New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNew Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5571. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]New Zealand Flag Referendums BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 29 July.Part 3 Miscellaneous provisions (continued)The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): When we were last debating this bill the Committee was debating Part 3 and Stuart Nash had the call. He has 20 seconds remaining.Hon Member: Make it good.STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I will make it good because this bill is a very very poor bill. We know this. It has been reiterated. In fact the vast majority of New Zealanders know this. When I speak to New Zealanders in my electorate they say to me: “What about employment? What about job opportunities? What about economic development?”. They ask the question: why is the Government wasting money on a flag referendum when there are—CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am very happy to take my call on this particular bill. I am just turning to Part 3 the part that we are debating. Of course the major issue that the people in my electorate want to know about is why on earth the Government is spending so much money on this referendum at this given time. They simply cannot understand it when there is no appetite for change. Why has the Government not made the decision to firstly test the will of the public towards the need for a change or the desire for a change before it then goes and has another expensive referendum asking people to choose the option they wish to have? The issue here is why we would have a run-off competition to choose the preferred design if it is ultimately going to be voted down in the end anyway. Why bother going through that particular part of the process if it is going to be voted down anyway? That is the question that everybody has been raising with me and I think it is a very legitimate one.I have yet to hear anyone from the Government—anyone from the Government—provide a comprehensive answer.Chris Bishop: Wasn’t it in my speech?CHRIS HIPKINS: No not at all—not at all. We have not had an answer as to why not ask yes or no before asking people which option they would prefer if the answer was yes. There has not been a good answer from the Government on that. It is trying to do everything it possibly can to generate as much interest in the referendum but what is interesting is that the more interest the Government generates in it the more opposed people are becoming to the idea of changing the flag.I think that says everything about where the current Government’s priorities are. It is more interested in talking about the flag than many of the very important issues that face New Zealand at the moment and I think—Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are currently in debate on Part 3 which is a very narrow part of this bill—essentially dealing with regulations and validation of irregularities. The member has had nothing to say yet on either on those topics and I would invite him to either speak to Part 3 or cease his call.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The point of order is well made. I am listening closely.CHRIS HIPKINS: While we are on Part 3 if we turn to the highlighted section 5 as inserted by clause 69 which describes the New Zealand flag I think that this might be a good place for me to address some of the comments that I have been raising. The New Zealand flag is described as “the national flag of New Zealand for general use on land within New Zealand and where appropriate for international purposes overseas; and … is the proper national colours to be worn by all New Zealand Government ships and by such other New Zealand ships as may for the time being be authorised to wear the New Zealand Flag by or under the Ship Registration Act 1992.”One of the reasons that I am interested in that is I made the suggestion at the beginning that if New Zealand were to adopt a new flag why would it not do something similar to what was done with the national anthem and actually have for a period of time two New Zealand flags so that those who wished to continue to fly the existing flag could do so? That is the arrangement that we have in place for the national anthem. We actually have two national anthems in New Zealand. “God Save the Queen” is still ournational anthem. It is very very seldom used in New Zealand but those who wish to use it can still do so. The definitions of the New Zealand flag in this bill make provision for there being only a single flag.I thank my colleague Tim Macindoe for providing me with the opportunity to read that particular section while he raised his point of order because the issue here is why the Government did not allow for the possibility that in fact although there may be some desire on the part of some New Zealanders to have a change of flag the vast bulk of people would prefer to stick with the existingflag. Why did the Government not make provision for that within the legislation? It would actually have been perfectly possible for the Government to make provision for there to be twoflags just as we have two national anthems so that those who are for whatever reason very attached to the currentflag—and I have to say that I am not one of them but I note that the vast bulk of my constituents are. So I ask why the Government would not make provision for people to continue to use thatflag.It may be that there are some occasions when the use of the current flag would be more appropriate than the use of a new flag. I note for example that much of the feedback in this debate is about why we are doing this when we are commemorating the First World War and that in fact people would rather have the existingflag—the flagthat New Zealand soldiers fought under in the First World War—on display at those events. That would be a legitimate reason why potentially we might have a definition that allowed there to be more than one official flag of New Zealand. At those events where it is more appropriate and that are of a commemorative nature it may be more appropriate to have a definition in the bill that allows there to be another official flag which is the existing flageven if New Zealanders voted to change.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): It is a pleasure to speak on what is I guess an important issue but not an important piece of legislation. If that sounds somewhat contradictory I think the fact is that we are putting the cart before the horse here in my view.In speaking on Part 3 “Miscellaneous provisions” including validation of irregularities I will refer to clause 69 which inserts new section 5. It is about the New Zealand flag. The reality here is that we have not yet decided what the flag should be so I am putting before the Committee one of the options that was certainly brought to my attention. If the New Zealand flag is as described here in new section 5—“… the national flag of New Zealand for general use on land …”—then I guess the inclusion of a sea mammal is probably outside it. Although that might seem a little too cute the reality is that the interpretation of this piece of legislation and of this part is really important. It must reflect the objectives I guess of New Zealand having aflag. What it says in paragraph (b) of new section 5(3) is that the New Zealand flag “is the proper national colours to be worn by all New Zealand Government ships and by such other New Zealand ships …”. The point is that the colours that will be chosen for theflagwill end up being the colours that each and every New Zealander should identify with. I am not sure what they should be.I think black is a good start. I will put before you again this quite innovative flag design here. I do not think it is one of the 40 being put up—I have not to be fair gone through and had a detailed look at all 40—but it does cover a few things. For the current National Government I would suggest it is a perfect representation of what is about to happen because we have the whale above the water with the kiwi and the lamb on it about to do a big dive—about to do a big dive—as is this economy taking with it the sheep and the kiwi. It is a perfect representation of the National Government in power because the National Government is taking this economy into a deep deep dive. It is ignoring all the warning signals showing that we are facing recession particularly in dairy for some time and probably longer than even the whale can hold its breath.I will come back to Part 3 here. It is important that there is widespread support for this legislation and all the details included in this bill. I do not think that is the case. I think that what the Government is trying to do here is pass a piece of legislation that does not have the full support of Kiwis and that does not have the support of New Zealanders who are looking forward and who are asking the questions about the colours that should represent us and the flagdesign that should represent us. Indeed if the Government is so determined to go ahead then put up the flag and then come to us with the legislation that may allow us to utilise the flagin the way that should be intended to ensure that if we insist that the national colours as is stated here in Part 3—“proper national colours to be worn by all New Zealand Government ships”. If theflagdesign is not the right one and the Government as it has done in most areas just bulldozes through with that intention we are all lumbered with it as is the navy as are New Zealand ships and as is every part of our economy.This is not a good piece of legislation and Labour is raising concerns that I hope Minister Bill English will get up and answer. I hope he will get up and explain himself as to why the National Government is determined to push ahead with this waste of money come up with a design and a new focus that the vast majority of New Zealanders see as unnecessary and certainly as untimely. We have bigger issues that the Government and this House should be focusing on not just a flag design. Perhaps the Minister can explain to me why we should not put this design up as a design given that it is such a great representation of the National Government as it is at the moment: taking this economy into a deep deep dive that is going to leave a lot of Kiwis drowning—and indeed a lot ofsheep—because they do not have the proper support.