Mallard Trevor: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5449. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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—