O'Rourke Denis: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5448. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I want to speak on both clauses 3 and 4 in Part 1 of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. The first one relates to the purpose. The purpose clause simply says this: “The purpose of this Act is to make provision for 2 postal referendums to be held to enable electors to decide whether New Zealand should have a new flag and to provide for a change of the New Zealand flag if electors decide New Zealand should have a new flag.” So the first point I want to make is that the purpose refers to deciding whether New Zealand should have a new flag but in fact that is not the question that is actually asked in the first referendum. So why does the purpose clause say that when the bill actually does not have that effect whatsoever? The purpose clause is a complete mis-statement for that reason alone. That should be changed if this bill is to proceed any further.Secondly the purpose clause presupposes that two referendums are needed for the purpose stated—to change the flag—when in fact by adding the current New Zealand flag as one of the options in the first referendum there would be no need for a second referendum at all. So again the purpose clause is a complete mis-statement that presupposes that two referendums are necessary when actually one would be enough.The third point I want to make about the purpose clause is that it should not refer to “electors” at all because it is not electors who are going to decide; it is voters—that is to say people who actually participate in the referendum. It is those who actually participate in the referendum. So that is again an error I think in the purpose clause. But the most important point is as I have just said that it will be only participants who decide which of the preferred four options should go forward. What happens if you get for example below 25 percent participation by voters as distinct from electors? Do we as a nation really want to go ahead with another referendum on the basis of participation as low as that?I believe that the purpose is for New Zealanders as a whole if they want a new flag to say so. This purpose clause and these referendums will not do that. So I believe that it would be fair and proper if there was an addition to Part 1 that said that if in fact there is a participation rate in respect of the first referendum below 25 percent of electors then the whole process should stop right there and proceed no further. I understand that Labour is going to say that that level should be 50 percent. If that is the case we would support that but we believe that if it is below 25 percent—and I think it will be—then the whole thing should stop right there.Secondly I want to talk about clause 4 because I think there is a real problem here. Clause 4 says that the legislation will be repealed 2 years after the date of the result of the second flag referendum is declared. If the legislation is to be repealed then it would also repeal clause 69. That is the clause that actually amends section 5 of Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981. That amendment replaces the current flag with the flag actually chosen as a result of these referendums. Therefore it seems to me that if clause 69 is repealed as part of the repeal of the whole Act then what is the effect of that? Does that not actually repeal clause 69(2) which amends the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act therefore leaving New Zealand without a flag at all? If clause 69 is repealed and the provision to amend the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981 is repealed too that means the new flag is not created as a New Zealand flag. So what would happen then? I think what would happen is there would be a default provision back to the current flag.I would like the Minister to answer that technical question because I actually think that there is a substantial error in this piece of legislation and it needs to be answered. It looks to me like a sloppy bit of drafting that needs to be corrected. It is a very serious question—a very serious question indeed.