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I would like to look at clause 68 “Validation of irregularities”. Clause 68(1) says: “In the circumstances described in subsection (2) the Governor-General may by Order in Council do any of the things described in subsection (3).” That sounds to me like the Governor-General has quite broad scope actually to act and to do a variety of things: to extend the time lines that are included in the legislation and to validate any things that have or have not been done. Basically my reading of this—and again I was not on the Justice and Electoral Committee so if members who were on the select committee could give us a little bit more information about this that would be helpful—is that the Governor-General has quite a lot of scope to be able to do things by Order in Council.I wonder whether one of the circumstances in clause 68(2)(b)—“if anything cannot be done at the time required by or under this Act;”—is if one of the things that cannot be done is for the Government to run a surplus or maybe to get the country’s debt below $101 billion which might actually be a step in the right direction towards being the time when you would spend $26 million on a flag referendum. If that were not to happen I wonder whether the Governor-Generalmight be able by Order in Council to do one of the things under clause 68(3)—that is subclause (3)(a): “at any time before or after the time within which the thing is required to be done to extend that time;”. So in other words what I am getting at is if the Government cannot get us back to surplus or at least get the debt below $100 billion and actually get us a step towards the point where you would spend $26 million on a vanity project for the Prime Minister maybe the Governor-General might be able to say: “You know what? Let’s extend the time before we have the first referendum and let’s just wait until a time that is a little bit more appropriate for this referendum to occur.”I think what we have heard loudly from the public—whether you are for or against the idea of changing the flag—is that people have made it quite clear that now is not the time and one of the reasons that they are quite clear that now is not the time is the fact that we are not in surplus and we are at such a deep level of debt. OK fine pass the legislation now if we must but set this up as a process that will occur a bit further down the track. I think that here in clause 68 in Part 3 we may actually have the mechanism for that to happen. Cabinet could decide to listen to the people of New Zealand—that would be a first. It could decide to do that and it could instruct the Governor-General by Order in Council to extend the time before which the referendum actually occurs.Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Again I draw your attention to the question of relevance. There is nothing in clause 68(2) that is remotely relevant to the comments that this member is making. He is attempting to bring in ludicrous matters that are totally extraneous to a very very tight and technical provision.Chris Hipkins: The point that I would make to you is that the Speakers’ rulings are very clear that the question of relevance is a matter for only the Chair and that it is in fact disorderly for anyone other than the Chair to interrupt a member’s speech to question them on relevance. The senior Government whip has done that twice now when in fact the only person who has the prerogative to do that is you as the Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I invite the member Iain Lees-Galloway to continue with his speech. We will all be listening closely to what he has to say relevant to the particular clause.Hon Bill English: Except me—I’m not listening.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I could tell that you were listening Mr Chair. It is a shame that the Minister in the chair has just admitted that he is not listening. He may as well just go out there and say that to the public of New Zealand: “I’m not listening.” The Deputy Prime Minister the Minister of Finance has just admitted that he is not listening. He is not listening to this debate and that is exactly what the Government is doing. It is not listening to the people of New Zealand who have overwhelmingly said: “This is not the time for this debate. This is not the time to—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well exploited but get back to the clause.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well I was very happy talking about the clause before I was interrupted by the senior Government whip and before the Deputy Prime Minister interjected that he was not listening and I was quite happy to respond to the interjection from the Deputy Prime Minister that he was not listening. But honestly I know that the senior Government whip is very keen to shut this debate down but those were serious questions. I was not on the select committee. I am reading this clause—I am doing a close reading of this clause—and I want to know either from the Minister who is not listening or maybe from one of the members opposite who was on the select committee whether that is possible. Is that possible under clause 68? Could Cabinet through the Governor-General by Order in Council extend the date or perhaps delay the date for the referendum to a point in time that might be more acceptable to the public of New Zealand? That is my reading of clause 68 and I would be very happy to have that clarified either by the Minister or by any member opposite.I would like to touch on clause 69 “Amendments to Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981” which replaces section 5 regarding the New Zealand flag. This is an interesting thing that is going on with the current flag—which is called the 1902 flag—which would be “recognised as a flag of historical significance to the Realm”. I find new section 5A(2) really really strange. New section 5A(2) allows people in the event that the flag changes—Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I want to speak to clause 69(4) in Part 3 and in particular its reference to section 5 because this in many senses is the most important part of the bill. It is the part of the bill that actually describes what our national flag does. What it says in section 5(2) is: “The New Zealand Flag is the symbol of the Realm Government and people of New Zealand.”I do not think there is anybody in this debate who does not think that the flag is an important symbol of our country. I know that for my father’s generation it was the flag that they fought under and that their mates died under. For many contemporary New Zealanders it is the flag that is flown—I saw it fly sadly on Saturday night at the Bledisloe Cup and much more happily in terms of the Silver Ferns—and it is a symbol of a country that people are really proud of.If it is the symbol of the people of the nation it makes sense that the people of the nation should have the power to change the flag and not 121 elected representatives. So in one sense I support the process that not Parliament but the people make the decision but there are things in the way that this is being done that have undermined the consensus that is necessary in order to maintain a flag that is widely agreed to by the people of this country as representing their independence their sovereignty and their pride in the nation.I think that what the purpose of the flag is as set out in section 5(2) is undermined by the process that we have actually taken. The first thing that any Government that was contemplating changing the flag should have done was try to work across parties so there was a consensus around the process by all the parties in this country and clearly that has not happened. That has undermined the credibility of what we are trying to do in the Committee today. It is the Government’s failure in that regard that disappoints many of us who would contemplate a change in our flag. I do not think I have any more right than any other New Zealander to determine what the symbol of our people should be but I personally would like to see a change in the flag. But what the Government has done has undermined the consensus by which an appropriate way of changing the flag might have been adopted.You see by holding two referenda that are outside an election you are likely on best estimates to get maybe a 30 or 40 percent turnout. You cannot change the symbol of the realm and the symbol of the people on a turnout in a postal referendum that maybe only a third of the people will vote in. So my question to the Minister is: why not hold this referendum at the time of a general election when you will get an 80 percent turnout and then the result will have some credibility about what New Zealanders want as the symbol of the realm and a symbol of us as New Zealanders? That is the way that this process should have been followed.The other thing when you are talking about the symbol of the realm—and the bill goes on to talk about the symbol of us overseas. The last thing surely that a Government wanting to follow proper process would do is introduce a bill to change the flag on the eve of the centenary of the start of World War I when so many of our surviving veterans not from the First World War but the second one are focused on the flag that they fought under. You would almost think that the Government has deliberately undermined its own intent of wanting a change of the flag and wanting New Zealanders as a whole to accept an alternative as the symbol of our country.So the timing was awful the process was appalling and the lack of bipartisanship or cross-party support has been appalling. One of the reasons for this I have got to say is that the Prime Minister has talked about this change not as a change by New Zealanders of their flag but as a matter of his pride and his project. During the question time we have just had he quoted Mike Hosking. He said—KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a pleasure to speak to Part 3 of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I do think there is a strange irony or tension in I think it is the changes to section 5(2) and (3) in clause 69(4). I will read it out as my colleague Phil Goff did because I think section 5(2) and (3) really does talk about the significance of the flag to our nation. Section 5 says: “(2) The New Zealand flag is the symbol of the Realm Government and people of New Zealand. (3) The New Zealand flag—(a) is the national flag of New Zealand for general