Mallard Trevor: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 12 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2219. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I agree with quite a lot of what the Deputy Prime Minister has said in his introductory speech on the bill. I think he has summarised the issues relatively well save for one or two. According to the latest published poll done by Television New Zealand 65 percent of voters are opposed to changing the flag and 2 percent of New Zealanders think that it is an important issue. Labour believes as was the case with the MMP referenda series that New Zealanders should have the right to say no as part of the first referendum rather than having to wait until the second. We think that if there is a clear view early on that New Zealanders do not want to proceed with a change in the flag then we should not spend the tens of millions of dollars that will be involved in conducting a second referendum. I might say that the Labour Party was not alone at the select committee with that point of view. At the final meeting of the committee there was only one party—and that was the National Party—opposed to New Zealanders having the right to say no as part of the first referendum. So let us make it clear that every other party that was represented and present at what was meant to be a multi-party consensus-building - committee is opposed to or has indicated they were opposed to the approach that Mr English is taking with this referendum. I think that also for me shows a bit of the problem.This has clearly become what might be described as a “vanity project” for the Prime Minister. It is something that he strongly believes in. I actually think we should change our flag. I am of the view that it is time to change the flag but what is really important is that we get the process right. I just totally reject—totally reject—the suggestion by the Deputy Prime Minister that New Zealanders are not bright enough to understand that they have a yes/no vote twice. It was maybe 20 years ago that we went through a similar process to change our electoral system where we had a yes/no vote and a run-off of choices as part of the first ballot and the second ballot was the then current system versus the new system. People could understand that. People are not thick. But it left them with the choice to say no at the beginning. And in this particular case it would save tens of millions of dollars. Frankly anyone who spends a bit of time in a constituency who talks to parents with special needs kids who looks into schools and their operational funding and who looks at the poverty in New Zealand knows that there are many better uses for the tens of millions of dollars that are going to be spent including on the second part of the process than a flag referendum. But as we know this is a vanity project for the Prime Minister.I must say that Jonathan Young is looking fitter as a result of this process. I do not think I have ever seen anyone run up and down the Beehive stairs as much as Jonathan Young did in consulting with the Deputy Prime Minister on this particular issue. Frankly I have been involved in a couple of multi-party committees of this sort in the past and I have never seen one where the Government pulled the strings of the chair in such a way. I like Mr Young. I think he is a good character. He actually comes from a damn solid family but in this particular case he did not understand the role of the chair in defending the views of the other parties to the executive and he allowed himself to be dictated to by them.The Flag Consideration Panel itself I think it is fair to say is a mixture. It is a mixture of some wonderful people and a few National Party hacks. It is sad—it is really sad—that the executive that Cabinet was not prepared to accept the list that was prepared by the multi-party committee which had plenty of extra choices.Hon Bill English: Most of them are.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No eight out of the 12 are and four out of the eight—four out of the eight—are people whom Jonathan Young nominated. So actually a third of the people who are on that panel are people who were nominated by other parties. So just do not interrupt and do not interject Bill English when you do not know what you are talking about. When you do not know what you are talking about Bill English it pays to keep those slightly split lips together. It pays to keep those slightly split lips together Mr English.There were some other revealing things at the committee. I learnt as part of the committee a lot about the ACT Party and its attitude to primary industry in New Zealand. It is a quote that will stay with me for ever—the quote from David Seymour the leader of the ACT Party. He indicated that farmers are not business people. We had a couple of nominations there for farmers to be on the panel and Mr Seymour said: “Unless they invented dairy farming they’re not real business people.” That is an Epsom indication of the value of agriculture to New Zealand if ever I saw it. At the moment what is happening is that the National Party is relying on a person with that sort of attitude towards primary production for its majority.Another point goes to timing. I will accept that there are times when a committee accepts your point of view and there are times when it does not. This is one time when the committee clearly did not accept my point of view. I think that having the second referendum—and I think possibly we should not—in the lead-up to the centenary of the first commemoration of Gallipoli lacks taste. I think it lacks taste. I think having a 3-week period less than a month before the centenary of the first commemoration of Gallipoli is something where our soldiers—we had only had the flag for 13 years at the time of Gallipoli but I think there is a certain lack of sensitivity and a denigrating of the role of the military. I am an old Viet Nam protester but I think some of the attitudes of members from that side of the House towards people who have served New Zealand leave something to be desired. The timing insisted on by the Deputy Prime Minister for this is part of that.So it is with a slightly heavy heart—because I do want to change our flag—that I am indicating that Labour will not support this bill until New Zealanders get the right to say no as a part of the first referendum.