Mallard Trevor: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 13 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5814. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want to start where the Deputy Prime Minister nearly left off and that is with the role of the Prime Minister in this vanity project. I am an old-fashioned parliamentarian and I think the role of the Prime Minister is to stand up in this Parliament and to state his views. I waited through the first reading of this legislation I waited through the second reading of this legislation and I waited through the Committee stage for John Key to get on his feet and to give his views. I was waiting for the Prime Minister to give his views as part of this debate and what did I see? He decided to contribute to this debate in the House by way of Twitter. He got the timing wrong because he did not anticipate Solid Energy but he would not stand up on his hind legs in this Parliament and give his views. For a Prime Minister of a country who has a pet project it shows to me a lack of commitment—Grant Robertson: Thrown Bill under the busHon TREVOR MALLARD: —no I cannot say that—to a parliamentary democracy.I do want to make a few other points. I think what many members do not realise and what John Key certainly does not realise is that this is a very serious matter for a lot of people. It is not just you know “Shall we have five or six bottles of champagne with our dinner at the barbie in Hawaii?”. It is not something like you know “Shall we buy another Mercedes or another Porsche?”. It is a matter that is a symbol of New Zealand and important to a lot of people. I think Twitter does make some pretty good contributions in the area and the one that I saw yesterday that likened changing the flag to an individual getting a tattoo is something that is pretty accurate. It is something that is a serious long-lasting decision and one around which the process should be good and where the timing is also important.Over the last couple of years and the next few years the Government and communities around New Zealand are spending over $100 million commemorating the First World War. The symbol under which New Zealand soldiers fought and died was the New Zealand flag. Their representatives the RSA had some very strong views—one about the change but in particular about the destruction or the possible destruction of that symbol during that period of commemoration. Those representatives of the RSAs around New Zealand were treated disgracefully by the Justice and Electoral Committee which was considering this bill. Ten minutes was given to the national organisationto be heard—10 minutes only. And what happened? Over the 3 weeks of adjournment—3 weeks of adjournment—Jacqui Dean refused to call the committee together to hear the submissions and to give people more time to be heard. Jacqui Dean assisted by Alfred Ngaro Jono Naylor and Chris Bishop denied 747 people who had made an application to be heard by the select committee their ability—[Interruption] Now Jacqui Dean is trying to blame Louise Upston. Sorry I—Jacqui Dean: You forgot about Louise—so mean.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No I do not think she was there on the day I was there. So we will just leave it. The other ones were the nasty ones. They were particularly nasty to the 747 mainly returned servicemen who used the Facebook page circulated by the RSA to put their submission in—Jono Naylor: By the Labour Party.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well yes—the Labour Party helped develop it. That is right. [Interruption] Members opposite laugh at returned soldiers because they used Facebook to put in submissions.Brett Hudson: We’re laughing at Trevor Mallard.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No not via me—directly to the committee Brett Hudson; directly to the committee. They were not allowed to be heard and those members made that decision and that is a disgrace. It is an absolute disgrace that that member went on holiday for 3 weeks instead of convening the select committee during the select committee sitting period.I want to make a few other points—first of all about the cross-party committee. I have said previously that the Labour Party—and I will take responsibility because I gave advice on the matter—made a mistake going into that process. We trusted the National Party members when they said that they would be straightforward and above board. And they were not. There were about three tasks. One of them involved giving advice on the shape of the referendum. At the meeting that considered it every single party other than the National Party said that there should be a yes/no vote at the first referendum. Every single party that was present there was of that view. The shape of the referendum as recommended by the cross-party committee was rejected by the National Government Cabinet and that is a disgrace. The committee put forward a group of fine New Zealanders as a suggested oversight group and what happened? Some of the best people—Hon Bill English: Most of them got through.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Oh most of them got through but a group of them were knocked out and replaced by National Party hacks—people like Julie Christie. Julie Christie was responsible for the part of the programme that spent $2300 getting people to meetings. For every single person who got to a meeting—the part that Julie Christie was in charge of—$2300 was spent to get each individual there. Rod Drury of course was someone who—it is no secret—was agreed on by the wider committee. The online campaign has been fantastic. The work of the chair has been I think highly ethical given the very difficult task that he was given but the confidence in the group was destroyed by the fact that Cabinet rejected the nominations of the cross-party group.People have different views as to whether to vote or whether not to vote in the first referendum. I have heard my leader say that he basically cannot be bothered and that he will consider it later. I actually have a different view. I used to think we should change the flag. I think now is an inappropriate time to do it. I am going to pick the least popular option—the one that I think is most likely to be rejected by the people of New Zealand. I will put that at No. 1 and the one that is most likely to be accepted at No. 4 because I think that is what I can do to reinforce the fact that this is not a time for change.And as a final point we are yet to get from Bill English the cost of the change process if it goes forward and the cost to the Crown. Will it be $100 million $200 million $300 million or $400 million? How much is it going to cost the Crown? How much is it going to cost to change every crest in the country? Every Government crest in the country includes the flag and in the part of the bill that says what the crest is it says “the New Zealand flag.” So all the crests have to be changed and that does not include private sector spending. This bill is a dog. It should be rejected. I know it is not going to be and in a funny way John Key losing is going to be fun.