use on land within New Zealand and where appropriate for international purposes overseas; and (b) is the proper national colours to be worn by all New Zealand Government ships”. So that sets out just how significant the current flag and any possible new flag may be.But the select committee process that this bill went through treated the submitters as though they were insignificant. I believe that there were close to 750 submissions from people who did not get the chance to make a submission in person at all. Those who did submit got 5 minutes on an issue of such national significance. I believe the only organisation that did get more than 5 minutes was the Returned and Services’ Association and I think that is appropriate that it did get more but you would think it would have got more than 10 minutes for something that is of such huge significance to this nation.There is also something within this section that talks of the significance of the timing of this. We have just come back from a 1-week adjournment. I did not have anyone knocking down my electorate office door saying: “Kris can you please make sure that we change the flag.” I had a lot of people come to me to talk about domestic violence and I had a lot of people come to me to talk about housing and about making sure they have jobs but no one came and knocked down the door to ask us to change the flag. In fact the Government turned away as many people at the select committee process as the number of those who actually attended all the meetings right around the country to say: “This is a good idea.”This is a significant issue and I think that section 5 inserted in clause 69(4) does talk about the significance of what we are doing. But it is clear to see from the lack of uptake with the Government process with its engagement with meetings and that cost a hell of a lot of money—I think a lot of the feedback that the Government would have got at the select committee process that it turned away would have been negative about this change. The general feeling amongst the community—I think it was the New Zealand Herald that said that 70 percent of New Zealanders do not want this change and that this is the wrong thing to do right now.A lot has been made about the cost that is involved with this—$26 million is not chump change. There are plenty of other things that this Parliament could do with $26 million rather doing than something that New Zealanders do not want done right now. There may be a time and a place to change the flag but it is not right now. My personal feeling is that I do not want to change the flag. I have changed my mind on the flag. When I was young I said: “Yes let’s have a new flag.” In fact over time I have become much more aware—becoming a bit more mature and having travelled overseas—of the significance of the New Zealand flag.We can talk later when we come to schedules 1 2 and 3 about the process the Government is using to ask the questions of the public which is a bit skew-whiff about changing our flag because it has got that round the wrong way but right now New Zealanders do not want this. Section 5 which is inserted by clause 69(4)of this bill shows just how significant what we are doing is. It is not just a symbol that we throw away; it will go on the arms of people who will fight for this nation. So if we are going to do it let us do it because the people want it changed and they choose what they want to choose. And if they do not want to change the flag right now then let us not do it.But we are not even asking that question first. We are asking what you would like if the flag were to change. I do not think that any kind of sane person would use that process. Any person outside this Chamber would think that that is arse about face. We want to know first whether you want to change the flag not what do we want to change it to if we get the chance to change it.Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Yet again we have a member straying far into a version of irrelevancy. I would point out that under Speakers’ ruling 86/1 there is no reason why I cannot draw that to your attention and I do so now.Carmel Sepuloni: This was raised by our senior whip earlier. It is not the role of the National Government senior whip to point out the relevance of our speeches and we trust Mr Chair that you will use your discretion and advise us if you think there are any problems with relevance.Tim Macindoe: Speaking further to the point of order—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I do not need to continue taking points of order. If there was to be some spat over who can raise what when take it somewhere else. Do not soak up time in the Committee because it undermines the point of order that the member is making that the Committee should not muck around with this particular line of debate. The member has the floor and I invite him to continue.KRIS FAAFOI: Thank you very much Mr Chair. I go back for the benefit of the senior Government whip to clause 69(4) which is about the significance of the decision that we are putting in train. This is not something that we want to do just because the Government wants to do it. It is of significance. It is a symbol of this realm.JONO NAYLOR (National): I move That the question be now put.STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I would like to talk about section 5A(1) in clause 69. What it actually says is that the “1902 Flag”—what they are calling the current New Zealand flag is the “1902 Flag”—“is recognised as a flag of historical significance to the Realm”. I do not know why the word “historical” is in there. It seems that by legislation we are already consigning the current flag to the past.Remove that word I would suggest because this flag is still of huge significance to a whole lot of New Zealanders and a whole lot of New Zealand groups. As has been mentioned those from the RSA in particular are affronted that this flag has already been consigned to historical significance. It is of huge current significance to the people of New Zealand. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. In fact I think that for the first time ever I disagree with Mr Goff on something. I actually like the current flag. I would like it to remain. But when Mr Goff talked about the fact that this was not put at a referendum in a general election—actually this was highlighted in the regulatory impact statement. The regulatory impact statement actually said that one of the main risks around this is that there will be disengagement. The way to really get engagement from Kiwis is to have this at a general election but we are not going to do that.The other point I would like to make is in respect of section 5A(2). It says: “Any person or body (other than a government department) may use the 1902 Flag except where required by law to use the New Zealand Flag or another specified flag for a particular purpose.” I would have thought that if the Prime Minister was spending so much political capital on this—and he is according to the polls because the vast majority of New Zealanders do think this is mistimed and is a huge waste of money considering all the issues we have got—then this legislation would actually be very very clear that the New Zealand flag must be flown at all times.Part of the reason we are told that we need a new flag is that there is confusion between the New Zealand flag and the Australian flag. Well what this legislation actually does is nothing to alleviate that confusion at all. In fact what it does do is it adds to the confusion because this legislation says that anyone apart from a Government department may fly the New Zealand flag. This gives them a legitimate right to fly the New Zealand flag at any time. It does say: “except where required by law to use the New Zealand Flag or another specified flag for a particular purpose.” I am not too sure what the definition of “a particular purpose.” is. I can make some assumptions but I have absolutely no idea what the definition of “a particular purpose.” is. So this just creates a whole other level of confusion.In section 5A(7)(d) it talks about “the days or occasions on which and the times during which the 1902 Flag or any other flag of historical or national significance may be flown:”. Again I have looked through the schedules and I could not find a list of days that this section relates to. I would love the Minister in the chair to stand up and just let us know. Is it all statutory holidays? Is it every Sunday? Is it only Anzac Day? Is it a day when people are allowed to wear their relatives’ or ancestors’ medals? I am not sure.The main aim of alleviating confusion about our national identity seems to have been taken away by this legislation because this legislation legitimises the right of every New Zealander to fly the 1902 flag. I think that what we will find probably as an element of protest is that there will be more New Zealand flags—i.e. the 1902 flag the current flag the one on my lapel—flown around this country than we have seen for a generation as people say: “I reject this whole process. I reject the fact that the Government is spending money at this point in time on a worthless cause when there are so many more important issues that we could be spending $25 million on. We will go out there and we’re going to fly that New Zealand flag.” In fact at my house in Napier I have a 100-year-old kauri flagpole and the flag that flies from that pole will be the 1902 flag. It is at the moment and it will be going forward. My house is not a Government department so according to this legislation I am allowed to fly that flag whenever I want to.But the other thing is that anyone can fly that flag—a Government department a Government ministry can. In fact the confusion that will be created by this is something that I think is a real anomaly in this legislation and I would have liked to see it disappear. I would have liked to see the Government have the courage of its convictions. If it is spending this amount of political capital then be clear. You fly the New Zealand flag or you do not. This bill says you can do whatever you want except on a couple of occasions and we have absolutely no idea of what they are.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I move That the question be now put.