Naylor Jono: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNaylor Jono: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5459. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.