisions of the primary legislation. I just want to ask whether that matter was considered by the Regulations Review Committee because in my view that regulation—Chris Bishop: No.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No it was not. Chris Bishop says it was not. I am pleased that it was not because I would have thought that we would have had a report from—I think David Parker chairs the committee—Chris Bishop: Cunliffe. David Cunliffe.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: David Cunliffe chairs the committee? Right well I am sure David Cunliffe would have seen that that was inappropriate and we would have had a report.One of the questions I have got is what is happening within the processes of the House that the Regulations Review Committee did not look at the regulation-making powers in this bill? You know I am sort of glad Geoffrey Palmer is still alive because if he were dead he would be spinning in his grave. He would be exceptionally angry. I am sure he would be exceptionally angry.Dr Megan Woods: I’m sure he would.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I know. I spent some time with Geoffrey on Sunday. He still attends this Parliament sometimes by mistake and I think it is fair to say that coming to the function celebrating 150 years of Parliament being in Wellington was a mistake for the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer and he slipped away pretty damn quickly. But if he had had on his way out a look at this regulation-making power he would have been absolutely outraged. It is one of the things that we were taught. Geoffrey you know could sometimes be a bit precious. He would sometimes go just a bit far but there was some stuff that he told us when we were backbenchers in the 1980s. He was Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice for much of that time and one of the things that he made absolutely clear to us is that you have primary legislation and secondary legislation which is the regulations and the regulations have to be subservient and you cannot amend the letter of the law passed by this Parliament by passing a regulation—and that is what this purports to do.I just want to say to members who are on the select committee—frankly I am sort of slightly grumpy with some of my own colleagues for not focusing on this.Poto Williams: You’re focusing on the fax machine.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: What? No I am not focusing on the fax machine. I know that members may want to trip on to the clause past clause 68 and may want to focus on that one but clause 68 “Validation of irregularities” is one that I think is very important. Remember that the heading of a clause is not part of the law. The heading of the clause is something that is not interpreted when it comes to the court. It is the substance. It is the lighter-coloured words in subclauses (1) (2) and (3) those words together that are the law we are currently passing. The heading is something that is not interpreted by the courts.So although the heading does say “Validation of irregularities” actually the bits that we need to look at are the bits that say that “the Governor-General may by Order in Council do any of the things described in subsection (3).” and more important as it says in subclause (3)(b) “validate anything done before or after the time required;”. Validate anything that is done? Validate anything that is done before or after the time required? Does that mean that if there is a package of votes that occur well outside the period then that is—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.JONO NAYLOR (National): I am going to rise to take just a short call on this particular part of this bill. I thought it was kind of interesting how far-ranging we have got on what is a reasonably narrow part of the bill. I thought for a while there that when Mr Mallard turned up with his fax machine that he was going to pull out a telex machine. He was diving so far back into people’s memories. But I do have to say that I thought it was a bit of a sad reflection when a member has to really drill through this part of the bill to find an excuse to bring a fax machine into Parliament. I thought that was a really long bow to draw but anyway it happened and it is over.I specifically want to address the issue of the status of the 1902 flag. I think it is pretty clear that the purpose of clause 69—I am referring to the 1902 flag—is to ensure that people for whom this flag is significant will still have the opportunity to fly it. There has been a lot of talk throughout this debate for example about our returned services associations and the fact that many of them will have fought under this flag. That is a very valid thing for them to bring up. It does not necessarily mean that because somebody fought under that flag that therefore it must always be for ever the New Zealand flag but there will be occasions when they may want to fly it above the RSA or when it might be appropriate even for that flag to be flown on Anzac Day or on other commemorative occasions as well—Armistice Day or times like that.There is a precedent for this because there are certain times of the year when other flags are flown or can be flown from public structures. For example on Waitangi Day now it is considered appropriate if people choose alongside the New Zealand flag to fly the Tino Rangatiratanga flag. People have come to accept that that is an appropriate cultural thing to do. It is something