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I wanted to ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Nick Smith about how he interprets parts of new section 5A in clause 69. When I read parts of that new section I get a little bit confused about what it is actually trying to achieve because we have in new section 5A(2): “Any person or body (other than a government department) may use the 1902 Flag except where required by law”—except where required by law—“to use the New Zealand Flag or another specified flag for a particular purpose.” Then I go down to subclause (8) which creates new sections 10(2) and (3) in the Act. It says: “The Minister may either in any notice issued under subsection (1) or otherwise set out for general information and guidance rules of conduct and the etiquette to be followed in the flying or other use of any of the following: (a) the New Zealand Flag: (b) the 1902 Flag:”. But then new section 10(3) says: “Any rules set out under subsection (2) do not have the force of law.”So we have in one provision reference to “except where required by law” and then further on we have a provision that empowers the Minister to set out rules of conduct and etiquette to be followed in regulations. However the rules do not have the force of law. So I am a little bit confused about how we interpret the words “except where required by law” in new section 5A(2) and the other provisions to which I have referred. I actually think that if anybody was to read this legislation they would not know whether or not really they were actually allowed to use the 1902 flag or not with or without regulations or whether or not they had the force of law for the purposes of new section 5A(2) or not.So I think there needs to be some answer given to how we should look at all of this and in particular think about people who would look at this legislation and say: “OK maybe we have a new flag. I hope there is not but maybe there is a new flag—one of those gormless symbols that we saw in a list the other day. Maybe there is one of those but am I still entitled to fly this current flag or not?” If you look at all of that legislation I think you would be pretty hard-pressed to know what position you were in with regard to that—I really do. I think that needs to be answered and the position clarified and if it cannot be clarified then the bill should not proceed because it is just not clear enough.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 3 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Part 3 agreed to.Schedule 1A party vote was called for on the question That schedule 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2A party votewas called for on the question That schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Schedule 2 agreed to.Schedule 3A party vote was called for on the question That schedule 3 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Schedule 3 agreed to.Schedule 4A party vote was called for on the question That schedule 4 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Schedule 4 agreed to.Schedule 5A party vote was called for on the question That schedule 5 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Schedule 5 agreed to.Clause 1 TitleThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Before I take a call I would just like to point out to members that those in the Chamber and those listening at home will no doubt be able to recite in this very wide-ranging debate around clauses 1 and 2 virtually every point that has been made so far in the course of the debate. It is also important to note that repetition is a trigger for the Chair to call the end of a person’s call. So I encourage people to be interesting and creative in their debates.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Clause 1 is indeed the clause I wish to speak about because this bill’s title clearly is not appropriate and this has not been referred to so far in the debate. It is not appropriate because it does not actually state what the bill is really about. It is not fundamentally about referendums—and that is what the title says. It is actually about replacing New Zealand’s historic and well-respected national flag. But the title does not refer to that at all. The current name reflects only the means which are the referendums and not the end which is the replacement or not of the current flag with an alternative. And it is about the legislation that puts that into effect because the most important part of the bill is the part that replaces the current flag with a new one should that be the result of the two referendums. This is not reflected at all in the name of the bill and so I am very disappointed in the name for that reason. It really should be changed.Some name such as for example “New Zealand Flag (Replacement With a Gormless Meaningless Modern Symbol) Bill” would be a lot more relevant to this particular legislation than the name that has been given for the reason that I gave. I have seen the long list of flags already published and I do not think that my term “gormless meaningless modern symbol” is entirely out of place when you look at those possible alternative flags. That name would be totally appropriate and much better than the name that this legislation has been given. That list is a patchwork of gaudy and ugly designs and that needs to be referred to and reflected in the name of this bill. None of them even slightly represents New Zealand’s heritage in any way like the current flag does. Another point—Tim Macindoe: How ridiculous.DENIS O’ROURKE: The member opposite says: “How ridiculous.” But it is absolutely true. The current flag this flag that I am holding actually does represent New Zealand’s heritage and none of the rubbish—absolute rubbish—that I saw in that gaudy list could possibly compare to it on those grounds.Furthermore the title is not truly representative of the actual referendum process. The name would be better as something like the “New Zealand Flag (Gerrymandered Back To Front) Referendum Bill” because that actually is what this bill is. It is not just the New Zealand flag referendum bill; it is a gerrymandered back to front referendum bill and therefore the name should say so. It is gerrymandered because of the fundamental flaw in the first referendum which is that people wanting none of the alternatives have no way to vote in the first referendum because the New Zealand flag is not there. So they can participate only by casting a vote with none of the options chosen—just leaving the voting paper blank and putting it back into the ballot box or perhaps writing across it: “I want the current New Zealand flag.” That would do it because they are now currently disenfranchised from participating in the first flag referendum.If those people want none of the alternatives how can they participate? They cannot. The only two ways that I know of that they could participate are by drawing a vote and then putting it back with nothing written on it or by writing: “I want the current New Zealand flag.” on it. There is no provision in the first referendum allowing them to express their feelings. That is wrong and that is why I say that it is gerrymandered and that that should be referred to and reflected in the title.New Zealand First does call on people to do one of those two things because they have been disenfranchised. New Zealand First says to those people who want the current flag: “Go along and vote but don’t choose any of the alternatives if you want the current flag or write across it ‘I want the current New Zealand flag.’ ” I think that is a perfectly valid thing for them to do and New Zealand First says that they should feel free to do so.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Timing is everything and I suspect that if the Prime Minister had brought forward this idea at the start of his time as Prime Minister he might have carried the country with it. He could have used some of his popularity at the time to turn this into a positive experience and he could have used his influence to get the outcome that he wanted. But of course he was not willing to do that. He delayed 8 years and of course people see the somewhat cynical timing of the flag by then as being a flag of diversion—a flag of convenience to take the eye of the public off more serious issues. Of course that coincides with a downturn in the New Zealand economy and so perhaps people are more willing to think ill of this move to change the flag than they would have had the Prime Minister used his political skill to bring this forward at an earlier time.I want to say why I agree at one level with the last speaker Denis O’Rourke in terms of the name of this bill. It is called the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill but in the first referendum there is nothing in it about the New Zealand flag. There is no option presented in the first referendum to answer the question as to whether you want the New Zealand flag to change or not and that has been one of the main complaints that has been made by Opposition parties. It is not too complex. Most people can get their head around whether they want a change to the flag or not and if that had been included in the first question then the second referendum would have been stayed. If the majority did say that they wanted a change to the flag you could proceed but if the majority said that they did not then you would not waste any more money on it.Tim Macindoe: Did this member support the policy he campaigned on last year?Hon DAVID PARKER: I did. I did but I also see this for what it is. It is something pulled out of the bottom drawer. You know Paula Bennett’s excuses or another bit of benefit-bashing or another attempt to blame criminals for every ill that we have in society—those sorts of excuses were running thin so the Government said: “Oh we’ve got to pull another one out of the bottom drawer. How about we resurrect this old flag idea and bring it in.”Of course circumstances change. You know Fonterra has responded to the circumstances changing in the dairy sector by making 500 people or so redundant and trying to cut its cloth. That is going to have flow-on effects for the Government’s books. It is now unlikely it is going to make surplus or its surplus will be smaller and it is time that the Government responded to the effect that that will have upon its books as well. So that is why responding to the interjection from the whip for the National Party I say that it is appropriate that you cut your cloth and when things are not going as well you should not waste $26 million on a process that obviously is unpopular now anyway and is not going