Mitchell Clayton: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMitchell Clayton: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5454. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you for this opportunity to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in the Committee stage of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I have had real pleasure listening to Trevor Mallard and to my colleague Denis O’Rourke. I listened initially to Maggie Barry who has got the sweetest voice to be honest. If you are going to listen to rubbish it is good to listen to it from somebody who has a great voice for radio. I have to say however that she has got the IQ of an ice cream cone if she thinks that New Zealanders are going to be confused by adding a New Zealand flag into the first of the referendums.I take the point of Chris Bishop who said that this is going to be in balance and impartial in terms of what New Zealanders are expecting when we put the New Zealand flag up into the final discussion point. But I have to read out something here from a submitter from the RSA who actually summed it up quite nicely: “The substantial budget given to the alternative flag is intended to weigh heavily in its favour when the referendum is held. No funding has been allocated to champion the existing New Zealand flag which therefore presents difficulties for people in making an informed and objective decision.” That to me sums it up quite nicely Mr Bishop. All of a sudden your party and your leader are pushing this referendum through at the expense of Kiwis and I suggest that the vast majority of New Zealanders do not want this referendum. We cannot afford it. It is not the right time and it is not the right place.I would also like to say that New Zealand First is the only party and has been the only party to actively stand against this in its entirety. We do not have divisions in our ranks against this referendum that has been put in front of us. New Zealand First says it is inappropriate to have a new flag put before us.There are two points I want to make. The first concerns the purpose clause in Part 1. I am talking about clause 3 and I will give you my take on it. An issue that everybody has raised is the vanity of the John Key Government. He is pushing for this for his own personal ingratiation if you like when it would be a good idea as has been pointed out by Jacinda Ardern to have this referendum at the 2017 election if you really cared for it. The problem is of course that John Key knows along with National that the likelihood of you being in Government—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!CLAYTON MITCHELL: Sorry Mr Chair. The likelihood of that party being in after the 2017 election is very very minuscule. Therefore having a referendum at the next general election is going to weigh heavily on his mind in terms of whether or not it can be put through. The second point about clause 3 the purpose clause is the sleight of hand. The actual purpose of having the referendum is to create a fugazi—something happening over there when in actual fact there are bigger issues like the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is coming through this week but my word we are going almost in urgency to put through the final stages of the legislation for this referendum. The Government is creating headlines to try to take attention away from what is actually going on in this country which is that our sovereignty is being sold off.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!CLAYTON MITCHELL: Now we as a party are 100 percent—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!CLAYTON MITCHELL: —supportive of making sure that we have a trade agreement but—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is well out of scope. The member should just concentrate on what is in front of us.CLAYTON MITCHELL: Thank you Mr Chair. I thought I was pushing it a little bit—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You were right.CLAYTON MITCHELL: —and I will bring right it back in. But you get my point people. That is exactly what is going on. The point here is that we have got $26 million going into a referendum when we have got far more important issues that need to be addressed. We have got things like unaffordable housing and we have got issues with our housing stock in this country which is so abysmally upheld—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!CLAYTON MITCHELL: —and in such a state. This is coming back to the purpose Mr Chair. That $26 million will bring in around 900 houses in terms of their upgrading. That is a far better spending of New Zealand taxpayers’ money than a referendum for a flag. That money would give around about 1400 hip replacements. That I would suggest is far more important than a referendum on a flag. The polls by the way are saying absolutely outstandingly that we do not want this referendum.Many people in this country—myself included as a young schoolboy—have watched our flag go up on our school-grounds and we have sung our national anthem with pride. Our returned servicemen and women as well our service people who are overseas at the moment are standing by that national flag. I would hate to think Mr Mark Mitchell what you are going to do with the tattoo you have on your heart or is it on your shoulder? I cannot remember. You will have to change it to the new flag if the referendum goes through which we do not think for a second will actually happen. A lot of New Zealanders have tagged themselves with this very iconic flag.