Clendon David: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClendon David: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5453. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.