to succeed. Secondly even if you are going to proceed you should do it in the most cost-effective method possible rather than have two referenda when one would have sufficed.The next point I would make is to ask why we are doing this through a special postal referendum. The cost of that will be higher than if it was just tacked on to another election. It does not seem to me to be an appropriate thing—to go the more costly route. As my colleague the Hon Phil Goff has already said because postal referenda have a lower turnout than a general election you do not get the same mandate if you like either for change or for retention of the status quo if that is the way people want to go.You have heard that the Government members at the Justice and Electoral Committee blocked an amendment proposed by the Hon Trevor Mallard to try to fix this problem with the referendum which has no question about the current flag in the first referendum. There is a rather barren question: if we were to change which of these flags would you like? It would have been very simple to make that better by including the option of retaining the flag in the first referendum. That is described in the minority view of the Labour Party in the select committee report which said that there is a balance to be struck in questioning—CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I want to start with the title of the bill and then I will go through to the commencement clause. But firstly I want to make the point that this bill should be renamed the “Tricky New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill”. The reason I say that is—and much discussion has been had about this—that the order in which the questions have been asked in the two referendums is back to front. The first question that New Zealanders should have been asked is “Do you want to change the flag?” but instead the first referendum that is being done is presenting New Zealanders with a range of options when they have not even had the option to say whether or not they want to change the flag.This referendum is back to front and it is back to front because the Government has done that deliberately. It has its own agenda. It wants to change the flag. Government members do not really care whether New Zealanders want to change the flag; they want to change the flag. So to mitigate the chances of New Zealanders in the first referendum saying they do not want to change the flag—like 70 percent of them did during a New Zealand Herald poll—the Government twisted it round turned it upside down and provided only the option to choose between the current New Zealand flag and an alternative in the second referendum. It is back to front and it is tricky—tricky like the National Government.I also want to say that the other name this bill could have that would be appropriate is the “John Key’s Vanity Project Bill”. Let us be honest. This bill is not about New Zealand it is not about progress and it is not about being progressive. It is about John Key and the National Government wanting to have some sort of legacy when their term is over—and it will be over. And because those members have achieved nothing else for New Zealand—nothing else—they are clutching at straws and they are asking what they can do. All they can think of is forcing New Zealand to change the flag so that in 20 years’ time if they were in the position where it worked then they could say: “We were responsible for changing the flag. We were responsible for changing the flag.” So that is an alternative title—“John Key’s Vanity Project Bill”.I want to talk to the commencement side of this. What we have here in clause 2(3) is: “If in the second flag referendum the current New Zealand Flag gains a greater number of votes than the alternative flag design then sections 69 70 and 71 do not commence.” So those sections would not commence at all. What I want to point out is that because of the back to front way in which these referendums are being done we will have wasted millions of dollars in having public meetings that people did not turn up to and in collecting designs from people and putting them out there in the first referendum because of the fact that it says here: “If in the second flag referendum the current New Zealand Flag gains a greater number of votes than the alternative flag design then sections 69 70 and 71 do not commence.” How many millions of dollars will we have wasted at that point?I guarantee that there will be at least twice as many people participating in that second referendum as there will be in the first. There are so many New Zealanders out there who have already indicated not only that they do not necessarily want to change the flag but also some are saying that this is not the time to change the flag. Many are saying that given the pressures that this country is under under that National Government given the bad job that the National Government is doing and given the other priorities that we have as a country why would we waste $26 million on two referendums about a flag?Hon Nicky Wagner: Because we believe in democracy.CARMEL SEPULONI: Many New Zealanders are saying—it is about democracy Nicky Wagner said. She said that it is about democracy. If it was really about democracy then the Government would have got the referendum round the right way and first asked New Zealanders: “Do you want to change the flag?”. But Nicky Wagner knows as well as we know that this is not about democracy; this is about the National Government and John Key and their vanity project. Nicky Wagner knows that.Let us go back to alternative titles for the bill. Let us go back to alternative titles that really suit the mood of New Zealanders and the way they are feeling about this bill. We could call this the “Money That Could Be Better Spent Elsewhere Bill”. Actually where could we spend $26 million—some worthwhile places that $26 million could go to? Perhaps it could go to the child poverty issue that we are facing as a country which the Government has done nothing to address. Perhaps it could go to the housing crisis that the Government—Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):We are a Government that does what we say and what is more we actually do what we say. What is extraordinary in the contributions I have heard from Labour members is that—only 9 months ago they campaigned at the election saying they wanted to change the flag. They then come to this House less than 9 months later and I hear speeches from Stuart Nash saying that he loves the New Zealand flag and that we should never propose to change the New Zealand flag. There is a very simple message to New Zealand from this debate: you cannot trust a word that Labour says to you during the election. Its message is that whatever it says in the election it will regardless of principle change its position as it suits itself. It lacks integrity it is untrustworthy and it is duplicitous and that has been so heavily reinforced in this debate.There have been questions about the process by which the two referendums will determine New Zealand’s flag. It is interesting that I have gone back and checked the record and found that both the New Zealand First Party and the Labour Party absolutely supported the two-referendum process around the choice of MMP. At that time those parties said that it was the right process. They said that people cannot make a choice—and I quote Winston Peters who said: “People can’t make a choice about changing from first past the post unless they know the alternative.” My question to New Zealand First members is how can people make an intelligent choice about changing the flag without knowing the alternative?This bill appropriately named the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill is about National doing what it said it would do unlike other parties which are all over the paddock and which are duplicitous and untrustworthy and that is why we should put this bill through this Committee stage.CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): It is great to be in a very engaging debate this afternoon particularly with Mr Macindoe who reminds me of a pit bull chewing a wasp with his references to frustration. I look at his face and I understand the frustration that he feels because the people back home—the vast majority of New Zealanders—feel exactly the same way about the nonsense that is going on in relation to this flag referendum.I have a great name for the bill and it is better than everything I have heard so far. I think it is a name that should be seriously considered; in fact it may even be worth putting in a Supplementary Order Paper. It has got to be called the “Clayton’s Flag Referendum Bill” because this is the flag referendum you have got when you have not got a referendum. Let us be honest: the way we are doing this is absolutely back to front. This is about not asking the people of New Zealand: “First and foremost do you want a flag change—yes or no?”. The polls can do it. The newspapers can go out there and ask the question. We are largely hearing from the rank and file New Zealanders that they do not want this referendum.What we are also hearing is that it is an absolute waste of money. This bill may be better called the “Waste of Taxpayers’ Money Flag Referendums Bill” because that is exactly what it is. Putting $26 million into a flag referendum is an absolute waste of time dialogue and money because the vast majority of New Zealanders do not want it.Tim Macindoe: Two main parties promised it at the last election.CLAYTON MITCHELL: We have got New Zealanders out there with faces like twisted sandshoes in frustration with the Government because it will not stand up and listen to them Mr Macindoe—and you are one of those people not listening. Anyway he is giving a lot of this and not a lot of that.I have to say that the amount of money that $26 million takes up would be around about 10 percent towards a better ferry system for those commuters travelling from Wellington across to Picton. Ten percent—that is a hefty deposit for a new reliable interisland ferry transportation system for example. What $26 million would do is upgrade around about 900 houses in our underfunded social housing stock around the country and yet this Government says we cannot afford to do all of these things—we have got no money for it. Yet it can find $26 million pull it out of its pocket and throw it on the table. It is absolutely disgusting. It is a disgrace that we are allowing ourselves to get into this debate because we have got a legacy that this Government wants to leave behind particularly what John Key wants to say he delivered for this country. We are seeing a lot of depression and we are seeing a lot of frustration out there from people in small businesses and it is costing New Zealanders not only in their well-being and their mental state but in their pockets as well.This is nothing but a vanity fair. If this Government were serious about putting a referendum forward it would first and foremost ask the question: “Do you want it?”