that people have seen and certainly Government departments and the like have been given the opportunity to fly that in public places.So I think it is really important that we do not lose the historical significance of the 1902 flag if we do have a change of flag at some point in time. If there is a change of flag this provision within this part of the bill will ensure that the 1902 flag still has a significant and special place within New Zealand’s history. There will be the opportunity for people if they so choose to fly the flag where they see fit. I think it is a great concession to those people who have an attachment to the current New Zealand flag that they do not want to relinquish. What we are doing if the flag is changed to a new flag is giving them the opportunity to hold on to those things.I said this would be a short contribution so I want to leave it right there. Thank you for listening.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—TIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): I apologise to the member Stuart Nash because I was literally making my way to my desk. I seek leave to correct a vote that was cast earlier this evening in good faith but in error.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.TIM MACINDOE: I just want to assure the Committee that it was genuinely in error and that the proxy form was held but there should not have been a vote cast on behalf of the ACT Party at approximately 12 minutes to 8 in support of Part 1 of this bill.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): So Part 1—we will just correct the record. So for Part 1 on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill—the Ayes are 62 and the Noes are 58. So Part 1 did stand part.STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I just want to make a couple of comments on some of the words that Jono Naylor talked about. The great difference between any other flag that a Kiwi wishes to fly and the 1902 flag is that the 1902 flagis enshrined in legislation as an appropriate flagfor any New Zealander to fly other than a Government department. There are whole lot of Kiwis up and down this country who have flagpoles. I am very lucky to have a 100-year-old kauriflagpole for example and when the in-laws are coming I fly the skull and crossbones. That does not mean that it has to be codified in legislation but it is just one of those things we do; it is a little bit funny. When the All Blacks are playing you fly the All Blacks flag etc. etc.What this bill does I believe is create a level of confusion that did not exist beforehand and does not need to exist now. Let me give you an example. One of the reasons that the Prime Minister continually talks about the need to change theflagis the confusion between the New Zealand flag and the Australian flag. I personally do not believe there is any confusion but the Prime Minister even in question time today I think talked about a level of confusion. Well imagine the confusion when we have in our legislation the right to fly the 1902 flag—or we should actually call it the New Zealand flag because it is still a New Zealand flag—because it is set down in legislation. We are going to literally have two official flags: the 1902 flag—which I believe will actually end up being the New Zealand flag; but if by some point of chance there is a change—and the new design. That is going to create a level of confusion that I think is unpalatable and the confusion that may exist at the moment for some between the New Zealand and the Australian flags will pale into insignificance.I would also like to talk about clause 69(8) which talks about replacing sections 10(2) and 10(3) of the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981with this: “(2) The Minister may either in any notice issued under subsection (1) or otherwise …”. What does “or otherwise” actually mean? Is there a definition for “or otherwise”? What we have here is that it specifies under subsection (1)—so we know what the means because we can automatically go to subsection (1)—but then we have the complete catch-all “or otherwise”.If there was an open-ended ability for a Minister to do whatever they want—this amendment is talking about the general information and guidance and rules of conduct and etiquette that must be followed when flying the flag on a building. What it says is there is subsection (1) “or otherwise” which basically means that the Minister can make up at his or her discretion any rules as they see fit. But where it gets a little bit confusing is when you then go down to new section 10(4) which is just below that which says: “A notice or other prescription”—which I assume fits in the “or otherwise” section—“made under subsection (1) or rules set out under subsection (2)”. So that is in direct conflict with the thing above it which gives an open-ended ability to—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress.TIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): Apologies but in light of the leave that I sought previously I should have also sought leave to correct the closure motion and I now seek leave to do that.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The record will be changed. This is the closure motion on Part 1. The Ayes are 62 and the Noes are 58.House resumed.The Chairperson reported progress on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill and no progress on the Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill.Report adopted.