Martin Tracey: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2031. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First)to the Deputy Prime Minister: Does he consider the flag referendum to be a judicious use of taxpayers’ money?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister):Yes.Tracey Martin: Does he agree with the Ministry of Justice’s statement that “a factor in the decision to change the flag is whether there are net benefits in change.”; if so what net benefits has he identified for this expenditure?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The cost of the referendum is really about involving New Zealanders in what would be a significant change for every New Zealander. It is simply not appropriate to go down the much cheaper road of the Government making a decision by itself to change the flag. But I might say that there would probably be more net benefits than some of the other referenda New Zealand has operated. For instance back in 1997 we spent today’s equivalent of $26 million on a single referendum on compulsory superannuation advocated by New Zealand First. Ninety-two percent of New Zealanders rejected the change so that turned out to be a complete waste of $26 million.Tracey Martin: Does he believe that paying Flag Consideration Panel members between $640 and $850 per day worked is a judicious use of taxpayers’ money when the average daily wage for the majority of the same taxpayers is just over $200 per day; if so why?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The members of the Flag Consideration Panel have a pretty important role and that is to run a design competition to enable the selection of three or four flags for New Zealanders to vote on. So it is a pretty serious task. The Government is not doing it and officials are not doing it; the Flag Consideration Panel is doing it. Secondly the member gives a somewhat misleading impression that the panel is going to be working every day. In fact for that daily rate that panel may be working 20 to 25 days out of the next 2 years. In that context we will be getting more than our value for money.Tracey Martin: Does he believe that the $25.7 million estimated cost of the flag referendum is a more judicious use of taxpayers’ money than rebuilding teaching blocks demolished in 2011 so that Northland College students do not have to continue to have their lessons in corridors; if so why?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has—I can inform the member from some knowledge of it—I think the largest education investment programme New Zealand has seen for decades. Consistently over the last 3 or 4 years our investment in modern learning environments has been very substantial. I would hope that in the case of Northland College not only can we get the classrooms rebuilt when it is practical but we can lift the levels of educational achievement in that school because they are not as high as they should be. We are catering to the needs of our schools. In respect of the flag if you want to have a debate about the flag then you need to do it properly. That means involving New Zealanders and that means an expense of $25 million or whatever the number actually is.Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very succinct. It asked whether the Minister believed that the spend was better on a flag or on classrooms and we got a very long answer that actually did not answer that specific question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not accept the argument the member is raising. The Minister went through in significant detail the fact that a lot of money was being spent on education. So he answered one part of the question and then went to the importance of the flag debate and he considered that it was worthwhile having this panel do the work before it went to referendum.