. If the answer was yes then we could go into the whole discussion about which one of these flags the public would like to see put forward. The flags that I have seen today and the comments that I am hearing on social media and seeing in the newspaper are a disgrace. It is a debacle. With an open mind I cannot see one of those flags jumping out and me saying: “Well being objective that might work.” They just do not work. I would like to go back to this one Gareth Morgan’s winning flag. That makes a little bit of sense. You have got Labour on the left National on the right and you have got New Zealand First in black and white coming up through the middle and separating them. That is exactly what is going to happen. The polls will show it. They are starting to tell it now. This Government is getting concerned about the movement.Mr Macindoe you were saying that New Zealand First has supported this in the past. We have not supported it. We have been dead against it. We have not been standing up there saying: “Let us have a referendum.” prior to now. We have been the only party standing fast on our position of leaving New Zealand’s flag as it is and not wasting taxpayers’ money. Thank you.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Before I address the matters to do with the title that I had already planned to address I would just like to respond to both the Minister in the chair and some of the irate and frustrated interjections from the senior Government whip. First about the matter of what exactly Labour’s policy on this is—the National Government is always quite obsessed with Labour’s policy. It never wants to talk about its own policy but it—Tim Macindoe: Because we read it and we thought you meant it. You can’t rewrite it. It’s there—it’s there.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Calm down Tim. Tim chill out and I will tell you—just be cool. Certainly Labour’s policy at the election was to have a referendum on the flag but we did not say that we would do it when the country was $101 billion in debt. We did not say that we would prioritise it over trying to get the country back into surplus. So when New Zealanders spoke out loudly and said that this was an interesting debate but not a thing to blow $26 million on when we are deep in debt and we are not in surplus I tell you that we would have listened to that.Jono Naylor: Read us the first line of the policy.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: We would have listened Mr Naylor. Just calm down and listen to me. We would have listened to that and we would have introduced the referendum at a time that was appropriate. The other strange thing that Nick Smith the Minister in the chair did was he compared this process with the MMP referendum. That is actually quite a good comparison to make except that the Minister got it wrong when he made the comparison because the first question in the MMP referendum was: “Do you want to change the voting system?”. And we agree that that would be the way to go—question No. 1: “Do you want to change the flag?”. That was not the point that Nick Smith the Minister in the chair was trying to make but we actually agree. Yes use a process analogous to the two-referendum process that was used for the shift from first past the post to MMP. Question No. 1: “Do you want to change?”. That would be the place to start with the referendum.Just so that Tim Macindoe and co. can relax for a second I would like to talk about something that I hope is not too contentious. In the bill—the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill—we have this interesting thing the word “referendums”. That word has caused a bit of consternation and quite a bit of confusion. In fact one of the members opposite who was on the Justice and Electoral Committee actually interjected on one of the members on this side saying that it was “referenda” not “referendums”. I was a little bit concerned about that because if a member was on the select committee—Tim Macindoe: The interjections say we believe that the time has come for a change and it is right for the issue to be put to the public. That’s your policy.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Tim chill out. If a member on the select committee is scrutinising the bill closely then he should know what the title of the bill is. If he was listening to the submissions and was actually paying attention in the select committee hearings he should know what the title of the bill is and the title of the bill is the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I must admit that when I first saw that I thought: “That doesn’t sound right to me. I would have thought it should be ‘referenda’.” So just like the member opposite I was a bit confused about that but I have looked it up and it turns out that actually there is a really legitimate reason why the title has the word “referendums” in it not the word “referenda”. It turns out that this is all a matter of going back to the origin of the word “referendum” which comes from Latin. My Latin pronunciation is a bit rusty but I think it is the verb “referre” meaning “to refer”.Scott Simpson: A good King’s education.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes actually I did do Latin in the third form at King’s College but it was a long time ago and I cannot recall exactly how the pronunciation goes. Anyway the first problem is that this is a verb—this is a verb not a noun. So that is why. What has happened is that we have anglicised a Latin verb. The word “referendum” did not start to be used until relatively recently. In the old days the word was “plebiscite” which is also derived from Latin based on the word “plebiscita” which comes from the Roman-era word “plebeian” meaning “commoner”. In fact the Concilium Plebis—Hon Member: Is this really related?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —was the Roman Parliament. It was the house of the common people. This is to do with the derivation of the word “referendums” which is a word that is in the title of the bill and we are debating the title of the bill. It was only in the mid-19th century that the word “referendum” which is a derivation of that Latin verb came to be used and it is because of the fact that it is a verb and not a noun—ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru):Ā tēnā koe e te Heamana o te Komiti o te Whare nei tēnei te mihi atu.[So thank you Mr Chairperson of the Committee of the whole House I greet you.]I think the title of this bill ought to be the “Change the New Zealand Flag and Related Matters Bill” and I say that because there are many related matters within this bill that have not yet been spoken about. In particular I want to mihi out to all the millions of New Zealanders who actually carry a flag around with them every single day. I am one of them and I bet that there are many in this Chamber who are too. This is a New Zealand driver’s licence. It has the New Zealand flag on it.Within this bill in clause 70 the driver’s licence is one of the related matters and that is why I say that the title ought to represent what is actually in the bill. It is not just about referenda; it is also about related matters. One of those related matters of course is changing the legislation so that the flag that appears on your New Zealand driver’s licence can be changed. If the New Zealand public decides that we will change the flag then there will be a 6-month period when you can have one or the other. My point in speaking to the title is that it should accurately reflect what is in the bill and I do not think that the current title the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill is sufficient to describe the totality of what is in this bill. The bill has many other things and that is why the “Change the New Zealand Flag and Related Matters Bill” ought to be its title.I think also that in respect of the commencement there have been many interesting points made. My point about the commencement is that we should make it at the next general election. That is because it will be more inclusive of the wider New Zealand public and I will tell you why. Only 65 percent of Māori in my electorate voted. That probably reflects a systemic problem within wider New Zealand. However it is important that everyone’s view is reflected within the first referendum regardless of all of its faults and they are many and they have been well canvassed in this debate. So I want to put my hand up to say that that is not good enough.I reflect on another point that was made in this debate and that is that if only 30 percent of people turn up for this vote then I think we could do some urgent legislation put it through the House and cancel the final vote—cancel it altogether. If there is such a low turnout—and I suspect there will be—and if it is less than 40 percent really—Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is the title and commencement debate and this member has not addressed either of those at any stage of his contribution.Carmel Sepuloni: Speaking to the point of order—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I do not need any further instruction. Adrian Rurawhe.ADRIAN RURAWHE: Thank you Mr Chair. I think the point around the commencement is that it ought not to be as it is drafted in this bill. It ought to commence to coincide with the next general election. That would be a lot more democratic and if we are talking about democracy and what is right—and I have heard that word used in this Chamber in this debate by one of the members opposite. He is sitting there right now actually saying this is about democracy. Well if it is about democracy then make it available to all people at the next general election. An alternative is that maybe we could call it the “Tīnihia te Haki Bill” [“Change the Flag Bill”]. Two weeks ago we had Māori Language Week but I am going for a month. Kia ora.