Nash Stuart: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNash Stuart: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5500. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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—