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a pleasure to talk on the title and commencement clauses of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I take great pride in being creative sometimes as you requested Mr Chair at the beginning of this debate on the name of this bill. This particular bill with the title of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill is one that I am not going to propose any amendment to because I believe it is appropriate. Having two referendums is the mechanism that this Government has chosen to start the process of changing the New Zealand flag. But I believe that the referendums and the way that they are being sequenced is symbolic of the way that the Government has got this whole process for the changing of our flag the timing of it and the cost of changing our flag absolutely and utterly wrong.I believe that the bill is aptly named but I do have an issue with the referendums themselves. The bill helpfully in schedule 1 points out the options or the questions that the New Zealand public will have. I am holding here from the bill itself a copy of roughly what New Zealanders will be asked. The first question is: “If”—if—“the New Zealand flag changes which flag would you prefer?”. New Zealanders are given four options on which they will put their preference. So the question is: “What would you prefer if”—if—“the flag is changed?”. That is the first question that New Zealanders will be asked: if it changes what would you prefer it to change to? Schedule 2 points to the question that we on this side of the House believe should beasked first and that is: “What is your choice for the New Zealand flag? Would you want it to stay the same or would you like to have something different which you have been asked for in the first referendum of the referendums that are being held here?”.There is a lot of heat in this debate or in these potential referendums because it is a flag. So let us take that out and just say that we are choosing a car. If you wanted a new car or if you were being asked whether you wanted a new car would you first ask the question “Which car would you want?” or would you ask “Do I need a new car?”. Any logical sane person out there would ask the first question “Do I need a new car?” before asking “Which car would I like?”. That is the simple stupidity of the sequence of these two referendums that are being proposed in this bill. The second question should be asked first—“Do I want a new car?”—and the first question should be asked second: “If I want a new car which car would I prefer?”. You should be asked whether you prefer the car that you have got now—the status quo—or whether you would prefer potentially four other new cars that are being offered up.In any other logical situation that is the way you would do it but not here in the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I think that points out for everyone at home the simple yet elegant stupidity of this piece of legislation. Not only do people not want our flag to change right now—not right now—they do not want $26 million to be spent on this. This referendum is just plain-out stupid. It is asking the second question first and the first question second. That is why this piece of legislation should not pass. If the Government really wants to have a meaningful process around changing a flag of significance to every New Zealander let us get it right. Let us not have this mickey mouse process that people have not bought into. Only 700 people turned out to the flag referendum meetings right around the country. It has cost us millions of dollars already. The Government turned away from the select committee process over 700 people whom it blatantly obviously did not want to hear from because they would have said the same thing that we have said too which is we want to change the flag at some stage but not right now.The cost is wrong—$26 million. It is not what we need right now. The question is wrong. The timing is wrong. So if you are going to have referendums do not ask the second question first; ask the first question first. Ask whether you want to change the flag first and if the country says yes then we will buy that. But at the moment the country says no.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora Mr Chairperson. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to the title and commencement debate for the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I have been thinking quite seriously about what the title of this bill should be based on how this bill has appeared before us here in Parliament today. Actually I would like to quote from one of the designers a guy called Pax Zwanikken. He is a Kiwi who lives in Sydney. He contributed 25 designs and two of his designs actually got through. So he has been shortlisted in terms of the 40 flags that have been shortlisted. What he said which I find really interesting is that he does not hold much hope for the flag change being supported—it does not matter what kind of flag—because from his perspective this has not come out of a groundswell of public desire for a new flag. So from his perspective the title of the bill should be the “No Public Desire For a New Flag Bill”.The reason I want to highlight that point is that if you actually go back and look over time at the call for change and whether or not the New Zealand public has wanted change we can go back to 1973 when there was a poll. Of New Zealanders in 1973 75 percent of them said no they did not want to change the flag. So I acknowledge that this conversation has been around for a long time. Then again in 1984 86 percent of New Zealanders said no when they were asked whether they wanted to change the flag. In 1999 64 percent said no. In 2008 62 percent said no. In 2011 72 percent said no. Actually the latest poll shows that 70 percent of New Zealanders are saying no they do not want to change the flag. So that particular quote from Pax is actually incredibly relevant.I think the other title that this bill could have had was actually published on 30 January 2014. It was a heading by Isaac Davison actually. It could have been the “Keep It Or Flag It Bill”. That was his report after John Key actually announced this idea about changing New Zealand’s flag—he had this brainstorm: “Let’s change New Zealand’s flag.” So actually the title of this bill could be the “Keep It Or Flag It Bill” because of what the Prime Minister thought on 29 January 2014—“Let’s change the flag.” Actually we could look at the National Party website. We could call this bill the “PM John Key Believes It’s the Right Time to Change the Flag Bill” which is what the National Party promoted and has been promoting. This bill—let us get real—has come about because the Prime Minister had this brainstorm.But a title that I think is really interesting—and this was actually part of the open letter that the flag review panel put out itself—is the “Open Call No Criteria New Zealand Flag Bill”. What I find really interesting is that we got 10292 submissions—new designs where people decided that they would participate in this process some of them from overseas—but what we did not do actually was have a set of criteria for what the flag should represent. So we talk a lot—and this bill has talked a lot—about New Zealand’s identity but the reality is that that has not been part of the conversation at all. It was not in the criteria to make sure that our indigenous people were represented. There were no criteria to make sure that the Southern Cross was going to stay because for us that is part of our national anthem. There was not a call to make sure that the koru was in the flag. In fact there was not even a call to make sure that the silver fern was even though the Prime Minister said when he announced it on 29 January 2014 that we must ensure that the silver fern is in there.Now apparently this is all part of some tourism boost and some economic boost because we are going to be recognised globally as a country because we are going to have this amazing new flag that represents our identity. So I find it really interesting that actually we did not do that. The call went out far and wide and we did not care what people submitted we did not care who they were and we did not care about the context of their design. We just put out this open call. So that is why I think our title could be the “Open Call No Criteria New Zealand Flag Bill”. It now seems that those criteria are actually really important because we have picked flags that have got a koru we have picked flags that have got the Southern Cross and we have picked flags that actually represent New Zealand. So when you think about it—IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): We have had a bit of conversation about the title and my last contribution was on the title. I would like to move now to clause 2 the commencement. Actually the commencement of this bill when it becomes an Act is probably one of the areas of most contention. This is all to do with the timing of the referendums.My colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard has offered an amendment that would amend clause 2(1) so that it reads: “This Act (except sections 69 70 and 71) comes into force five years after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” I guess 5 years is somewhat arbitrary because you cannot put things in a commencement clause like “when the Government can run a surplus” or “when we do not have $101 billion worth of debt” or “when we can get the cost of running these referendums down”. So I guess what Mr Mallard is attempting to do here is to project into the future and make a couple of assumptions. One and I think it is an important one is that we will have a Labour Government because that leads to the second one which is that we will actually have some decent economic management and we will have a fair chance of the Government heading back towards being in the black again and being in a position where people might see holding a referendum or two referendums on changing the flag as something that is more relevant and a more appropriate use of the money that is needed to run those referendums.These things do cost money. Democracy costs money. I appreciate that the Government has proposed a democratic approach to this. We have some questions over the order of the referendums but at least it is being done by referendum not by fiat and that costs money. But we really do question whether this Act should be commencing should be coming into force on the day after it receives the Royal assent which is what clause 2(1) provides for or whether it should be put off to a date in the future when the Government’s books might be in a better state and in a state where this could be more of a priority. This is what a lot of the opposition to the Government’s process comes down to: when exactly the legislation should come into force. I do not actually think most members of the public would be too concerned about the fact that we are debating this legislation now. They might have a view that there are other more pressing issues to be debating in public but the debate now is not as big a problem as holding the referendums this year and next year. So I support Trevor Mallard’s amendment to clause 2(1) because I think arbitrary as it is 5 years from now is probably a more appropriate point in time for us to have those referendums and the expenditure that comes with them.There are some other aspects to the commencement clause that are certainly appropriate for this legislation but they are somewhat unusual. There are various sections of the legislation that may or may not commence and of course this relates to what the result may be of the second referendum. Obviously the first referendum has no bearing on the commencement of any of the clauses in this legislation because whatever happens there will be two referendums with all the costs that come with that. But the second referendum does have a bearing on whether or not certain parts of this legislation do actually commence and those parts are clauses 69 70 and 71. Of course those clauses would not need to commence in the event that the public voted to retain the current flag. Another interesting matter with the commencement of clauses 69 70 and 71 is that there are two triggers for the commencement of those clauses which is a little bit unusual in legislation as well. The first trigger—JOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I have listened to a number of contributions in respect of clauses 1 and 2 the title and commencement clauses of this bill. I want to propose perhaps a different title that more aptly deals with the content and the fiscal issues associated with this bill. I think it is very apt to be called “The $26 Million Bill”. If you look at the document it has got a bit of weight to it. I am not sure how much paper is going for per pound or per kilogram in the international price but given the relevance of the figure $26 million which I will explain in a moment—I know other colleagues have—I think it may well be relevant as the bill is in the name of the Minister of Finance the Hon Bill English to call this bill “The $26 Million Flag Bill”.That is what it has cost the taxpayer budgeted to date—$26 million—to conduct this exercise which opinion poll after opinion poll suggests no one wants. It has not only been opinion poll after opinion poll but given that so very few people some 700 people turned out to the public meetings on the flag consideration project—these meetings cost $208500 for venues and a further $200000 for panel members and fees and whatnot. There must have been some very good scones and sausage rolls or whatever at these meetings. The average cost per person who turned up was $550 each or $2300 each once advertising is included. So in terms of the title this whole exercise is estimated to have cost $26 million. In respect of this it is very apt and the Government should be upfront and call it what it is. It is a $26 million waste of time.The New Zealand public have demonstrated through opinion polls and by their turnout—some 700-odd people—that they do not see this as a priority. I suspect there are people who have turned out to those meetings who may want to see a change. There are thousands of others who may want to see a change indeed but those people do not view this as a priority in their lives. They view health education their kids’ welfare and other things as a priority in their lives. I suspect speaking again to clause 1 the title that those people who did not show up to those meetings can probably think of 26 million reasons to go along with a $26 million budget for this thing as to how that money could be used in a better way. Or the title could perhaps be “The Prime Minister’s Legacy Project That Has Cost New Zealanders $26 Million”.I put this to the Government. If it were serious about changing our constitutional arrangements about some of the lofty things that the Prime Minister and others have said it may want to consider this. The Government has put the cart before the horse. Surely you would look at our true constitutional arrangements. Should we have a written constitution? Should there be a head of State who differs from the current one? Should that person be elected or appointed or whatever? You would deal with all those heavyweight constitutional arrangements and work that through the community and bring the communities with us. And then the last thing—with no disrespect to the flag but probably the smallest component of true constitutional reform is to change the flag which is one of the symbols of your country. People will be for and against that but I think that is the heavyweight process dealing with heavyweight issues that leads—if the Prime Minister were of a mind to look at that—to a heavyweight debate and possibly a heavyweight legacy.But to have a bill that changes the flag at a cost that is just incredible to most people—you know I have been to public meetings during election campaigns. Election campaigns generally are not that popular where you have had—and I am sure the Minister in the chair the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga has had more people turn up to many of his meetings. In fact there may be more people in his prisons—and I suspect there are—than the 700 people who turned up to the flag meetings.In terms of the name it could be called “The Prime Minister’s $26 Million Legacy Project Bill”. It could be called “The $26 Million Flag Bill”. It could be called a number of things. But I think what is going to be sad in this because I suspect it will not get through—not the bill but the actual change because people are just not for it—is that lost in amongst all of this bunkum and the silly process and a process that is about the Government’s legacy or the Prime Minister’s legacy more than anything else we actually lose the grit and the substance of the issue which is a debate about our constitutional arrangements—JONO NAYLOR (National): I move that the motion the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No you have got to get it right when you move closure motions. I will call Carmel Sepuloni in a moment. The member must go back to Standing Order 136 for the specific wording that you need to use—nothing else; just focus on that.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I think that we have had some great alternative options offered today for the title of this bill. I do have some other alternative options but I will discuss those later in my speech. I just want to talk about Part 3 of this bill in relation to the title and commencement clauses. I think that that is allowed at the Committee stage. In Part 3 what we have is two clauses that give quite wide powers to amend the process by Order in Council. These may be standard but they read as the Government being able to correct errors in the legislation without coming back to the House.So I want to talk about that part in relation to this because if the Government is going to have power because of Part 3 to correct errors in the legislation without having to come back to the House I want an answer from the Minister about what errors it is anticipating in this bill and about whether or not there are any anticipated problems or potential errors that may come out of the title or commencement provisions of the bill. In the commencement clause for example could there be an error in relation to say clause 2(2) which says: “If in the second flag referendum the alternative flag design gains a greater number of votes than the current New Zealand Flag then sections 69 70 and 71 commence on whichever of the following dates is earlier: (a) a date set by the Governor-General by Order in Council: (b) the day that is 6 months after the date on which the result of the second flag referendum is declared.”With that in mind—and we are talking about the date here and also we are looking at the amendment put up by my colleague Trevor Mallard who has asked to remove “on the day” and replace it with “5 years”—does that mean that the Government could actually decide that that is an error and change the time framewithout bringing the legislation back to the House? We are hoping actually that it will support the amendment in the Committee here today and that it will remove the wording “on the day” and replace it with the words “5 years”. That is the amendment put up by Trevor Mallard. Does that mean that if the Government does not support this amendment in the Committee it could still do so later on once it discovers the error of its ways and that it has in fact got it wrong in terms of the time frames that it has put around implementing this bill? If the Minister could respond to that it would be good.In terms of what it says in Part 3 about the Government being able to correct errors without bringing the legislation back to the House I wonder whether or not—when the Government members leave the Chamber and if this does manage to happen in terms of a change of flag and if we proceed with the resulting Act in terms of the rest of it—the Government could then change the actual title of the bill later on without bringing it back to the House. Is that what it means in terms of Part 3 and how it applies to the title and commencement clauses of this bill? I have those questions for the Minister and if he could respond it would be greatly appreciated.JONO NAYLOR (National): I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 62New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Clause 1 agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Can I just remind members that votes are taken in silence.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 2 be agreed to:in subclause (2) replace “on the day” with “5 years”.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 46New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14.Noes 74New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.